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

I don't want to work for a big company

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#41

Post by pnathan »

shubb wrote: post #10

One thing I've noticed about large organizations is that they pay more. Pay is set in a structured way with regular pay rises, so you can just sit tight and watch it rise. Additionally, you can move around without leaving the company. Why is that important? Check the graph from the long term unemployment article[1]. Personally, I like to move every 2 years, so that's kind of important. I'm going to write about someth…

Around 2010, 2009 I noticed some articles come out that observed that in general, people who graduate in a recession have lesser lifelong earnings than people who graduate in a boom.

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#42

Post by bluedino »

peacemaker wrote: post #22
bluedino wrote: post #14

We're a web development company in a 'company town' where everyone seems to work for a single Fortune 50 company. You think it'd be easy to hire developers away when you offer good pay and benefits, 4.5 day work weeks, flexible hours, casual dress code, and we buy you whatever hardware you want. We don't get a single qualified applicant. We use Ruby and Javascript, it's a ~ 25 person company so you can make a differe…

What town are you talking about?

Midland, MI

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#43

Post by pnathan »

ArtB wrote: post #21
blindhippo wrote: post #19

"But being in school is not something I truly want. I love creating, innovating, pushing myself with real-world challenges and projects, and the amount of satisfaction you get from pushing something out there is tremendous." I've seen this type of sentiment before - it's quite common for people who don't go through school. University level education (quality ones) give the student exactly the same feeling that the au…

Experimentation in a very narrow manner. A university is where you explore new algorithms using Fortran on an old Sun machine. However, if you are just interested in a new programming paradigm, want to write an ORM in Haskell, or design a new IoC container university is not for you. As someone with a masters degree in CS I can assure you.

> However, if you are just interested in a new programming paradigm, want to write an ORM in Haskell, or design a new IoC container university is not for you. As someone with a masters degree in CS I can assure you.

As someone with a masters degree in CS I can counter-assure that University is faaaaar more open to experimentation and delving into new things than a company.

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#44

Post by kamaal »

carterschonwald wrote: post #5

The vast vast majority of interesting technical work is done in large organizations, or at least organizations that have enough people that you're not "picking your clients". Small companies that have genuinely interesting work are sadly the exception rather than the rule. Many of those small organizations support themselves with DARPA R&D contracts or the like. If you really care about interesting work and colleague…

Small companies have a lot of work. A lot of work doesn't actually mean good work.

Unless you are simply looking to undergo a form of endurance training.

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#45

Post by michaelochurch »

kozikow wrote: post #35
michaelochurch wrote: post #24

Sorry to break it to the OP, but most companies are shit. Big or small doesn't matter that much because all people (under the right conditions) have parasitic tendencies and power makes it worse. Good companies are easily less than 10 percent, and startups are no better. What makes startups seem great is the survivor bias. The shitty ones with MBA-style management and closed allocation tend to faceplant. The good one…

In small company, while you don't have internal mobility across teams it's much easier to work on different projects, since cost of switching between projects is not so expensive as in big company. There are no formal management rules, so you don't have to play politics to achieve this. Even in companies with "open allocation" you are not given completely free choice where to work, because you first need to gain cred…

In small company, while you don't have internal mobility across teams it's much easier to work on different projects, since cost of switching between projects is not so expensive as in big company. There are no formal management rules, so you don't have to play politics to achieve this.

It depends. Small companies can go to shit quickly. I've seen it happen at under 10 people.

Even in companies with "open allocation" you are not given completely free choice where to work, because you first need to gain credibility. It's faster to achieve level of credibility, required full freedom on what to work inn smaller company with open allocation than in big corporation, even ones, which are pretending to have open allocation.

That goes against open allocation, because the whole idea is that you have the right to work for the company directly without needing a "credible" person to sanction it. Open allocation probably requires that projects have some degree of sanction, but that should be based on project merits as much as possible. And if people aren't free to move form one sanctioned project to another, then it's not open allocation.

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#46

Post by shubb »

potatolicious wrote: post #29
paganel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The funny thing is that those left behind don't have an opportunity to get on that gravy train now. For what is worth, I noticed that also (not in the UK, but somewhere else in Europe). My ex-wife, a psychology major, managed to get hired into a big oil company doing procurement work (yes, they were that desperate at hiring people) around 2005-2006. Of course, in the meantime she has gathered a ton of experience an…

> " looking at kids aged 22 to 24 who have just graduated it seems like they're, well, fucked. Nobody will hire them in a big company for lack of work experience and they can't get any experience because nobody wants to hire them." IMO this makes a strong case for working with small companies. Big companies are relatively risk averse and will look for external validation of the candidate - certifications, degrees, im…

Speaking of which, if anyone is reading this from the UK, and has an ~ 18 year old who doesn't want to go to university, BAE are recruiting heavily for apprenticeships. They are very serious about providing a 'university alternative'. I suggest taking a look.

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#47

Post by JonnieCache »

michaelochurch wrote: post #37
JonnieCache wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ladyboy This doesn't mean what you think it means. Or at least I hope it doesn't.

Synonym for "golden child" or managerial favorite, and yes, I know that it originally meant a male prostitute dressed to look feminine. I'm not the first to use it in that way. "Golden child" doesn't have enough bite and Ancient Greek references get old.

It definitely still means a transsexual prostitute. I can't find any mention at all of this managerial definition anywhere.

I'm not disputing that it is used that way in certain circles, but it isn't common. Also, ladyboy is often used as a term of hatred and abuse against transsexual people, so if you keep using it like that eventually you're going to be in a situation where you come across like some old guy casually talking about "niggers in the woodpile" and that would be bad. (I'm not saying it's equivalent, just that it could land you in equivalently hot water. You know what I mean.)

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#48

Post by michaelochurch »

JonnieCache wrote: post #47
michaelochurch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synonym for "golden child" or managerial favorite, and yes, I know that it originally meant a male prostitute dressed to look feminine. I'm not the first to use it in that way. "Golden child" doesn't have enough bite and Ancient Greek references get old.

It definitely still means a transsexual prostitute. I can't find any mention at all of this managerial definition anywhere. I'm not disputing that it is used that way in certain circles, but it isn't common. Also, ladyboy is often used as a term of hatred and abuse against transsexual people, so if you keep using it like that eventually you're going to be in a situation where you come across like some old guy casuall…

I didn't know that it was a term of abuse. I won't use it, then.

I guess we need another emasculating/biting term for male managerial favorites. "Protege, in the Ancient Greek sense of the word" is a lot of words, but it's the best alternative I can come up with.

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#49

Post by JonnieCache »

michaelochurch wrote: post #48
JonnieCache wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely still means a transsexual prostitute. I can't find any mention at all of this managerial definition anywhere. I'm not disputing that it is used that way in certain circles, but it isn't common. Also, ladyboy is often used as a term of hatred and abuse against transsexual people, so if you keep using it like that eventually you're going to be in a situation where you come across like some old guy casuall…

I didn't know that it was a term of abuse. I won't use it, then. I guess we need another emasculating/biting term for male managerial favorites. "Protege, in the Ancient Greek sense of the word" is a lot of words, but it's the best alternative I can come up with.

Perhaps a re-contextualisation of the phrase "Teacher's Pet" could be sufficiently infantilising?

Re: I don't want to work for a big company

#50

Post by michaelochurch »

JonnieCache wrote: post #49
michaelochurch wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that it was a term of abuse. I won't use it, then. I guess we need another emasculating/biting term for male managerial favorites. "Protege, in the Ancient Greek sense of the word" is a lot of words, but it's the best alternative I can come up with.

Perhaps a re-contextualisation of the phrase "Teacher's Pet" could be sufficiently infantilising?

Desk ornament.
Post reply on HN