[HN Gopher] Ask HN: WFH - will I be outsourced?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: WFH - will I be outsourced?
I once heard, if you can work from home you will be out sourced.
Is the WFH movement going to turn into a "they replaced with with
cheaper labor from xyz?" Is this a be careful what you ask for
situation?
Author : dnndev
Score : 56 points
Date : 2022-05-08 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
| drdaeman wrote:
| It's "can", not "will".
|
| When the work requires in-person presence, you're essentially
| competing against the people who can also attend your workplace -
| locals and those willing to relocate. When the work can be done
| remotely, the competition is naturally bigger. Obviously, if
| we're not talking about applying somewhere new, then there are
| costs of replacing an already onboarded employee which can be
| quite prohibitive etc, so you have a natural advantage.
|
| However, most importantly, all this applies only if people
| compete for your position. I believe, still, software engineering
| is one blessed and super-privileged industry where there is a lot
| of money and significantly more demand than supply for higher-
| skilled folks (although I've heard junior-level job market is
| pretty saturated and situation there is quite dire). So if you
| are in such conditions, and assuming your performance (and value
| to the company) does not suffer, getting outbid is not an exactly
| probable event.
|
| [Added a bit later] Unless your company is not doing well and is
| looking ways to cut corners. Then - yes - getting replaced with
| someone cheaper that's not exactly improbable. So, keep an eye
| and year for company's health - and be aware that some executives
| could lie straight to your face how everything is amazing while
| simultaneously thinking of how it's best to abandon this ship in
| a most profitable manner.
| lumost wrote:
| Consultants and contractors have been hired on prem for ages.
| If employers didn't clamour for such contractors before, I
| don't know why they would now.
| aniketmalvankar wrote:
| I have worked at startups most of my career and from my
| perspective I would not want to replace a teammate just because
| of salary.
| jrd259 wrote:
| The question is not what you, as an individual contributor or
| even front-line manager would want, it is what the people in
| the executive suite would want
| WElkjlgrelajgk wrote:
| m12k wrote:
| There's a shortage of programmers. It's more likely they hire
| someone else in addition to you, rather than instead of you.
| Mave83 wrote:
| It's easy to find programmers, it's way harder to find system
| engineers, dev ops or similar.
| Mave83 wrote:
| We from croit.io hire worldwide with work from everywhere. Since
| COVID-19 we see a huge increase in salaries of usually low labor
| cost countries. It's still cheaper, but there are reasons to get
| more expensive employees as well.
|
| For example we have a hard time to find Linux System
| Administrators / DevOps that want to support our global customer
| base. We even need to get more US engineers onboard to fulfil
| requirements of large companies or governmental customers.
|
| What you can expect, is a way more competitive environment in the
| future. We made quite good experience with our stuff and it
| brings a lot of value into a company to have a team with total
| different ways of thinking and viewing things. Just don't worry,
| be flexible, learn everyday, keep yourself ahead of others and
| you wont have to fear to be jobless. But if you are lazy, under
| average skilled and unflexible, prepare your self to get in
| trouble some day in the future.
| vishalchandra wrote:
| Demand = Num of companies hiring remotely / wfh
|
| Supply = Num of people in nearly same timezone interest in wfh
|
| Currently supply >> demand, so if your company is embracing
| remote work, you need to now be good at your job when compared to
| a larger pool of people.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > Currently supply >> demand
|
| Is it, though? I guess we must clarify an industry, of course.
| But if we're talking about software engineering - the balance
| had surely changed, but I don't think it had tipped over, and
| especially for a "much greater than" (">>") sign.
|
| If supply would start to outweigh demand, salaries would
| naturally plummet down. As far as I've heard talking to friends
| (for personal reasons, I've been not exploring any
| opportunities, being busy with some other matters, so I haven't
| really kept an eye on this), last year they rose up.
| jounker wrote:
| My current experience with hiring for remote positions says
| otherwise.
| saxonww wrote:
| I don't think so, because allowing you to work from home doesn't
| immediately make the cheaper labor cheaper or more available.
| That is, "they" can already outsource you, WFH or not.
| k__ wrote:
| Probably?
|
| I work from home since 2014 and since 2017 I don't work with
| companies from my country anymore.
|
| So, I'd guess, my current clients "outsourced" to me.
| siva7 wrote:
| If you're just a code monkey then yes. Regardless there is
| currently more demand than supply for experienced developers
| noodle wrote:
| Cheaper labor is cheaper for a reason. The economy is globalized
| enough that if you have an actually equivalent skillset, you're
| very likely able to pull an equivalent salary, no matter where
| you live.
|
| You'll get outsourced regardless of where you work once a company
| is willing to take the tradeoffs that come with cheaper labor - a
| "worse" skillset.
|
| There's certainly a little salary arbitrage to be had for
| actually equivalent skillsets, but not enough such that its worth
| firing someone with institutional knowledge. Usually companies
| will augment hiring via outsourcing or near/off-shoring, not
| replace people.
|
| If a company is willing to fire you for that little amount, then
| (1) you were already essentially replaceable anyway in some form
| or another (sorry); or (2) they're making a huge blunder and
| perhaps their future is not so bright, so maybe its actually a
| blessing you have to leave?
| immigrantheart wrote:
| I think the hassle of taxes alone would make most companies don't
| want to do it.
|
| Let's see if Airbnb can crack this, and then a lot of other
| companies can and will follow.
|
| It is good for people who are dual citizen/US permanent
| residence, not good for US engineers who don't have anywhere else
| to live other than US.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| It is, yes.
| paxys wrote:
| If there was easy cheap labor standing by to replace you, it
| would have happened already regardless of WFH. In reality what a
| company gains by way of salary savings it has to spend several
| times over in inefficiency, communication issues, difficulties in
| management, loss of quality and lots more. This is exactly why
| the outsourcing boogieman hasn't caught up to the industry
| despite being talked about nonstop for literally decades now.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| Remember that companies have been trying to outsource software
| stuff for 40 to 50 years. If they haven't managed it yet, I'm not
| going to give them great odds of suddenly succeeding in the next
| year or two.
|
| Also with noting that wages have had a long time to stabilize. If
| some county is vastly cheaper than US/EU, they are either far
| less productive, or there is some other major issue causing
| serious problems.
| posnet wrote:
| I find it funny that with the WFH movement people some to have
| forgotten the lessons learned from the early 2000s
| outsourcing/offshoring craze.
|
| Many companies tried to move their development offices offshore
| to India, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Ukraine, anywhere with significantly
| cheaper labour. And the first lesson these companies learned was
| the second you've trained a person from that area to the point
| that you are happy, they will quit, because now they have the
| skills to get hired by another multinational and leave for a more
| affluent pastures.
|
| It wasn't until people realized to took more to build offshore
| workforces. You have to build teams of people, you have to
| support their families (especially is south east asia), you need
| to provide benefits and incentives for them to stay in their home
| town. But most of all you need to become part of the local
| community. Otherwise you will always be a naive multinational to
| be taken advantage of as long as it's convenient. And the
| intelligent and driven people, the exact people you want to hire
| there, all know this.
|
| I can see the exact same thing playing out in the WFH movement,
| with managers proclaiming that now that they can hire anywhere
| they can do away with much of the support and non-financial
| compensation inherit to office work. But they will run head first
| into the same problems as offshoring. A job is more than money,
| especially in an creative/problem solving industry like software
| development (and if you disagree, you are lying to yourself),
| your work, your colleagues and your company shape you, (should)
| support and reflect on you to all future employers. Loyalty has
| to be earned, and if all you are doing is relying on salary for
| this, then your loyalty is worth the dollars between you and your
| competitor.
|
| My view is that we'll settle on a bimodal steady state. With WFH
| first companies that put in the time, money and effort needed to
| support a remote workforce. And traditional office work (with
| maybe a bit more flexibility) going back to full time face to
| face. I don't think the hybrid model can work.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > the second you've trained a person from that area to the
| point that you are happy, they will quit
|
| Isn't this a significant problem with developers in the USA
| also? I keep hearing the advice to change jobs every year or
| two in order to keep building skills and compensation.
| kodah wrote:
| I mean, it's possible, but I think there's room to start holding
| companies that do that kind of stuff accountable. For instance,
| my company made a big deal about remote hiring during the
| pandemic and has now completely reversed course. I think they'll
| pay for that in the long run, not only in terms of turnover, but
| now every time I tell the tale of working there it ends with,
| "They eventually squeezed anyone who wanted or needed to go
| remote so hard they left."
| silisili wrote:
| No better or worse than before, IMO. It's a pendulum that keeps
| swinging back and forth. Cost cutting leads to outsourcing, which
| leads to reduced quality and or output, which leads to people
| coming in to grow and revamp, which comes back to hiring local,
| rinse and repeat.
|
| I'm mostly convinced great and established software engineers
| around the world already do well for themselves. If you're
| cheaping out on salaries, here or abroad, you're likely not
| getting anything good.
|
| I'd much, much, much rather have one proficient, in my timezone
| developer at 200k than 4 offshored developers at 50k.
| Mc91 wrote:
| > I'd much, much, much rather have one proficient, in my
| timezone developer at 200k than 4 offshored developers at 50k.
|
| This idea meshes with the lessons Fred Brooks learned as a PM
| of the System 360 project in the early 1960s.
| senko wrote:
| > I'd much, much, much rather have one proficient, in my
| timezone developer at 200k.
|
| Yes, but do you think you'll get proficient developers on the
| west coast for just 200k, when unicorn startups and FAANGs pay
| at least twice that for great people?
|
| For the fully loaded cost of one really good developer in the
| Bay Area (400k) you can get four equally good developers
| anywhere in Europe (I'm not even talking Eastern Europe here),
| who will happily shuffle their schedule to accomodate a few
| evening zoom calls or reply to a few mails.
|
| The talent pool in this industry is global, and it's extremely
| hot everywhere, _but_ ignoring purchasing power parity is just
| self-deception.
| daviddever23box wrote:
| Don't believe the propaganda.
|
| If you CAN be outsourced, work-from-home has little or nothing to
| do with any motivations to start that process.
| xeromal wrote:
| It's really not propaganda though. WFH's job pool is at least
| your entire state, if not your entire time zone, if not your
| entire country.
|
| When it's in person, it's people within commuting distance.
| Simple as that.
|
| That being said, people overestimate the will of management to
| replace current employees. WFH is really more of a problem in
| the hiring process, not the firing process.
| viraptor wrote:
| For larger companies the pool is already the whole state
| anyway. People move within the state for a good job - there's
| likely only 1-2 tech hubs per state anyway.
| xeromal wrote:
| I don't think anyone was specifically talking about large
| companies.
| dave4420 wrote:
| Depends what you mean by "xyz".
|
| A cheaper part of your country? Yes.
|
| A cheaper country? It makes it easier emotionally for managers to
| take that step, but there are still time zone, cultural distance
| and language issues arguing against it. They may even deem the
| extra paperwork to be too much hassle for them.
| lmc wrote:
| Outsourcing is a gamble - the effects of cultural and language
| differences have often been underestimated. For every company
| that wants to try it, there will be some some that have tried it
| and been stung, and want to hire local again. Think of it like
| any other business risk e.g. company being acquired, financial
| issues etc. - try and make sure your skillset is applicable to
| other potential future orgs
| webmaven wrote:
| In theory, perhaps. But first consider whether the company gains
| value from workers sharing a time zone, language, cultural
| context, etc., all of which push against replacing employees with
| "cheaper" ones from abroad.
|
| In many ways the ideal remote first company manages to address
| and eliminate these constraints (eg. by adopting async
| communication channels) to truly enable employees to come from
| and work from anywhere, but this is definitely not particularly
| common. For that matter, many of the companies that have embraced
| remote first principles tend to offer salaries that aren't
| adjusted to local COL, so an offshore worker isn't necessarily
| cheaper, unless you're comparing to the very highest COL labor
| markets.
|
| So, if you're a fully remote SWE employee who lives in Manhattan
| or the SF Bay Area, working for a company that has embraced
| Remote First and making it work, and drawing a salary appropriate
| to those places, then you _might_ be replaced with someone
| "cheaper" from elsewhere in the US or even globally, but I
| wouldn't lose sleep over it unless you think you're bad at your
| job.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Cross time zone asynchronous communication is not better.
| Things can get delayed by days since you can fall into the trap
| of only being able to send a single message to them per day.
| webmaven wrote:
| Yeah, "ask a question via email, wait for a response" while
| using a nominally async channel isn't really adopting async
| processes (neither is your manager emailing you at 7pm your
| time and expecting a reply in less than 14h). At the minimum,
| that email should be going to an internal mailing list where
| some other knowledgeable employee can answer, and in any
| situation where that one Q is actually blocking and there is
| no other work that can be done in the interim, there ought to
| be a root cause analysis done, at least informally, to
| prevent that from happening in the future (probably resulting
| in some docs being updated or expanded).
|
| Other async tools and channels: bug and issue trackers,
| kanban boards, wikis, forums, pull/merge requests, version
| control commit messages, annotation/commenting systems like
| hypothes.is, even NNTP.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I have had multiple occasions where our India team was stuck
| for weeks on something despite sending daily messages back
| and forth. Then I called them late a night my time and could
| resolve the issue in a few minutes. It's funny that the same
| management that thinks collaboration needs everybody to sit
| in the same open office has no problem having workers in a
| timezone 12 hours off where you can never talk directly.
| eqNotEq wrote:
| Just went through the interview gauntlet and timezone was a
| common topic. As software delivery pace is communication driven
| being within a couple time zones was explicitly called out by
| most recruiters and mentioned by the rest as being preferred
| most of the time. There was exception for working on the road
| even if it took you out of their preferred TZ band for a few
| weeks. Going too far away or for too long? Call it vacation
| instead. Just get shit done, was the sentiment.
|
| So it's in employers minds too. They're still hiring local it's
| just local is defined as a TZ now not an area code.
| tkiolp4 wrote:
| I don't see how is the current wfh situation any different from
| before.
|
| Before: work at the office. You were competing with people who
| lived in your city. You were limited to work at companies in your
| city.
|
| Now: wfh. You compete with people who live in your country.
| Depending on the company, you may compete with people who live in
| countries +- N hours of difference. But you are not limited to
| work for companies in your city anymore.
|
| So, sure you get to compete with more people... but you also got
| more options.
| cozzyd wrote:
| It's still asymmetric if you live in an expensive place
| compared to other places that have workers.
| wheresmycraisin wrote:
| I'm already seeing that it leads to outsourcing to western
| European countries. I know basically two marketable tech stacks
| and for one of them that's primarily popular in Europe, I can't
| get more than 70k gbp (without us benefits), which is apparently
| a decent wage in London but definitely not in California cities.
| And for the other tech stacks I've seen ~20% drop in rates.
| lmeyerov wrote:
| Depends --
|
| As a remote team, once we have someone, we don't want to lose
| them: we are mutually invested. Likewise, overlapping timezones
| help, esp for our more R&D areas. So if you are good, you are
| good. At the same time, we are trying to grow our team in ways
| that that reflect our customers: over half North America (gov,
| finance, enterprise, tech) but now growing intl too.
|
| And... #hiring #visual #graph #ai: js, webgl, sales/solutions
| engineers esp for graph neural nets / pydata / BI :)
| excitednumber wrote:
| This may be obtuse but in a company that is not fully wfh haven't
| you already somewhat been outsourced?
| sgt101 wrote:
| Everything (and more) that's possible to outsource or offshore
| has been outsourced or offshored in the last 20 years. C'suite
| folks and finance have been utterly unrestrained by anything
| apart from impossibility.
|
| Fear not.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I worked for a company that embraced remote, distributed work
| long before COVID.
|
| WFH doesn't automatically lead to outsourcing, but it does move
| it a lot closer. Once the company dynamic has shifted to all
| communications and interactions being online, it's very easy to
| add someone from a different country as long as the time zones
| aren't too far apart and the logistics of employing and paying
| them aren't too onerous for HR.
|
| The company I worked for eventually did ramp up foreign hiring
| and perform layoffs in the US. It was just too to hard to ignore
| the fact that they could hire 2-3 engineers in foreign countries
| for the same price as a single engineer in the US in many cases.
| Or, as they discovered, they could pay 75% of US engineer wages
| and still be giving someone in a foreign country top-1%
| compensation for their country. This made for ecstatic,
| hardworking, loyal foreign employees. It's hard to ignore
| situations where you're paying less and getting more.
|
| It didn't mean that everyone in the US was laid off, though.
| Certain talents and specialties were still easier to find here
| than in foreign countries.
|
| However, I think a lot of people are in denial about how much
| remote work is setting the stage for a flattening of global
| engineering compensation. Engineers in lower comp areas will see
| their salaries rise as they get access to more opportunities.
| Engineers in higher compensation areas are going to see downward
| pressure on salaries as they compete on a global stage. The
| exception will continue to be engineers with the most in-demand
| skills, who were likely already competing on a global stage.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| I think you are overly discounting time zone. Someone working
| remotely, but within 3 time zones, is much easier to
| collaborate with than someone 9-12 timezones away.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| From direct experience - It's not that hard to stand up
| entirely separate teams and eventually entire departments in
| foreign countries. Communication then mostly happens by
| e-mail or during scheduled calls during narrow overlapping
| hours.
|
| You're right that it's far, far harder to have teams built
| from members in opposite time zones. However, the people
| pushing for fully asynchronous work environments are building
| company dynamics that lend themselves to being timezone
| agnostic, so it can be done if you want it badly enough.
| idunno246 wrote:
| outsourcing doesnt necessarily mean india/eastern europe. we
| had great luck with south america and they were able to work
| the same time. this was a few years ago, the contracting
| company thought we were a little abnormal at the time, but
| everyone put on our project went through a regular interview
| so they were talented, and were treated as a member of the
| team instead of some remote contractor.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Properly managed, a team with members in multiple time zones
| can be enormously productive if the work is such that it can
| be handled in shifts. Software can actually be done this way.
| You have to be culturally willing to do it.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "Properly managed, a team with members in multiple time
| zones can be enormously productive if the work is such that
| it can be handled in shifts. Software can actually be done
| this way. You have to be culturally willing to do it."
|
| It's horrible for the people who have to work in such a
| system. We have people in India and during phases where you
| have to collaborate a lot, either the US people or the
| India people have to constantly work at night. And the
| company demands this in addition to regular working hours.
| We also have people in South america and that's much better
| to deal with because working hours overlap during the day.
| Mc91 wrote:
| About half the US lives in the eastern time zone - so if the
| product manager wants to talk to an Indian programmer at
| 430PM India time, he has to start the meeting at 730AM
| Eastern time. This is the most convenient time to have the
| meeting usually. Another 28% of the US is in the central time
| zone, but that just shifts this meeting to 830AM for the
| product manager. The working hours don't overlap. On top of
| various other problems.
| hilbertseries wrote:
| 730 am est time is 630 am central time?
| johnebgd wrote:
| I've found it's easier to outsource maintenance and harder to
| outsource creation of software. Cultural issues coupled with
| time zone changes are difficult to overcome.
| moonchrome wrote:
| You can work in the same time zone :
|
| - Mexico, South America are same time zones as US
|
| - as the other poster mentioned 75% US dev salary puts you in
| 1% in Eastern Europe, you will have no problem finding people
| with flexible work schedule adjusted to your TZ
|
| Cultural issues are a thing in terms of understanding the US
| market - but that's up to your PMs/POs to handle. Cultural
| differences in terms of work habits, etc. go away with good
| compensation (if you're willing to pay for top people).
| Gigachad wrote:
| I think different people have different contexts on this.
| If you are an American in big tech earning the highest
| wage, then outsourcing could look like spending 75% and
| still getting top talent. But for everyone else around the
| world, outsourcing can only mean getting the bottom talent
| because they were already mid tier wages.
|
| I'm in Australia and our company has mostly local with some
| outsourced devs in Indonesia and while they try hard, they
| universally just aren't very experienced. And as soon as
| they become experienced they leave because they can now
| make the same wage as the Australian devs.
| tinyhouse wrote:
| This is exactly my experience and I work at a very known tech
| company. As a manager I was told I can hire more people outside
| the US and was recommended to only hire in the US if I find
| someone who we really don't want to pass on. In other words,
| top talent would be OK, everyone else would have problems.
|
| I actually don't call it outsourcing as people think about
| outsourcing as a way to get cheap labor in places like India or
| Eastern Europe. What I see happening is that companies are not
| looking for cheap labor. They are looking for talent and are
| not lowering the bar. They just prefer locations where they can
| afford that talent.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > As a manager I was told I can hire more people outside the
| US and was recommended to only hire in the US if I find
| someone who we really don't want to pass on. In other words,
| top talent would be OK, everyone else would have problems.
|
| This is exactly what it turned into for us. We were encourage
| to hire most people outside of the US but to leave space for
| exceptional US candidates.
|
| It's a hard incentive to ignore when you can hire twice as
| many people within the same budget by going international
| remote.
| engineerDave wrote:
| Yup. Let's birth that baby by throwing more mothers at it.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| But that also means you have the administrative headache of
| dealing with tax laws and other personnel regulations in
| other places -- is your company large enough that it's not
| a problem, or do you outsource the payroll/accounting/HR
| aspects?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Honestly didn't seem that difficult. They hired HR and
| legal people with some experience in the matter and it
| was their job.
|
| I have a feeling those HR and legal skills are going to
| be in high demand for a long time.
| codegeek wrote:
| It depends. If you can be replaced at a cheaper cost, why
| wouldn't a company do it considering they can. The question is:
| What does it cost to replace someone and is it worth it ? Here is
| how I look at it:
|
| There are 4 types of employees in a company.
|
| 1. "Should be partner" Players: You not only do a great job, add
| tremendous value but you think about the business and team and go
| out of your way to help improve things. You genuinely care not
| just about getting things done but long term success of the
| team/company etc. You live and breathe this thing. You wake up on
| a weekend thinking about work and how you can improve things. You
| should be like a partner ideally. Most large companies do not
| value you enough. If you ever slip, you hate yourself for that
| and want to frikin punish yourself for making that mistake. Your
| team not only loves to rely on you but they NEED you so bad.
|
| If I have anyone in my company who is "Should be partner" player,
| you bet I will fight hard to give them whatever they want. I
| would keep them happy even before they want to be happy.
|
| 2. A Players: You are very good at your job, take things
| seriously, get shit done, genuinely participate BUT you have
| limits and cannot go beyond a certain level. You won't wake up on
| Saturday thinking about that enhancement you want to make. You
| are ok to wait till Monday. You hardly slip but if you do, you
| recognize it immediately and work on it. Your team loves to rely
| on you. You hardly need a reminder to do better.
|
| If I have A Players in my company, I would do my best not to lose
| them.
|
| 3. B Players: You do the bare minimum to get by. You may
| sometimes need a kick up your butt to do a bit more but usually
| you do enough to not get noticed. People don't prefer to rely on
| you and if they have to, they are usually cautious. You need a
| bit more management and ensuring things are happening on your end
| and your team/manager needs to check on you on a regular basis.
|
| 4. C Players: You don't really do anything useful and either will
| get fired at some point or you are smart enough to hide yourself
| usually in a large organization. You couldn't care less about
| anything except a paycheck. No one can ever rely on you. Your
| team doesn't care about you. They wouldn't notice if you were
| gone.
|
| So ask yourself: which player are you ? Sure, sometimes an A
| player could become a B Player etc but if you are wondering
| today, where do you stand ? If you are B or C, you can certainly
| be replaced with a cheaper option considering all else is same.
| robocat wrote:
| Your analysis is idealistic and based on the false premise that
| your value is properly recognised.
|
| Your manager (or a company) will often mismeasure your value.
| And I can think of plenty of valid reasons you might need to
| sack even good "partner level" employees. Anecdotally I have
| seen lots of companies misvalue key profitability employees,
| and losing them. Or companies sacking valuable key employees.
|
| There are also "D-player" in your scheme: low level negative
| productivity employees. Often well meaning but overall they
| will cause costs (even beyond their overhead) and never learn
| or improve.
|
| And then there are the "player player"s: employees that cost
| the company large amounts, usually at the higher levels of the
| company. Often camouflaged as a partner, or A player. Sometimes
| very productive in one area, with the costs born in another
| e.g. risks.
|
| Edit: The other problem with your taxonomy, is that it
| implicitly presumes that people know their value. Too many
| people undervalue themselves: they are deeply profitable for a
| business but they are unaware of it. The worse case is when you
| think you a playing at partner/A level, but actually you are
| deluding yourself or ignorant of your other costs or ignorant
| of other company issues, and then you are perplexed when a
| company values you correctly and lets you go.
| codegeek wrote:
| I am not suggesting that value is always recognized. Plenty
| of people start as A player and become B player etc. It is
| possible if you don't get taken care of by the team/company.
| However, regardless of whether you are recognized or not, you
| CAN be replaced once your cost doesn't justify your output
| and that is a fact. Nothing idealistic about it. Whether that
| analysis by the company is correct or not, doesn't matter for
| the purpose of this discussion.
| closeparen wrote:
| If you are "below the API" - a cog in a machine punching through
| well-defined units of work - you are at risk for outsourcing or
| automation regardless of where you sit. As a software engineer
| though, you have the opportunity to position yourself as
| something other than that. As a designer and troubleshooter and
| facilitator of the machine, which includes human and machine and
| HQ and distributed sites components.
| hahaxdxd123 wrote:
| I don't see why not. I worked from Latin America for a couple
| months and met a lot of fellow tech employees there (Google, FB,
| etc). I also met a lot of local English-speaking SWEs who could
| have done our jobs with no issue. The timezone difference is
| miniscule or nil (esp for East Coast based companies), and they
| would be estatic to make $60k as opposed to our 250k+.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-08 23:01 UTC)