411–420 of 632 posts
This is rather true in practice, but I find it tremendously depressing. I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day. The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of mone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…
> The same just isn't true of product development, sales and marketing. Any one of those three teams, staffed well, will account for well more than the value of the entire engineering organization. Why is it not true for them? Sales are not magic, it is a profession that can be learned. I have seen a lot of companies stating how important is sales, and how unique they are. It can't be true for all companies. It is li…
Like software engineering. And like writing software, some people are better at it / enjoy it more than others. Software engineers and good salespeople are very well compensated because they're hard to replace.
> I have seen a lot of companies stating how important is sales, and how unique they are. It can't be true for all companies. It is like everyone thinking that they are above average, it is just not possible.
Most companies, particularly most start-ups, suck at sales. "Great engineers, shit sales" is a more common failure mode in Silicon Valley than "sold something couldn't be built." Also, "good at sales" isn't a one dimensional metric. There are different sales processes, some of which some people (and consequently companies) are better at than others.
> If your product is software, literally it is impossible that sales add more value than the engineering organization that builds the product
You're conflating how essential a step is to a process with how valuable it is. Mediating those factors is how difficult it is to replace the parts in the step. Consider, for example, an automobile assembly line. It would be incorrect to assume that just because the vehicle is useless without an engine, it is impossible for anyone to be more valuable than the person who mounts the engine.
This is rather true in practice, but I find it tremendously depressing. I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day. The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of mone…
I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…
This is possibly the most HN thing I've ever read. Bay Area developers are under-compensated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…
> The same just isn't true of product development, sales and marketing. Any one of those three teams, staffed well, will account for well more than the value of the entire engineering organization. Why is it not true for them? Sales are not magic, it is a profession that can be learned. I have seen a lot of companies stating how important is sales, and how unique they are. It can't be true for all companies. It is li…
The distinction is that product development, sales and marketing can act as multipliers in a way that engineering seldom does. A tech company's growth is rarely due to the technical excellence of their product. There are obvious exceptions at the extremes, but very few of us are working for a Pied Piper with some truly amazing competitive advantage in technology.
For example, what would happen if magically Twitter's tech became 50% better overnight? That would certainly reduce costs, but would it lead to any growth? Would the average person use the service more if the tech was better? Would companies buy more ads? Would revenue increase?
Now imagine their product development, sales and marketing teams became 50% better. They could have actual product improvements beyond doubling Tweet length. They could instantly sell more ads. They could increase external partnerships to bring more attention to the platform. They would have all sorts of opportunities for added revenue and growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this just also dependent on pay? Let's take a ridiculous example, but if someone were to offer me, say, $1m (a year) to work on a specific key niche project (i.e. something that fits within my skill set and where I could add tremendous value) then I would happily move wherever around the world. Pay more -> you'll probably get a (significantly) higher amount of qualified applicants?
You seem to assume its easy to sort the wheat from the chaff. If you offer $1m per year (which is a ridiculous premise from the get go), you'll maybe get more good candidates (though a lot would assume there was something weird going on and would balk), but you'll certainly also get way more bad candidates, including many who are cunning and able to take up a lot of your recruiting bandwidth, and maybe cunning enough…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoiding new cars is not something I agree with. A new inexpensive Toyota Corolla will have cheaper financing, fewer miles, and a longer warranty and fewer years at the starting to get expensive to maintain stage. You also have to price in the true cost of an old car once it reaches the age of unreliability if you intend to drive into the ground. Just one failure on a road trip can result in expensive alternate trans…
Just buy eg a three year old Toyota Corolla? (Only speculating. Out of personal preference I only live in places where you don't need a car.)
Buying a new car every other year is for suckers. IMHO, buying any car every 3-4 years is for lesser suckers. Part of how you get to the comfortable decade on a car is to buy new and take care of it.
.. and, of course, this all goes out the window if you find cars interesting or exciting, and therefore want to buy nicer cars more frequently just because you enjoy cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…
> That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated This is possibly the most HN thing I've ever read. Bay Area developers are under-compensated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The same just isn't true of product development, sales and marketing. Any one of those three teams, staffed well, will account for well more than the value of the entire engineering organization. Why is it not true for them? Sales are not magic, it is a profession that can be learned. I have seen a lot of companies stating how important is sales, and how unique they are. It can't be true for all companies. It is li…
>If your product is software, literally it is impossible that sales add more value than the engineering organization that builds the product. Without engineering organization, you don't have anything to sell. Without sales and marketing, you will also have a hard time. It is collaboration what brings success. The distinction is that product development, sales and marketing can act as multipliers in a way that enginee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre or post-tax, and at what standard of living? Weather aside, you can get significantly better housing/schools/daycare/whatever for that 80k elsewhere than you can for 160k in the Bay Area. If you're young and single this is probably a non-factor, but for people >30 it can be significant.
Very true on the having kids part. But you typically have 7 years of your life before you reach 30. Probably contributes to the logan's run effect you see in SV tech companies ;) What I've seen from colleagues with kids is the spouse also works some sort of 6 figure job and they either commute a lot or bought a house before it got extra crazy. Like one who bought a $600-700k TIC around the Haight ~4 years ago. Or the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He talks about both why the third group is less successful and how people within that group can potentially improve their situation within the current system. Are you able to provide a cliff note or two about why they are less successful and how to improve their situations?
Why are line level engineers less successful? In short, the Gervais Principle[1]: "Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves." What to do about it? These things: * recognize that as software professionals we own the means of production *…
There isn't actually a way out, on a systemic level. On a personal level, though, you should be very honest with yourself about which of the three categories you want to be, and go after it. People who refuse to accept the trade-offs or deny that there is one are by definition Clueless.