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

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#461

Post by borroka »

somsak2 wrote: post #419
borroka wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a company that employs 100k people. The effects of my work strategy and behavior on the company's revenue, profit, vision, products are zero. On the contrary, the effects of my work strategy and behavior on my salary and position can be quite pronounced. My company can fire me tomorrow, they will forget my name in 5 days. To "fire" my company, I need to find another job, maybe in another city, working with…

> the effects of my work strategy and behavior on my salary and position can be quite pronounced I think you vastly overestimate the impact you can have on your career at a company of that size.

After a few decades of life, I dare say I am reasonably calibrated.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#462

Post by pdimitar »

lr4444lr wrote: post #393
pdimitar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did that. A number of times, because it turns out people lie through their teeth that their organization is functional (during interviews). At one point people started asking why I have 3 contracts in a single year. Checkmate. What would you do?

Either develop a better intuition for when people are lying and how ti read between the lines, or use friends, family, and associates you can trust who can do so.

Not once in my life did I ever use friends / family / associates to get a job but who knows, maybe I will do it once before I hit 45.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#463

Post by pdimitar »

smeej wrote: post #411
borroka wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were interested in doing the work I am able to do, and if my life satisfaction depended on this fulfillment, I would never work where I work. That would be intolerably frustrating. But I see my work as a means to other ends, and I am fine with my current situation.

This actually corresponds to another thing I've only recently admitted to myself, namely that I put a lot more pressure on my job for meaning and satisfaction because I'm compensating for perceived deficits in other areas of my life, like not having a spouse or children, even though those are important to me (not just a societal pressure). I do have friends and activities that are important to me, but nothing within…

> I put a lot more pressure on my job for meaning and satisfaction because I'm compensating for perceived deficits in other areas of my life

Yeah, I did that for a long time before I understood I was doing the same.

That's how the employers get you. :(

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#464

Post by pdimitar »

RandomLensman wrote: post #255
pdimitar wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thicker skin is one option. I have no problem admitting fault when I thought I can help but ended up harming something. However, that also happened extremely rarely. People are just way too risk-averse. Though I get why the useless managers are like that, they don't want anything shining a light on their team more than absolutely necessary because they know they could be the first ones on the chopping block sho…

Someone just managing a team isn't really in any way "management". Usually would have very limited power for anything as a team leader. Lower than divisional leadership is often much more administrative than anything of "executive" function. And, btw., things like delayering are fairly typical efficiency drives. So these "management" positions might not be that stable to start with.

What you say is true but doesn't help the working programmers, sadly.

I have once exclaimed to one team lead / project lead during a call with 20+ other programmers: "Why are we even talking to you if you can't make any difference? I want to talk to somebody who will understand our problems and try to help".

Longest awkward silence ever. Needless to say, I left shortly after.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#465

Post by Clubber »

jdeaton wrote: post #376
jerska wrote: post #290

Smart people don’t consider themselves better than people around them. This article is so annoying. It has some truth to it, e.g. the mismatch between incentives and success, or even the corporate bullshit to avoid saying hard truths are on point. But the second part lacks the proper reasoning needed to establish the self-proclaimed intelligence of it author. Comparing software development’s product building with fen…

> Smart people don’t consider themselves better than people around them. Do you have any direct evidence of this or are you merely making an observation.

>Smart people don’t consider themselves better than people around them.

He probably doesn't work in software. There's hubris in spades in that realm. The worst is when people's ego is significantly bigger than their actual ability.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#466

Post by imetatroll »

neogodless wrote: post #334
anvil-on-my-toe wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot taxes. $38k - $27k in taxes = $11k savings. So 9 years to save up, by which time housing inflation will have taken the price to ~$700k. You are then $40k short for the down payment.

Do you know a lot of software engineers that barely make $100k? That's why I'm not getting caught up in the particulars of this example.

I've been stuck making $60K for 15+ years.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#467

Post by jdbernard »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #389
Aurornis wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't live in the US, but if I did I would grind all the leetcode (as insulting as I find them) for one single reason: I don't want to work forever. I find it funny that the internet exaggerations have convinced non-US people that: 1. Doing a couple LeetCode problems is the only thing interviewers look for 2. Everyone here automatically gets a high paying FAANG-like job if they can memorize enough LeetCode proble…

I haven't had a job interview without leetcode bullshit in about 15 years. And years before that. Basically since Joel's posts in the early 2000s. He promoted a reasonable idea-that programmers should know how to program. Then B and C players rushed to make that happen! Similar to how agile became the complete opposite of what it meant originally.

As a counter-point, I've almost never had a job interview depend on leetcode-type problems in my ~20 years.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#468

Post by neogodless »

anvil-on-my-toe wrote: post #383
neogodless wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know a lot of software engineers that barely make $100k? That's why I'm not getting caught up in the particulars of this example.

Don't you think it's interesting that taxes dramatically skew the example? Think about people earning $50k - $100k. 37 million households in the US. Another 34 million households earn less. 128 million households in America total.[1] 12, give or take 2, years into professional life, you sign a 30-year note and cash out all of your savings. Wages and cost of living won't be constant, but that's basically the optimisti…

To be sure if we want an example with someone making $80k after tax, we should really not be looking at houses above $400k. Yes, home prices are nuts, as I observed, but no one should be spending 5x gross income and 6.25x net income on housing.

In my own life, I spent about 2.5x gross income for both of my home purchases. And they were arguably more home than I needed. When I bought my first house, I was single, and I rented out the two other bedrooms. My spouse and I bought a house together, but ultimately could not have children, so the house is too big. (We also live on an acre and have a lot to maintain.) Now I know these Philly suburbs are nothing compared to California real estate, but it's still a medium to high cost of living area compared to the rest of the country, where we're minutes away from any kind of shopping or entertainment we'd want, and 45 minutes from the large international airport.

For sure the rising housing costs make it even harder for households making less than the median. I never argued otherwise. My point was about that which started this thread, that there is "no option" but to work for a big, awful tech company. I disagree, and elevated housing costs don't change that.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#469

Post by Retric »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #457
Retric wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That phrase only refers to the distance from you to a grocery store. So, no you don’t need to enter food desert territory when you buy a house in one of the many smaller CA cities/towns. Anyway, buying a house can be an investment but living in a larger one than you need is wasting a productive asset. If you have a 4 bedroom house you can rent out for 4k/month then living in it is costing you 4k/month the same way re…

>you don’t need to enter food desert territory when you buy a house in one of the many smaller CA cities/towns. You don't, but I'm talking about a very specific area of a very specific state (one larger than some countries) in a very specific location. One where I was in fact raised. You are free to instead go directly North to Bakersfield where prices rise slightly, or west to Thousand Oaks where prices go back to L…

> I don’t really consider an extra room a waste.

By waste I simply mean it’s consumptive. It’s obvious when you’re spending well above the norm on rent, but it doesn’t slap you in the face in the same way when buying a larger house.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#470

Post by JohnFen »

Draiken wrote: post #218
skrebbel wrote: post #192

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

If we lived in a world where money wasn't so important I would fully agree with you. But it is. I can't earn the same as you all can because I don't live in the US, but if I did I would grind all the leetcode (as insulting as I find them) for one single reason: I don't want to work forever. So I agree with some other comments here. No it's not really a choice. Choosing to earn less and hope for a lottery ticket win l…

> No it's not really a choice.

Of course it is. Taking leetcode job because you don't want to work forever is buying a lottery ticket. Maybe it's your ticket to financial independence, but maybe not.

The alternative, of taking a more normal job that affords you a higher day-to-day happiness level but doesn't pay as much is a legitimate other option. Plus, doing that doesn't exclude being able to achieve financial independence.

There's no right or wrong choice here. It all depends on your personal attitudes, goals, and tolerances. But there is a choice.

Post reply on HN