Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#141

Post by imroot »

nulagrithom wrote: post #107
bsenftner wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this type of organization often. I wonder if there needs to be a deeper evaluation of the costs of delegation. Institutional knowledge becomes even more abstract when trained algorithms and their developers are in the mix.

I was sitting in yet another meeting the other day and started thinking... We have two of our managers on this call, one of their managers, three of their engineers, and me. But I'm only there for some vague technical guidance. I don't even know the system/language they're working in. That's 3 managers for 4 technical people, 1 of which is simply babysitting. So really that's 4 people making sure 3 people do the work…

I've been on projects where between the project managers, technical managers, and other managers... there are 9 people in the room...and I'm the only technical resource -- on the project.

Fortunately for me, those projects are few and far between these days, but, earlier on in my career, they were common and frequent.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#142

Post by chasd00 »

I'm a consultant and think about going independent every so often. The thing is there's only so many hours to sell.

I'd rather be at my firm with bonus tied to account revenue which is generated by teams of people. That way your pay is disconnected from your time and has much more room to grow.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#143

Post by s73ver_ »

KGIII wrote: post #139
s73ver_ wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many of our businesses are the most profitable in the world." As an employee, who's not invited to share in those profits, why do I care? Why would I rather have that, than have more stability and more vacation time like they do in Europe?

Your salary and benefits are your share of the profits.

Not really. And that doesn't address my question. Why do I care that our businesses are more profitable if I don't get any of the benefits of it? What do I get for that "more profitable"? Do I get to work less? Do I get more vacation? Do I get more stability? Do I get more pay? The answer to all of these is no. So what do I get?

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#144

Post by s73ver_ »

KGIII wrote: post #140
s73ver_ wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a tip: Try not to come up with ideas that are going to put large groups of people out of a job.

Hold back progress rather than have a surplus of labor to solve new tasks? I know what you wrote, but that's what I read.

What new tasks? And how are these people going to train to work on these new tasks if they've just lost their job, and therefore their ability to pay rent and buy food?

The "progress" argument doesn't mean much from people who aren't going to have to bear the negative effects of it.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#145

Post by jcun4128 »

KGIII wrote: post #140
s73ver_ wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a tip: Try not to come up with ideas that are going to put large groups of people out of a job.

Hold back progress rather than have a surplus of labor to solve new tasks? I know what you wrote, but that's what I read.

I'd love it if general income/free education became a thing but I made my choices.

Also automation also makes new jobs less horse stables now automotive shops.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#146

Post by danmaz74 »

richardknop wrote: post #110
danmaz74 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I read, it looks to me like actually, in the UK, it's permanent workers which have pretty poor salary for the IT market.

Yes. Bus/tube drivers have similar salaries to what many companies are offering to software engineers. So it's a bit ridiculous situation. Often the same company which offers low perm salary will hire contractors with high daily rate (which roughly translate to 2-3x money after taxes) without blinking an eye.

Any idea about why? I could understand a big difference if firing employees was very difficult for employers, but AFAIK after Thatcher firing people in the UK is pretty easy.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#147

Post by taway_1212 »

danmaz74 wrote: post #146
richardknop wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Bus/tube drivers have similar salaries to what many companies are offering to software engineers. So it's a bit ridiculous situation. Often the same company which offers low perm salary will hire contractors with high daily rate (which roughly translate to 2-3x money after taxes) without blinking an eye.

Any idea about why? I could understand a big difference if firing employees was very difficult for employers, but AFAIK after Thatcher firing people in the UK is pretty easy.

IMO, in the UK the FT employment (for "senior" roles) is for suckers who don't realize their actual value. If companies can't find enough of them, they bite the bullet and supplement with contractors. Hence the two separate pays for the same job.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#148

Post by Spooky23 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #48
humanrebar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...I notice more and more graveyards of abandoned projects and services running without anybody present who was involved in building or setting up. I've seen this happen a lot in full-time-only shops. It's possible it happens more often in shops that lean heavily on contract work, but it happens everywhere. It takes strong technical leadership to keep that sort of technical debt quantified and prioritized without k…

The IT department in my company is an example of the result of a totally outsourced organization. At the top you have a huge layer of well spoken, very personable people who "facilitate", "align" and call meetings. They have no technical knowledge. Then there are a few "architects" who sit in these meetings. The architects come up with a solution and then send the work to India. At the place the work is actually done…

It depends. If you can’t manage contracts well, you can’t run IT either.

This is why SaaS and other productized services are so valuable. Buying O365 or Salesforce by the drink is dramatically more efficient due to the fixed deliverable and scale.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#149

Post by KGIII »

s73ver_ wrote: post #143
KGIII wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your salary and benefits are your share of the profits.

Not really. And that doesn't address my question. Why do I care that our businesses are more profitable if I don't get any of the benefits of it? What do I get for that "more profitable"? Do I get to work less? Do I get more vacation? Do I get more stability? Do I get more pay? The answer to all of these is no. So what do I get?

You don't have to care, though you might be grateful that they are profitable and thus able to pay your salary. Given that you're on HN, you're probably paid quite well and better than you would be in other countries.

So, it's in your best interest that they continue to be profitable. Your benefit is contined employment and the benefits that go along with that.

If you want to get more from a business profiting more, your best choice would be to buy shares of that business through the stock market. Even those that don't pay dividends can increase in value and increase your wealth along with it.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to not care one iota. You don't need my permission to do that.

Re: Is the Rise of Contract Workers Killing Upward Mobility?

#150

Post by KGIII »

s73ver_ wrote: post #144
KGIII wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold back progress rather than have a surplus of labor to solve new tasks? I know what you wrote, but that's what I read.

What new tasks? And how are these people going to train to work on these new tasks if they've just lost their job, and therefore their ability to pay rent and buy food? The "progress" argument doesn't mean much from people who aren't going to have to bear the negative effects of it.

We've had this same conversation since the start of the industrial revolution. Each time, people have insisted that this time it was different and sure to be the end of civilization. Famously, we called them Luddites.

As for predicting what jobs will be made available, that's a fool's errand. Nobody would have been able to accurately predict the many jobs we regularly do today. At one point, the expectation for the total number of programmers needed, across the globe, wasn't more than a few dozen. Yet, loom where we are today.

Back when I was young, in the 1960s, a common horror and science fiction trope was computers putting everyone out of work. The trope included such gems as the big brain eliminating entire office staffs and those people being unable to get work elsewhere.

The trope was so common that the first programmable computer I touched was called a calculator because HP didn't want the term computer to scare people away. This was the early 1970s.

Yet, with each stage of automation, we've improved our overall average lives and been able to make use of the excess labor for new and innovative tasks. I see no evidence, other than hysterics, that this is going to be any different.

If you want to keep people employed for no reason other than as an excuse to exchange money for labor, maybe you could just have them dig ditches? Holding back progress for the sake of keeping people employed is counterproductive. Automating tasks, making tasks simpler, is the point of technology and is what has afforded you to live the luxurious life you live when compared to the lives of people just a generation ago.

I'm not sure where the neo-Luddite trend has been coming from, but it has been strong for the past few years. If you want a suggestion, it is to embrace it and be at the forefront of it. It's not something you can prevent, legally or ethically.

Where, exactly, would you draw the lines? No more cars, because it puts furriers out of business? No more computers, because it puts human computers out of business? No more email, because it puts curriers out of business?

You live in a society created by the fruits of technology. You're happy to post your comment on HN instead of using the postal service or private currier.

Post reply on HN