4 ms·

One thing he failed to mention, whatever you do, make sure you are in the money "making part of the bussiness". E.g. If you are tech person, work on a pure te

by ardit33 19y ago

One thing he failed to mention, whatever you do, make sure you are in the money "making part of the bussiness". E.g. If you are tech person, work on a pure technology company, where the product you are making is the money maker. You will be treated much better, as the company will try to maximize your productiviy. If you are a tech guy, working, let's say in a finance company, where technology is considered as an "expense", then you will never be treat as well, b/c you are less worth to the company, and they will always try to minimise your expense.

rms 19y ago
I learned this when I was working at US Airways in the maintenance half of the company. You wouldn't believe how much money the ancient software being used cost the company, but no one would spend money to upgrade the software because maintenance only cost the company money. A rarely mentioned difference between the legacy airlines and profitable ones like Southwest is that Southwest is not running operations and maintenance on 70s era mainframe software.
- kingkongrevenge 19y ago
  I've seen the opposite twice. Rock solid old mainframe systems are replaced just for the sake of replacing them, with poor outcomes. For the most part I've been impressed with mainframe systems. The old languages suck, but if I had a big IO bound problem with very high reliability requirements I'd give IBM a call.
  - rms 19y ago
    This is why US Airways is screwed... the cost of replacing the mainframe is incredibly high and the cost of not replacing is incredibly high. Meanwhile, Southwest gets to operate with a modern computer system.
dpapathanasiou 19y ago
Another way of thinking about this is: don't take a job where your compensation is tied to a finite metric. E.g. jobs that are paid by the hour, or based on how many units of something you produce.
- Retric 19y ago
  That is not really accurate. High skill jobs with finite metric's can pay well because it's easy to find your worth. EX: A sales guy for a consulting firm that brings in 100 million a year in business can make a few million a year. However a low skilled sales guy at the local Fry's is limited in how much he can bring in. The real trick is to find a <B>highly valuable</B> skill with finite metric's where you can be unusually productive. One of the best examples of this is Linemen in football vs. running backs. It's hard to demonstrate the difference between the best 99.99% and the 99.98% Linemen, but if you average .2 extra yards per play as a running back you can and will get payed for that. PS: At some point it all comes back to basic economics. Find something in limited supply that people want and you will get payed for it.
  - dpapathanasiou 19y ago
    The guy at Fry's is a hourly wage worker, despite his title. But the salesman who can convince Fortune 500 firms to spend millions on software licenses is an example of the type of person I was talking about, because there are no limits placed on him as to how much revenue he may bring in. Also, not sure your if football example makes sense: if what you say about linemen is true, why do some get drafted in the first round?
geebee 19y ago
I agree with you 95%. I've worked on both sides, and it is much, much better on the product development side. That said, I've heard that technology is a big enough deal at many finance companies that top programmers may be considered a comptetitive advantage, rather than just a cost. That said, I agree with you that a pure technology company is the best bet, because you know you'll be in money making role, whereas you only might be in finance.

by ardit33 19y ago

rms 19y ago

I learned this when I was working at US Airways in the maintenance half of the company. You wouldn't believe how much money the ancient software being used cost the company, but no one would spend money to upgrade the software because maintenance only cost the company money. A rarely mentioned difference between the legacy airlines and profitable ones like Southwest is that Southwest is not running operations and maintenance on 70s era mainframe software.

kingkongrevenge 19y ago
I've seen the opposite twice. Rock solid old mainframe systems are replaced just for the sake of replacing them, with poor outcomes. For the most part I've been impressed with mainframe systems. The old languages suck, but if I had a big IO bound problem with very high reliability requirements I'd give IBM a call.
- rms 19y ago
  This is why US Airways is screwed... the cost of replacing the mainframe is incredibly high and the cost of not replacing is incredibly high. Meanwhile, Southwest gets to operate with a modern computer system.

dpapathanasiou 19y ago

Another way of thinking about this is: don't take a job where your compensation is tied to a finite metric. E.g. jobs that are paid by the hour, or based on how many units of something you produce.

Retric 19y ago
That is not really accurate. High skill jobs with finite metric's can pay well because it's easy to find your worth. EX: A sales guy for a consulting firm that brings in 100 million a year in business can make a few million a year. However a low skilled sales guy at the local Fry's is limited in how much he can bring in. The real trick is to find a <B>highly valuable</B> skill with finite metric's where you can be unusually productive. One of the best examples of this is Linemen in football vs. running backs. It's hard to demonstrate the difference between the best 99.99% and the 99.98% Linemen, but if you average .2 extra yards per play as a running back you can and will get payed for that. PS: At some point it all comes back to basic economics. Find something in limited supply that people want and you will get payed for it.
- dpapathanasiou 19y ago
  The guy at Fry's is a hourly wage worker, despite his title. But the salesman who can convince Fortune 500 firms to spend millions on software licenses is an example of the type of person I was talking about, because there are no limits placed on him as to how much revenue he may bring in. Also, not sure your if football example makes sense: if what you say about linemen is true, why do some get drafted in the first round?

geebee 19y ago

I agree with you 95%. I've worked on both sides, and it is much, much better on the product development side. That said, I've heard that technology is a big enough deal at many finance companies that top programmers may be considered a comptetitive advantage, rather than just a cost. That said, I agree with you that a pure technology company is the best bet, because you know you'll be in money making role, whereas you only might be in finance.