91–100 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would take a lot of management though.. What happens if someone is contributing a lot less than the others? Or a lot more?
What happens in any other company in this situation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would take a lot of management though.. What happens if someone is contributing a lot less than the others? Or a lot more?
I don’t know but I’d probably reach out to other co-ops to see how they solve the freeloader problem. Co-ops exist in industries that require more management than SWE, no reason it couldn’t work for devs too. Plus, if your first and primary concern is the hard problem of who does more than whom, maybe you just aren’t temperamentally suited for a coop.
Work for yourself is always superior. The nature of employment is akin to slavery. Master-slave, lord-serf, employer-employee. When the US was founded, people largely worked for themselves as craftsmen and farmers. People were probably a lot happier then than today, for obvious reasons, less oppression. People that do work for themselves often present themselves as victims, being responsible for more in some ways. Bu…
Interesting - do you work for yourself too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm myself one. My job requires from me only 20 hours a week and it's well paid too. It's uncommon I know, but youd have to look in places like AsyncOK.com or similar.
Okay, thanks for the info. How does job stability compare to having a full-time job? Do you get benefits?
For my specific case, the job is very stable, since it's not predicated on temporary requirements. I've been a bit more than a year like this.
For the most part nobody "should" anything. In general, if you're entrepreneurial, yeah, work a part time job and build something. If you're all in in developing professionally for the corporate ladder, go grab a full time job.
what about if you just care about the work itself?
For the most part nobody "should" anything. In general, if you're entrepreneurial, yeah, work a part time job and build something. If you're all in in developing professionally for the corporate ladder, go grab a full time job.
what about if you just care about the work itself?
You'd not have to take care of the uncertainty that is around being a freelancer. These details are taken care for you, so you'd just focus on your work.
You are always working for someone—whether you have one big customer, a few medium-size ones, or many tiny ones. More customers is in some ways more sustainable, because losing a single customer is less of an impact and you are more likely to have a well-oiled up-to-date process for getting new customers. Perhaps a bigger differentiator is not employment vs. self-employment but whether you can do something you enjoy…
Is not about who do you work for, is about what you own. Running your own show makes you the owner of your work, you could sell your business, pass it down to your family, etc... when you work for somebody else, you are contracting your time, without any ownership, you can't leave your kids your Senior Engineer position at Google, but you could leave them a profitable business. Is like renting vs buying, sometimes ma…
Chances are that the business will go under by the time you want to get out of it. Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky.
They will probably not want to follow your path and maybe having this weight on their shoulder will change their life decisions in an unfavored manner.
Just my two cents, I think working for yourself is fine, but it still seems like a time-constrained endeavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is not about who do you work for, is about what you own. Running your own show makes you the owner of your work, you could sell your business, pass it down to your family, etc... when you work for somebody else, you are contracting your time, without any ownership, you can't leave your kids your Senior Engineer position at Google, but you could leave them a profitable business. Is like renting vs buying, sometimes ma…
I feel like the "leaving them a profitable business" is quite hopeful. Chances are that the business will go under by the time you want to get out of it. Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky. They will probably not want to follow your path and maybe having this weight on their shoulder will change their life decisions in an unfavored manner. Just my two cents, I think working for yo…
What makes you think that? Obviously there is always risks associated to almost everything you do, and running a business is no exception, but I don't think most businesses follow the "go down by the time you want to get out." route.
> Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky.
The burden of an asset? You can always sell your parent's business, for cents on the dollar in the worst case?, and you still get more than what you would get if your parents had nothing. Also cash savings and running a business are not exclusive, actually, usually people running business have more assets/cash that people working for somebody else.
> I think working for yourself is fine, but it still seems like a time-constrained endeavor.
Working for somebody else's business is also a time-constrained endeavor.
I'm not saying that everyone should be running a business, you could make the case of a VP at Amazon making way more than an indie hacker, sure, the thing is the possible amount of VPs at companies big enough with such high salaries, are the order of hundreds , in the other hand, there is thousands of people making a lot of money online, with all type of niche apps and/or services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the "leaving them a profitable business" is quite hopeful. Chances are that the business will go under by the time you want to get out of it. Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky. They will probably not want to follow your path and maybe having this weight on their shoulder will change their life decisions in an unfavored manner. Just my two cents, I think working for yo…
> Chances are that the business will go under by the time you want to get out of it. What makes you think that? Obviously there is always risks associated to almost everything you do, and running a business is no exception, but I don't think most businesses follow the "go down by the time you want to get out." route. > Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky. The burden of an asset? Yo…
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1259275/average-company-...
I do agree on the case for the value of the business as an asset.
> cash savings and running a business are not exclusive, actually, usually people running business have more assets/cash that people working for somebody else.
It's true that it does make sense, especially since you probably get more financial literacy by running a business.
I've been pondering how to have my own consulting myself for a while. Maybe I'm a bit sour of not having found a proper way yet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chances are that the business will go under by the time you want to get out of it. What makes you think that? Obviously there is always risks associated to almost everything you do, and running a business is no exception, but I don't think most businesses follow the "go down by the time you want to get out." route. > Then giving the burden to your kids down the line seems even more risky. The burden of an asset? Yo…
I don't know how much we can relate to smaller business, but it does seem like the average life expectancy of a business is lesser than the expected work span. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1259275/average-company-... I do agree on the case for the value of the business as an asset. > cash savings and running a business are not exclusive, actually, usually people running business have more assets/cash that peop…