> Big companies know that treating engineers as fungible and moving them around destroys their ability to develop long-term expertise in a single codebase. That’s a deliberate tradeoff. They’re giving up some amount of expertise and software quality in order to gain the ability to rapidly deploy skilled engineers onto whatever the problem-of-the-month is.
And also to "keep the balance of power tilted away from engineers and towards tech company leadership." The author touched on that and forgot about it. You don't want key projects depending on a group of engineers that might get hit by a bus or unionize or demonstrate against Israel or something. Network effects and moats and the occasional lobbying/collusion mean the quality of your product is less important.
Yeah, this is a deliberate choice to make labor less powerful. Capital is willing to be less efficient for that. He does touch upon this by saying that Capital wants every worker to be replaceable.
if I learned anything in my (too) long career is that one should do everything possible to ensure that whoever pays you needs you more than you need the money they are paying you. it is not easy to get there right away but if you make this core thing in your career it is achievable and your career will be happy and prosperous
Few things that I would tell my kid of she was starting out in this industry today
- never work FAANG or any bullshit company like that
- look for companies that are small (up to 100 SWEs max, preferably 1/2 that) that have solid business (20+ years, profitable)
- when you get hired volunteer to fix every problem everyone else is running away from (there will be plenty). you will work hard in the beginning to understand the nuts and bolts of everything
- along with nuts and bolts of the technology / stack / ... learn the domain as much possible (so much so that you could get a job tomorrow in that domain, e.g. if your company is providing software for automation of say state&local courts then you need to learn everything there is to learn about state&local courts so much so that you could legit get a job as a court administrator)
"soon" you will be the first that:
- fixes all the issues
- puts out production fires
- is in every meeting
- ...
there are other ways to do this but this 100% is one of them...
quite the opposite on the burn out part… if you are curious (this in my experience is in the top-5 traits of exceptional SWEs) you will instinctively want to learn everything there is to know about what you are building. and do it at your own pace, to use a cliche, this isn’t a sprint, it is a marathon.
the leadership also does not have to be competent, you actually want slight incompetency because competent leaders would not allow project to heavily rely on one or handful of people.
"At your own pace" exists only in a handful of very privileged spheres. Maybe part of the USA scene and that's it. Everywhere else is "fall in line or get fired".
You hiring? I got rejected twice from US companies with the explanation that they wanted to have me and the CTO pushed for having me but compliance does not want people from my region.
Replies like yours are wholesome and nice... but they also assume the only problem is in one's head. I am long past this. I just can't find good companies to work with in the last few years is the chief problem now.
pick your battles. You decide what extra work is worth your effort.
learn to say "no", by which i mean "yes, but...". e.g. "can you look at this production issue?" --> "yes, but it is outside my comfort zone, so i will have to charge at least 8 extra hours of overtime towards that issue".
Sure. The problem is more like that during the interviews I was made to believe this is welcome and on day one I was told in no uncertain terms that I'll follow a script to the letter or get fired. Which ultimately happened.
Shitty luck and all sometimes, of course. But really, most of the HN crows very quickly glances over how many toxic and terrible places to work at exist out there.
I think not necessarily. It also means freedom and power.
The flip-side is: you need the money more than your employer needs you. Which puts you in a bad position to negotiate salary, makes it hard to stand-up against bad decisions, etc.
I think that it can (not sure if the author meant this) also mean that you have a buffer and are OK with switching jobs, but are also in a position where your employer wants you (because of something you can do). This puts you in a GREAT negotiation position.
quite the opposite, if you are worth to the company more they are worth to you you can demand high, high, high... rates - especially if you eventually make the right choice and go 1099-way
> this is a deliberate choice to make labor less powerful...
To be fair, though, I don't trust modern labor either if they can't figure out how to NOT vote for a rapist pedophile real-estate billionaire. Twice. Including a pandemic and a coup.
Or look at how bad the coronavirus response was, for such a rich country.
Something's deeply wrong with American political culture, like from watching too much Game of Thrones or something. It’s not just being misled, it’s ingrained.
I think for many Cruelty <=> Power. Like how guns make them feel powerful. I wasn't born here originally so I don't really get it (thank god). It won't end well.
Has it been many people's experience that big companies intentionally remove experienced engineers from your team to something unrelated, in the name of fungibility? I've surely seen efforts within a team to make sure that there's not a single person who's necessary for the team to reach full productivity, and I think most would agree this model does not make for resilient teams. But many of the best engineers I know have had much more energy invested in getting them to stay than to leave
And also to "keep the balance of power tilted away from engineers and towards tech company leadership." The author touched on that and forgot about it. You don't want key projects depending on a group of engineers that might get hit by a bus or unionize or demonstrate against Israel or something. Network effects and moats and the occasional lobbying/collusion mean the quality of your product is less important.