Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee • Hacker News Board

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#561

Post by sidlls » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:10 PM UTC

hohenheim wrote: post #533

sidlls wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is partly why I wrote what I did about it being a self-inflicted problem: most engineers simply don't take that initiative, and many of the ones that do are thinking of features for resume driven development more than for the company's health. They're too busy arguing about whether Rust is our savior or how dumb blub programmers are, etc.

The answer to your original comment answered this. Engineers would avoid cv-driven-development if recruiters and head-hunters didn't use key-word based searches and rewarded developer CV riddled with most buzz, admittedly a bad thing. So I hardly see this as self-inflicted, it is wrong but that is what market is looking for.

Resume driven development is as much about developers chasing the new shiny as it is about dealing with the phenomenon you note. Perhaps more so, even.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#562

Post by alien_at_work » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:13 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #413

sidlls wrote: post #252

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?

Just because someone is paid a lot doesn't mean they're not under-compensated. Remember the sports team strikes? They were making lots of money before but they felt they weren't getting enough of the value they created so they did a strike and proved it.

Wages are (very purposely) not an efficient market so a group making more than most doing the same kind of work does not mean said group is overcompensated. It could be that the entire group is under-compensated, some of them just less so.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#563

Post by taway_1212 » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:15 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #549

sidlls wrote: post #252

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 This statement is laughable. In almost 99% of the companies out there 'product development' is simple a placeholder to describe people who look at the results of A/B testing and say which design to go with. You could supplant a child in their position and it would barely make a difference in any value created. Product development is the place where MBAs go to retire a…

Maybe that's true at companies selling to consumers (everyone is a consumer, so everyone can conceviably have valid ideas for new features). However, at companies selling to businesses, the developer is usually more or less clueless about the product domain (even if it's something technical, like CAD or data science) and has no useful ideas. It's the product people who (ideally) have decades of domain experience and talk to users from various companies constantly about what they would like to see added.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#564

Post by alien_at_work » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:31 PM UTC

beachy wrote: post #386

charlesdm wrote: post #380

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…

>It's just too simplistic to assume that throwing money at the problem will solve your talent problems.

Labor is a market exactly as any other: paying the highest price does not always get you the best quality but paying the lowest price always ensures you don't.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#565

Post by ensiferum » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

kamakazizuru wrote: post #436

mehrdada wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sales and marketing can act as multipliers in a way that engineering seldom does (I cannot distinguish product development from engineering as cleanly as you do, but on sales and marketing...) Can't disagree more. At least with the definitions I have in my head, this sentence is logically inconsistent with such definitions. Engineering is the way you get non-linear leverages. Sales and marketing, almost always give…

interestingly, a lot of enterprise Saas software is "sold before its built", by which i dont mean its complete vaporware, but its a very common practice to build a shitty first product, sell sell sell, and only after the first 10-20 customers are on board, do these companies start to spend more on engineering etc. Even after that, in order to sustain the machinery of building product, you need to keep selling. I thin…

This is why for most software (think about anything you run in your browser/phone/desktop pretty much that isn't mission or life critical) software quality, architecture and design ZERO VALUE. In fact that value it delivers is negative since it takes time and human effort to do it which costs money and there's no money to be made from say, correctness.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#566

Post by ivanjovanovic » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:43 PM UTC

volkk wrote: post #131

ivanjovanovic wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I overall agree with your sentiment. I would though not agree fully about where you assume value is created. Usually, developers / middle managers do not create value. Mostly they are implementing ideas of others and in these ideas is most of value concentrated. I would say they deliver value but don't create most of it.

Doesn't that depend on your definition of creating value? Im biased because I'm a developer perhaps, but I think that these ideas would all be theoretical concepts if these developers weren't actively building them. Perhaps I have a pessimistic view of the industry, but I've worked at 4-5 startups now (4-5 because one I'm on the fence about calling a startup) and I've come to find that the most value was always "crea…

It sure depends. The way I think is that it starts with an idea, ability to preserve the idea, develop it and maintain its essence through iterations with others. Still it is the idea that is making the difference at the start and working around that idea that makes difference at the end.

I was developer, and I was middle manager and I understand the sentiment fully. There are many aspects of reality that higher level management has to deal with which are not usually what they want reality to be but in practice you can not change it.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#567

Post by unabst » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

graphememes wrote: post #399

unabst wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are always exceptions. The point is, what works works, and if you're forced to make things work, before you know it, you'll find yourself looking awfully similar to those in a similar situation. There is a reason why these business structures are so common. They work.

This is totally a sales pitch. You can tell because when confronted with an alternative that works and is viable you get the age ol' "Yeah well anything is possible" Of course, what is current was also possible, you're ignoring the fact you're buying into the current dogma and repeating it.

> you're buying into the current dogma and repeating it.

Maybe, had I bought something.

I did not buy my corporate structure. I built it.

It sounds like you're saying all cars have four wheels because everyone is buying into the current dogma and repeating it.

I'm saying, if you're building a car from scratch, there is a high likelihood you'll arrive at four wheels.

As a matter of engineering, certain structures are common for their physical and functional nature. The more specific the parameters of behavior, the more specific the implementation.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#568

Post by alien_at_work » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

thesash wrote: post #335

nichochar wrote: post #42

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…

This is actually a pretty good reason to move from group 3 to group 1. If your goal is to be part of group 3, but are unable to find an organization with a healthy culture, then there may be an opportunity to build your own.

Then you end up with the "grassroots politician" problem: you go in to fix a problem but realize the money is just too good (now that you're the one getting it) to change the system.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#569

Post by alien_at_work » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

ageek123 wrote: post #357

gbarc888 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The third group is also the first people to get laid off and thrown away when there is an economic downturn.

Actually execs have less job security than the third group. The execs' value is largely tied to their existing employer (vs. having transferable skills like the third group), and they are very vulnerable to random reorgs within the company, so it is not uncommon for them to be fired and not be able to find something comparable somewhere else.

I'd say the salary more than compensates for this.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#570

Post by brianmcc » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #279

reuven wrote: post #91

How about freelancing? I've been doing that since 1995 -- and my income and happiness have never been higher. Pros: - Work on what you like, with the people you like - Potentially very high salary, definitely more than you would get as an employee - Want to work on side projects (e.g., software, books, and courses)? Go for it, and benefit from multiple income streams. Cons: - You're running a business. That requires…

Cons: Insurance and pre-existing conditions. Not to put a damper on your post, as it sounds like you have had good success. But this is a very real thing for many people. When I graduated and went out into the world, I needed insurance, and this was before the ACA, which meant that my pre-existing condition was not something that would be insurable, at least at any decent rate. The ACA fixed that, but now you have th…

It never ceases to shock me how big a factor health insurance is for US folks. The fact that it can influence your career choices to such an extent is just crazy.

Otherwise: +10 for freelancing/contracting. It's a genuinely different and attractive option for folks to whom "employee" seems an OK fit but not a perfect one.