4 ms·

This is going to come off extremely cynical but this post intersects at 2 points that interest me. One being advice I would give to my former self, and the othe

This is going to come off extremely cynical but this post intersects at 2 points that interest me. One being advice I would give to my former self, and the other is how I as a person fit into the business world. The post makes a simple yet important observation: > That business is measured by a very simple equation: revenues minus expenses equals profit. For those of you starting out it may not be obvious to you that there are VERY well paid people whose sole job it is is to look at the expenses column and figure out ways to shrink it. With that in mind you should understand that if you work at a technology company YOU and your fellow developers are the biggest expense. Plan accordingly.

AtmaScout 12y ago
The developers at a software company are considered an expense but a required expense due to them creating the products that bring the revenue in. Shrinking the expenses by shrinking the developer count occurs but I would think that would have an impact later on the amount of revenue that could potentially be generated. In a non-tech company I agree with your statement. Likely the revenue is brought in through some other avenue. A developer in that scenario is defiantly seen as more of an expense to reduce. Do I have a skewed mindset around this?
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  Do I have a skewed mindset around this? Every expense is a required expense. Every expense is looked at to be minimized. They're going to run with the fewest, cheapest developers as they think they can get away with to deliver what they want to deliver on the schedule they want to deliver it. It doesn't always work like that, over time bloat accumulates leading to restructuring/layoffs. This is so standard that exceptions are notable (20% time, skunkworks, etc...)
ant6n 12y ago
I thought it's more like an investment.

AtmaScout 12y ago

The developers at a software company are considered an expense but a required expense due to them creating the products that bring the revenue in. Shrinking the expenses by shrinking the developer count occurs but I would think that would have an impact later on the amount of revenue that could potentially be generated. In a non-tech company I agree with your statement. Likely the revenue is brought in through some other avenue. A developer in that scenario is defiantly seen as more of an expense to reduce. Do I have a skewed mindset around this?

forgottenpass 12y ago
Do I have a skewed mindset around this? Every expense is a required expense. Every expense is looked at to be minimized. They're going to run with the fewest, cheapest developers as they think they can get away with to deliver what they want to deliver on the schedule they want to deliver it. It doesn't always work like that, over time bloat accumulates leading to restructuring/layoffs. This is so standard that exceptions are notable (20% time, skunkworks, etc...)

ant6n 12y ago

I thought it's more like an investment.