[color="#1C2837"]If anything, the companies discovered that they were paying way too much for certain jobs which didn't require that much "skill".
[color="#1C2837"]...
[color="#1C2837"]Regardless of bias, a lot of programming falls under that. If a 12-year old self-taught can follow a few tutorials and produce something with business value, then there really is something odd about someone else asking $250k for 10 year seniority. Way too many jobs have complexity of the former.[color="#1C2837"][/quote]
[color="#1c2837"]I understand what you mean when looking at jobs that the less experienced can handle, but politics can get ugly in a task that seems easy to managers from a result-oriented perspective. I charge more for projects if they are complex or tedious enough, but when a client presumes on the difficulty of an assignment without knowing the process involved, bad assumptions about the skills involved can follow and the perceived value of all the work drops. ("Whaddya MEAN you need an hour to move that thing there?!") Thing is, I wouldn't kill myself by bidding at $20/hr based on these misconceptions.
[color="#1c2837"]How should seniors address the drop in their perceived value?
Should I choose hardware engineer or software engineer or programmer as my career?
Sounds like bad news for introverts.
Sounds like bad news for introverts.
Introverts have always been at a business/career disadvantage, in my opinion. Sure, you can be a successful programmer/engineer without paying much attention to the social game, but you will always be disadvantaged compared to the extroverts. It seems to me that most of the world is very much who you know at least just as much as what you know.
[color=#1C2837][size=2]"Whaddya MEAN you need an hour to move that thing there?!"
I guess you have to offset the time/cost with more value (real or perceived) so they still feel happy paying whatever rate you ask for.
"How should seniors address the drop in their perceived value?"
Because juniors can follow a tutorial and generate something with business value, the point about senior people is that either they have hugely deep knowledge about something really specialised -- that you can't get from a google search. Or they have broad knowledge -- they've seen a lot of stuff tried and failed and can prevent you giving the junior people the wrong things to do.
Or they have dimension -- they not only understand software, they understand all the other things that are going on.
Most projects don't fail because the software is hard to write. Most software isn't hard to write. There's very little software is actually screaming bleeding edge software. Most software is, underneath, the dull systematic addressing of a bunch of issues. Projects fail not because the software can't address the issues -- they fail because the collection of people involved can't identify the issues properly.
More experienced people gain skills in how to do that[1].
All three of those things; depth, breadth and dimension are worth extra.
[1] It doesn't always help -- if you have an environment where your senior engineers can't ask questions and can't challenge the requirements to fully understand them, then your project will probably fail.
Because juniors can follow a tutorial and generate something with business value, the point about senior people is that either they have hugely deep knowledge about something really specialised -- that you can't get from a google search. Or they have broad knowledge -- they've seen a lot of stuff tried and failed and can prevent you giving the junior people the wrong things to do.
Or they have dimension -- they not only understand software, they understand all the other things that are going on.
Most projects don't fail because the software is hard to write. Most software isn't hard to write. There's very little software is actually screaming bleeding edge software. Most software is, underneath, the dull systematic addressing of a bunch of issues. Projects fail not because the software can't address the issues -- they fail because the collection of people involved can't identify the issues properly.
More experienced people gain skills in how to do that[1].
All three of those things; depth, breadth and dimension are worth extra.
[1] It doesn't always help -- if you have an environment where your senior engineers can't ask questions and can't challenge the requirements to fully understand them, then your project will probably fail.
Introverts have always been at a business/career disadvantage, in my opinion. Sure, you can be a successful programmer/engineer without paying much attention to the social game, but you will always be disadvantaged compared to the extroverts. It seems to me that most of the world is very much who you know at least just as much as what you know.
Introversion is not shyness. Valuing personal time is not anti-social. Introverts have networks and can understand the value of being assertive and leaving their comfort zone. Articles like these try to put the quiet and the timid in the same boat, which pressures introverts to not just leave their comfort zone, but to ignore it altogether.
An introvert's network might not be as big as an extroverts, but (s)he can compete and prosper with enough discipline. I would only call that a disadvantage if said introvert was chronically envious (and therefore unhappy) when comparing themselves to an extrovert.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
