Wow, the pro-corp tone in some of the comments is surprising. Software jobs are one of the few remaining ones where we still hold the means of production -- and can withhold them to our leverage. These folks are walking out for the right reasons -- big f-off to RTO, and even if a bit late, the layoffs.
There are so many people that stand to lose if a fully remote work force came to pass. Building management, HR, middle managers, property investors, they're the ones you're hearing I'd guess. Pure software dev jobs are very easy to do remotely, it's not like we spend all day talking to people any way.
It's so annoying that the vocal commenters on here assume that every engineer agrees with them that working from home is preferable to having an office. Nothing against other people working from home but please keep in mind that people's can differ greatly from your own.
People want to work in the office with other people. If they go and end up working alone because their team is remote, then there is no point.
This happened to me once. The team was in NYC, and I wasn’t so I was coming to the office uselessly. I do like coming into the office since it’s easier to turn onto and way from work with travel as a context switch but that aspect made it worthless for anything else.
This is an extraordinary and disingenuous leap, and it doesn't even merit responding to as a proxy for your willingness to engage with others, but to make the superficially obvious point more crystal clear: the existence of folks who prefer the communal and social aspects of work in a common location is not up for debate, and no, their preference on this subject does not imply that they uniformly think everyone should share their preference.
Please take a deep breath and consider the extent to which your unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of people who don't share your opinion may harm, rather than help, your cause.
Disagree. The comment addresses the sentiment fairly
> People want to work in the office with other people. If they go and end up working alone because their team is remote, then there is no point.
The author would crave for others to be present to satisfy their whim of not only wanting to go to work, but also dragging others reluctantly there. It's worthy of a walkout
I don't think many of the commenters here assume that at all. It is abundantly clear that working in-office is not threatened - it would be like have been worrying that men would be disenfranchised by women's suffrage. Assuming that in-office work did somehow disappear entirely, then there would also always be the option for WeWork or similar.
This is not a zero-sum game. It is possible for everyone to get what they want.
> It is possible for everyone to get what they want.
At overall software-industry level? Yes.
At individual company level? It is much better to have uniform policies for the entire org. Either be completely remote, or completely in-office, or if you want hybrid then mandate the days when everyone must be in office.
Because organizations rely on internal communication, and remote/on-site/hybrid each require very different processes to manage work and internal communications.
If all your organization processes are set up to work well for on-site, then the effectiveness of the remote people in your organization will hurt; if all your organization processes are set up for remote interactions, then the overheads of that don't make sense for the on-site people sitting next to each other; and if some units are fully on-site and some are fully remote, each with different style of working, then you might as well have two separate organizations with vendor/contractor relationship, that would be more efficient as their collaboration anyway have to be managed that way.
As a software engineer, I needed to meet people for my growth in the start of my career, and I needed to meet people for character development. Old farts complain that younglings are not socially/emotionally independent and apt to talk to their computer all day, but that’s also a recipe for suicide.
as a software engineer (and lately manager) my most toxic workplace was my first and only non-remote job - from 2010 to 2014/2015. and to my surprise my best job (in terms of org patterns, good tech and people management) was as a contractor.
also, just to make sure it's clear to anybody reading about remote vs non-remote. remote doesn't mean no meatspace meeting ever allowed. remote team members are not under chess king rules. we did meet IRL. for some jobs it was just 1 week in 10 months. (thanks COVID) but otherwise it can be a lot more. (1 week every quarter kind of makes sense, but so does anything that members are up to - especially if they live close to each other.)
While I believe the benefits of being remote outweigh the downfalls, I definitely feel that growth as a professional and as an engineer is stunted by being remote. I miss the days of being able to easily ask questions and collaborate, even with people on different projects or in different departments. That, to me, is the biggest downside
From the abstract: Findings show that early career artists have the least social capital, established artists have the most, and late career artists begin to lose social capital unless they actively maintain it.
Amazon has a reputation of being frugal to the point of stupidity (e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-use-frupidi...) so that tired conspiracy theory especially doesn't hold water for them. Amazon wouldn't give a hoot about the opinions of "building management, HR, middle managers", etc. if anyone there could make a solid business case that increasing WFH would significantly improve their bottom line over the long term.
The frupidity used to be a huge sore spot, but being honest, is no longer a part of the culture.
Sure, there are no catered buffets or massage chairs, but the old inflexible rigid frupid systems are all gone. Engineers get top of the line M1 Macbooks, nice monitors and good chairs. The desks are all adjustable sit/stand, not doors. You can get and expense whatever software you need. And yeah you gotta fly coach but nobody is going to bite your head off for expensing some peanuts from the mini bar at your hotel.
Mid 2022, my (brand new) manager received a rigorous scolding for holding a team event where the team (spread out across East Coast and West Coast) met in a single location (Seattle; where majority of the team was) for a couple days of team building (i.e., working in the same office, going out to lunch).
Frupidity may not be the correct word. Perhaps miserly is more appropriate.
Top of the line? When I started a year ago I was told to specifically not opt for the Windows laptops because they ship garbage HP units with 8 gigs of RAM as standard
Only to be then shipped a base M1 Macbook with 8 gigs of RAM anyway!
Who are the people saying stop wfh? Who are the people who have fought to have a bunch of people under them? Who are the people who lose if they don't have stacks of people to organise and watch over. They are the same people afaics
If these middle managers who want "stacks of people to organise and watch over" had any real power, they would have flexed their muscles to prevent layoffs in the first place. When it comes time to trim the fat, executive management isn't going to take any backtalk from mere middle managers trying to build empires.
High level management at FAANGs (aside from cost centers) are rewarded for their organization being profitable or on a quick trajectory to becoming profitable, not the size of their empire, mate. They will mercilessly cut headcount without losing a second of sleep to stay on the right side of profitability, particularly when times are tough.
I managed a remote team and man is it harder than in person.
One common remote work thought is “you get more heads down time”
I’ve found almost the opposite. You have to be way more regular about engagement with each person. I would do 20 min meetings with every team member, every week. Team lunches over zoom twice a week, daily standup (1 min per person, plus breakout rooms for further discussions), Friday afternoon optional game days, etc. I always just hung out on a video conference, all day; similar to when people game.
In an office I can walk around the block with you and chat. In a remote setting I have to schedule some time and keep you engaged. It’s a long distance relationship, takes more time, and effort… much harder to sustain
I kind of hate it. The meeting is going to disrupt my flow no matter what. I'd rather bang out the day's meetings in an ad hoc but back-to-back way. With remote meetings it feels like there's so much scheduling overhead and in between meeting dead time.
I always found there to be much less overhead and dead-time for remote meetings. Mainly due to the fact that you don't have to find a free meeting room, and then having to move between them.
I and the people I work with also like to organise meetings back to back. We spend our mornings getting through all our meetings by 11am, and then we've got the whole day to get work done without any interruptions.
Likewise; I really appreciate being able to section off time and plan my tasks around the availability. If a manager wants to book a meeting for something, there’s usually a bit of runway to get my notes organized.
> You have to be way more regular about engagement with each person.
That is from the people's manager perspective. From the perspective of an IC, the lack of all that extraneous engagement means we have more time to write code.
I know people who are RTOing to be on video conferences all day. Not a fun way to live.
Lol the discussion here is around remote work, I brought up the difficulties managing a remote team.
(1) Leadership & management are actually two distinct roles that are often conflated
(2) how do you lead a team without talking to them?
Your comment is fair-ish, but I think misses the mark. You have to balance touch points and removing blockers, with attitudes like “I want heads down time to work”. In an office you can walk pass, see someone struggling and offer to help. In a remote setting you need regular check ins.
For what it’s worth here, I described maybe 2-4 hrs a week of meetings. How is that a burden? Lol that overhead of planning & engagement (5-10%) dramatically (like 1.25 - 2x) productively. It results in less waste and a more motivated / engaged team, if done properly
Ask your team to do an anonymous, net promoter score for each of the meetings. If you can't prove the claim that productivity is increased by the amount you specify then consider cancelling the meetings.
Net promoter scores wouldn't have any baring on productivity. As an example, often the least enjoyed meetings can be productive (such as telling a person to stop working on their project).
These comments are so reactionary and low effort. A daily standup, plus 20 minutes a week, plus putting in the effort to be available as the manager is helicopter management?
Lol I’m just ignoring all this, my team had WAY higher output and feedback was always extremely good (from team members and management) Still keep in touch with all my former team members and many requested to follow my to my next roles.
The truth and my point was that as a remote manager you have a lot more input requirements. Basically; you need constant touch points with every person. These comments also point out the challenges in that, don’t want to over do it either.
I just sounds like the commenter doesn't have a good concept of "why". They are going through the motions, booking meetings etc. but are not really leading anything, just doing stuff.
How are you getting that? Where did they say it wasn't effective project management? They just said it was harder.
And it is harder. For example, it's way easier to see when a junior dev is lost when you can see pain in there face from across the office instead of hoping it shows in one of the check-in meetings.
asking simple, low effort questions -- "hey how do I log into [this new system]"
-- is as simple as leaning into a room or over a cube, but with remote you have to poke someone.
in person you just drag a laptop over but remote you have a call, share a screen, carve out time. not necessarily more disruptive, but sure feels like more effort, and now involves multiple apps sucking up bandwidth and potentially logging everything you say.
Gosh, dragging a laptop over seems way harder than starting a screen share. No need to carve out time. Companies should be explicit about whether or not they log every conversation. Creepy companies that like to spy might already have cameras and microphones all over the place - not a good look.
"...but with remote you have to poke someone"
This example does not make sense because in both scenarios, in person or remote, you're 'poking' someone (aka disrupting someone) to ask a question.
Also physically schlepping a laptop around to show someone is way more work than a simple screen share....and in either scenario here you're needing to 'carve out time'.
I agree, I used to push the limits and always skip all fun events lol still do, for that matter.
That said, I’d set aside budget and offer it anyone wants to organize. If they did it they got a free meal, they’d get to start at 2pm, and could purchase games/activities.
Surely that's a good thing though, if we're preaching meritocracy?
Practically speaking it's not so different than how it is currently though (except maybe lower CoL areas in the same country), it's very difficult to have FTE's in foreign countries, I am in a position to feel this very much right now- either you have to do very complex accounting, become a multi-national or they have to be hired as contractors.
There's still many barriers to it being off-shored, and the kinds of companies that would do that aggressively are looking to replace you anyway.
Ironically, limiting access to high-compensation jobs by tying them to cities like SF that don’t have enough housing may harm even those who do get employed in SF because their cost of living is high and the economy overall is possibly a double-digit percentage smaller:
> I am in a position to feel this very much right now- either you have to do very complex accounting, become a multi-national or they have to be hired as contractors.
Have you looked into other services such as "remote.com" to handle international accounting/legal?
They make it a lot easier honestly, walking you through the various hoops, but you are still a contractor which means you must handle your own employee benefits (healthcare etc), social contributions, submit your own taxes (in countries where this is not commonly on the employee this is annoying) and ensure that you are set up as some form of business entity yourself.
In my case that would mean either setting up a one man company or being a “sole trader” under Swedish law.
for PnL purposes as an employer, you would be considered a contractor.
Software devs may always move somewhere with lower living costs. Good for lots of people who have been forced to move into places like Silicon Valley with crazy expensive housing, even though they would rather live elsewhere.
If you think middle managers stand to lose due to remote work, you have no clue why middle managers exist in the first place. Remote work increases the importance of that role, in fact.
> Pure software dev jobs are very easy to do remotely
Have you actually done meaningful software development? For a specific example - designing a complex system is definitely hard to do remotely. Put 3-4 key people in that project in front of a whiteboard and you will get a much better outcome. I have been managing remote teams for >3 years now and have flown in my teams from all over the world to a single location on multiple occasions. Every single time, the feedback was that whiteboard sessions were awesome and helped move the project forward significantly.
> Have you actually done meaningful software development? For a specific example - designing a complex system is definitely hard to do remotely.
Have you actually done meaningful software development? I'm sorry for the tone, it's just that you're presenting a completely unqualified argument based on your own personal experience and then claiming OP hasn't done software development.
I do hobby projects that delve into some complex low level techniques (because my day job is kind of boring tech and this scratches that itch for me). I've stumbled across a global community, meaning none of us have ever met face to face, and have had the best collaboration I've ever had with any other developers. It's especially better than the collaboration I get with my coworkers, who are all just doing their job with varying levels of enthusiasm (which is as it should be, it's just a job after all).
The idea that you need a whiteboard and to see somebody's face to effectively collaborate is an antiquated ideology in the present day. We have: Zoom, Discord, Github, Figma, Slack, Teams, etc etc. These all allow effective collaboration with other people without ever needing to see their face.
> Every single time, the feedback was that whiteboard sessions were awesome and helped move the project forward significantly.
Great. And you can just as easily screen share over Zoom and draw on a tablet. There is no magical ability that a whiteboard and in person meetings have over meeting virtually.
And all this to say, in person sessions can be great and collaborative too! But your conjecture:
> For a specific example - designing a complex system is definitely hard to do remotely. Put 3-4 key people in that project in front of a whiteboard and you will get a much better outcome.
Is not a tautology.
Put 3-4 key people in that project in front of a whiteboard, and you may get a better outcome. The world we live in does not operate in absolutes, and the more I learn the more I realize that being dogmatic about any approaches or opinions is usually dumb. There's always an exception to the rule, and, in fact, there's usually several exceptions to "the rule".
> Great. And you can just as easily screen share over Zoom and draw on a tablet.
Nope - not "just as easily".
> The world we live in does not operate in absolutes, and the more I learn the more I realize that being dogmatic about any approaches or opinions is usually dumb.
I agree with this take. Speaking of dogma and absolutes, I wonder what's your take on GP's comment: "Pure software dev jobs are very easy to do remotely".
Now with that perspective of pragmatism, I believe job of C-suite is to strike a balance between what's good for everyone on average. There would be some who are actually productive with fully-WFH and those who want fully-RTO. Which is why we are seeing a return to a hybrid approach. WFH a few days and RTO for a few days. The key is to mandate RTO days uniform across the org to ensure that benefits of RTO are actually realized.
Here's my hot take that's not actually that hot, I'll start with an analogy every engineer should agree with:
There is a sweet spot for "amount of process" that makes individuals and teams the most productive. Note, I didn't necessarily say happiest, and the productivity may not be sustainable indefinitely but we all know there is a certain sweet spot. Too much process kills productivity. "Can I just please leave this fucking meeting and start writing code?". No process also sucks. "Oh shit, you built that API? I thought I was supposed to be building that"
But just the right amount unblocks everyone and lets teams build stuff efficiently.
The trouble is "the right amount" is different by person, by team, and by project. So the most important thing of any process is to have it be constantly re-evaluated and adjusted as the team and work evolves. But I think we've all been there on a team when things just glide and try to recreate that for the rest of our careers.
I think the same is true for remote work vs in-office work. Sure, on the right task working from home is positively ethereal compared to an office filled with interruptions. But on a long enough timeline, and especially if you are part of the creative process of engineering (ie not just "converting requirements into code" but helping define the requirements, and contributing to the full product, which good companies incentivize their engineers to do), then you do want to be in person with your teammates for at least part of the time. Juniors need access to Seniors to ask questions sitting next to each other or even pair programming. And there is nothing quite like iterating on a design with a peer at a whiteboard compared to a remote session.
Balanced effectively by good teams, a mixture of in-person and remote work is probably the most efficient answer for most teams.
The problem is:
1/ It doesn't happen automatically, much like refining a process, figuring out this balance is going to require much tuning and adaptation. And a top-down company-wide mandate for the same process is the opposite of empowering that for teams bottoms-up.
2/ It has meaningful consequences for people's lives - things like where they reside, and how they commute. Whatever improvements come with a hybrid work environment are probably lost by the candidates you lose who refuse to move, and the sacrifices people have to make in the rest of their lives.
What many of you are missing is, its gonna hurt US in the long run.
1. If US people wouldnt want to RTO, these jobs will be moved out to India. You can get to hire 3 people for same pay and they are happy to work. Or you can definitely hire pretty good engineer with half cost and same output
2. Unlike labour work, you are not competing with local people or can benefit from unions. You are competing with world and there are lot of people who are ready to grab it with same business outcome
Good engineers seem to cost quite a lot everywhere. I have yet to see the mythical $10 per hour amazing engineer from overseas, although I’ve seen several amazing but expensive engineers from overseas. I think the era of wage arbitrage is over. This myth is perhaps perpetuated to scare the talent over here into accepting worse conditions.
Any small gains they can make through arbitrage are eaten by time zone issues, communication issues, legal issues, etc when working across huge distances.
To put some real numbers on it. An average React developer in London would charge around £650/day as a contractor. In a second city like Manchester they would charge say £500/day. In Eastern Europe it would be like £220/day.
Yes there are trade offs, but wage arbitrage hasn’t gone away.
I hear you, and I think there's some truth in what you're saying, and probably the truth is somewhere between our statements, but I suspect it leans closer to my own position (although of course I'd think so...).
I think making an accurate comparison is very complicated, and if we looked at a large number of factors the wage arbitrage advantage would shrink. I think the seeming "wage arbitrage opportunity" is partly due to mis-assessment of the "sameness" of the contractors being compared.
For example, the average software engineer on the US coasts is much more likely than a software engineer in the US midwest to have gone to a top tier university, and although that doesn't guarantee they are better, there may be some advantage. The extra depth of knowledge or extra grit to grind through a slightly harder education might not show up in an interview or even on an average day's work, but might show up sporadically in ways that save or create significant amounts of money.
(To use a more obvious example, if a bootcamp coding school graduate and a graduate from Stanford both pass a coding interview, and both write a similar amount of "similar-seeming" code on an average day, I still suspect that when hard problems arise, or more sophisticated architecture or algorithms are needed, the Stanford or other top-school graduate is going to more reliably solve the problem and in a long-term better way.)
Similarly, they might live in a tech hub where they are constantly learning new technologies, or the general pace of their life and work might be ever so slightly higher. They might spend more of their free time getting better at their profession. Anyway, I won't try to provide an exhaustive list of possible differences, but these are some things I see that aren't usually accounted for.
A big part of the reason it failed for decades is because of the challenges of remote work. It can be difficult to onboard, you need higher documentation standards, more asynchronous communication processes.
Now many people are gung ho on solving these problems to enable wfh. And I personally view that as indirectly solving a lot of the reasons that international offshoring failed.
Even things like challenges with taxes and local labor laws - there are now brand new companies to address exactly that.
In the end the only barriers will be timezones, and even that the aforementioned async flows seek to address.
People keep saying “they tried outsourcing for decades and it failed, it’s a bluff” as if nothing has changed. Lots of stuff changed like improved video tooling. But perhaps the biggest change by far would be the remote first culture people are trying to build. Pre-Covid, every single FAANG company was office-centric to a degree. Bringing in international teams and integrating them would be effectively impossible. Remote first changes that.
Hacker news has so many wfh zealots you won’t even see much discussion around it since people tire of getting downvoted. But worth noting in my experience talking to IC SWE it’s closer to 70/30 preference for remote but based on online convos you’d think it was 99/1.
I personally quit a FAANG job with FAANG comp precisely because my org went remote first. The culture was alienating, the camaraderie was zero, incident management was a coordination nightmare , documentation for onboarding was a mess, and best of all, all my new teammates were Brazilian but since they were contractors they didn’t do on-call.
Management absolutely plans to replace Americans with much cheaper foreigners but there’s still just so much friction with remote-first. The only reason this big outsourcing push might work this time is because of the number of Americans hellbent on overcoming the challenges of remote work and simplifying their own eventual redundancy.
This is factually wrong. The only barrier isn't 'time zones' and will never be just time zones. It's cultural, environmental, political. The way a US-based team builds a product is different from an outsourced team in India which is different from having an actual office and team in India. Trying to get a team in a whole 'nother part of the world operate on a US time scale is incredibly hard because they are going to have different holidays and time off. You may need a product delivered this week, but your key developer in Ireland is off for a week and they have the federal right to do so.
In the United States we have -zero- mandatory minimum paid vacation or holidays. Your employer could require you to come in and work to push a product out. You cannot do that in most other countries.
Like with these kind of remarks I start to wonder how seriously you're aware of with countries and holidays outside of the US.
Can it be a bit of both? Trying to get a everyone to pull in the same direction when more than half of them are in another time zone is such an uphill battle. Even smaller things like trying to resolve CR feedback in a reasonable amount of time becomes a herculean effort when you only overlap for about an hour each day, and all other communication falls into a "We'll see what they say tomorrow" bucket.
Returning to a team that was all (more or less) in the same time zone has been amazing for my sanity.
People have been saying this and it has been happening; it sounds like you may be unfamiliar with how many jobs are regularly shifted overseas: “Since Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2017 to 31 July 2020, over 308,000 workers have been certified for trade adjustment assistance benefits.” The history of off-shoring manufacturing is also pretty well known. Articles about the US’ resulting woeful lack of manufacturing capacity are easy to find.
Wonder how many people insisting that software jobs in the US are safe from foreign competition drive Japanese cars, use motherboards and top end CPUs designed and manufactured in Taiwan, use South Korean manufactured DRAM, and use other high tech products pioneered in western countries that are now largely engineered and manufactured outside of the west?
That’s why my wife and I live way below our means. To the point where my wife could just stop working and we’d still be fine (we bank her income and more). If our paychecks got cut in half tomorrow it means we can survive.
An employer may prefer to have people in the office, but if they can only hire remote then they may prefer to do it at the offshore rates.
I have been in exactly this situation many times in recent years. My go-to would have been a team of co-located contractors in London. As soon as WFH became the norm, paying 40-60% of the rates in Eastern Europe or cheaper areas of the UK was a no brainer.
... the structural issues the USA and the world faces are probably literally endless, but the free movement of IT work is not one of them.
the claim that it's gonna hurt the US in the long run is almost certainly false, because ironically the long-run US economic and foreign policy goals are constantly hindered by its own protectionist policies.
these policies are the same ones that lead to countless fuckups when it turns out that the US is both "too big to fail", but also still smaller than the world (Puerto Rico, Jones Act, name a more iconic duo; oh right, subsidies forced quasi-monopoly for baby formula and only 3 factories nationwide; oh right, granting WTO MFN status to China without requiring and enforcing reciprocation)
long run America is forced to deal with a lot of unstable allies because they are not integrated economically sufficiently. no shared fate no shared interest, etc.
... of course it's unlikely to "solve" geopolitics in a 7AM HN post, but worrying about offshoring IT jobs is like trying to cordon off the best seats on the deck on the Titanic as the water rises.
At the large company I work at, offshoring jobs to India was announced in December 2021. Same company is now in the process of re-hiring in house because they realized what kind of offshore programmers are willing to work PST hours.
This argument is being repeated in every thread about RTO so let me just copy/paste my reply from before:
Because interview process in bigtech has been subverted by people benefiting from it and who are already skilled in it. I bet absolute majority of people that I worked with and considered them very good couldn't solve knapsack problem on whiteboards in 15 minutes, don't know Z algorithm by heart and won't be able to correctly project Amazon leadership principles with (made up bullshit) examples from their previous jobs.
Despite all the ignorant ant-union talk on HN, this comment is easily taking the crown. It simultaniously fails to grasp what unions did for worker and employee rights and manages to insult all union memebers and, basically, most blue collar folks. Well done, now tell that opinion to your FAANG dirwctor and wait for the promotions to come your way.
> Unionization of computer scientists will not happen. Unionization requires low IQ and low ability to separate bullshit or teasing from reality, and software engineers are too clever to be gullible to unions.
I think you're proving the case for unions, not (as you appear to think) arguing against them.
> Professional licensure would be great. The whole union thing is for people lower in the pay scale.
Maybe, but in my view unionising is the first step on the way to establishing something similar to what doctors or lawyers or accountants have.
I don't think it is possible to get to "Certified Professional Software Engineer" without first having "Union of Accredited Software Developers".
And therein lies the biggest problem in establishing Professional Licensure: you cannot allow uncertified members. The medical, accounting, engineering and legal professions gatekeep like mad, with the first gate being "complete this degree or equivalent", and the second gate being "write these exams", with various smaller hurdles after that (malpractice insurance, annual dues, etc).
I'd love professional licensure in our industry, but it's not going to happen.
"Proletariat" is too head on. When you say "means of production", at least some percentage of people don't know what you are talking about so an effective tribe signal.
Or you unionize. It’s federally protected activity. Only takes 30% to petition the NLRB to hold a vote. I know, the horror of suggesting such an idea on a hyper capitalism forum. Most people aren’t business owners or shareholders, they are workers. The startup lottery is a lottery: you likely will see nothing as an employee. You might not even see market rate as an employee at an established business. And there is ample evidence a unionized business can still be successful.
Workers deserve agency (I suppose this is the point we’re negotiating), and they have the means to acquire it and then defend it. Whether they do so is up to the suffering they’re willing to tolerate collectively.
Ahh, but that’s because you’re a business owner whose solution is “go work somewhere else if you don’t like the terms.” Workers have few options, so they must lean into those legally available to them. That’s democracy working.
> Software jobs are one of the few remaining ones where we still hold the means of production
Typical software jobs absolutely do not "hold the means of production".
The aforementioned "means of production" likely includes years of work from an entire sales team in order to land paying customers in the first place. What good are the "means of production" when no one is buying your product?
Cool, you built a useful piece of software... are you ready to pay a cool million to your sales people to actually get it out the door? No? Well then you don't own the means of production. You own a pipe dream.
How about paying for all of those cloud servers that your customers run on? When you write code does it also automatically pay your cloud server bills? Guess what, those servers are required to actually run the god-granted code that you put on this earth.
> You have a good point but software that exists with no one to sell it is more valuable than salesman with nothing to sell.
Never seen that happen. Software that exists with no one to sell it just doesn't get sold.
On the other hand, a salesman with nothing to sell is Bill Gates when he signed on to provide MS DOS for IBM.
In fact, if you look over the history of this industry, success has, with few exceptions, always been sales-first, then development effort.
It's why we prioritise MVP: do the minimum necessary that we can sell, so that the dev effort is not wasted. At it's core, MVP would involve absolutely no development at all.
Is this just a difference of perspective? Seems like GP's point was that software has latent value, and differentiation, and the act of selling is commodifiable.
Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is that software is more the commodity and sales is differentiable?
I wonder how this stacks up against other software that yielded massive public utility, like UNIX, or the internet.
> You have a good point but software that exists with no one to sell it is more valuable than salesman with nothing to sell.
I would argue that software that exists with no one to sell it is actually MUCH less valuable than a salesman with nothing to sell, because someone has poured countless hours of blood, sweat and tears into that code, and without a salesperson that developer will receive a terrible return on their investment.
A salesperson with nothing to sell on the other hand is simply a salesperson looking for a job. They have not expended the hours creating a product that will never sell.
Sunk cost fallacy. The developer has a product to sell regardless of how much effort was spent getting there; they own it and only need to sell it or even license it. The salesperson hasn’t demonstrated they can sell and has nothing of value other than their potential; just like all the other salespeople looking for jobs. A pretty easy class of people to join.
> Sunk cost fallacy. The developer has a product to sell regardless of how much effort was spent getting there; they own it and only need to sell it or even license it.
How is "the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it" relevant?
When a developer spends time on code that no one ever pays money for, whoever is employing that developer has lost money, probably a lot of it.
When a salesperson sits at home unemployed, it costs the company who will eventually employ them nothing.
How in the world are you trying to claim a sunken cost fallacy in this case? Did you respond to the wrong post? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Sales was always and continues to be separate from production. Production has always needed tools and inputs. You're not pointing out anything about software that's different from what Marx would have seen in a factory.
What are the software sales people going to sell if there are no software developers to build their product?
In a way you're both right - software developers (usually) don't create/design/sell the entire product end-to-end, but they no doubt are a critical piece of the process. That gives them leverage.
> What are the software sales people going to sell if there are no software developers to build their product?
Uh, none. Just like no one would sell vacuum cleaners if there weren't companies that actually manufactured vacuum cleaners. As with any other product that is being massively manufactured though, you still need to sell it to someone when you actually have it.
You might similarly ask, how are all of these plumbing companies going to stay in business without plumbers? Well, it's because plumbers typically work for plumbing businesses. Just the same as how software developers typically work for software companies.
