4 ms·

The concept of 'works X hours on job Y so deserves Z' is totally bogus. You have to reveal how much Y is in demand, what kind of risks are involved and what kin

by kamaal 13y ago

The concept of 'works X hours on job Y so deserves Z' is totally bogus. You have to reveal how much Y is in demand, what kind of risks are involved and what kind of predictability exists in in the results doing Y. An accountant working 70 hrs a week at $20/hr will take $1400 a week. A start up guy will take $0 if it things go sour. That is the difference. Do you wish to settle for $1400/week without risks or take a risk and make $100 million working 3-4 years? Note if things go bad for the entrepreneur(and that's the most common case) the accountant is still significantly richer than the start up guy. If you look at it that, way the accountant is having it way easier than the start up guy. A lot of predictability in results, measurable productivity, guaranteed pay etc. Apply that definition and you see why programming is actually "coal mine of its own sort".

PhasmaFelis 13y ago
You're confusing "start-up programming" with "programming," I probably that seems to be endemic on Hacker News.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  He's pointing out the risk factor, a severely (and deliberately?) overlooked aspect of the "income inequality" rhetoric. Consistency of income has it's own significant non-monetary value. There's more to benefits of a job than just the paycheck, such as not worrying month-to-month whether you're going to make your mortgage/rent payment vs getting evicted. Many lower-paying jobs remain consistent regardless of whether you're sweating hard for 8 hours or watching TV for hours waiting for a customer to show up & need you for 10 seconds; that vs higher-paying jobs which are deeply connected to the actual value of every second of productivity ... everyone would like the profitability of the latter, but the assurance of income of the former can make it the better choice (given common circumstances).
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Sure, but he implies that the "start-up guy" reflects "programmers" in general, and it really doesn't. There are a lot of programming careers that are as reliable as anything is in this day and age. The kind of programmer who moves to San Francisco to work 90-hour weeks for peanuts in hopes of becoming a billionaire at 25 is wildly overrepresented on Hacker News. He really doesn't represent the average code monkey just trying to put in his 40 hours and get home to his family.

by kamaal 13y ago

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

You're confusing "start-up programming" with "programming," I probably that seems to be endemic on Hacker News.

ctdonath 13y ago
He's pointing out the risk factor, a severely (and deliberately?) overlooked aspect of the "income inequality" rhetoric. Consistency of income has it's own significant non-monetary value. There's more to benefits of a job than just the paycheck, such as not worrying month-to-month whether you're going to make your mortgage/rent payment vs getting evicted. Many lower-paying jobs remain consistent regardless of whether you're sweating hard for 8 hours or watching TV for hours waiting for a customer to show up & need you for 10 seconds; that vs higher-paying jobs which are deeply connected to the actual value of every second of productivity ... everyone would like the profitability of the latter, but the assurance of income of the former can make it the better choice (given common circumstances).
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  Sure, but he implies that the "start-up guy" reflects "programmers" in general, and it really doesn't. There are a lot of programming careers that are as reliable as anything is in this day and age. The kind of programmer who moves to San Francisco to work 90-hour weeks for peanuts in hopes of becoming a billionaire at 25 is wildly overrepresented on Hacker News. He really doesn't represent the average code monkey just trying to put in his 40 hours and get home to his family.