I would agree if tech jobs without the perks were worse than outside the industry, but they are not. I worked for other industries before and let me tell you they are far worse on all objectively measured metrics. Worse pay, less emphasis on WLB, RTO 5 days a week, worse tech stacks, worse work culture and non existent perks are the norm everywhere else.
Sure there’s exceptions everywhere, but unless you’re self employed and contract in other industries, tech is still where it’s better.
Eh if you live in Aus construction gives tech a run for its money. Work everywhere, you can walk on-site and get >35p/hr with little to no experience. If your ticketed it's more like 80 per hour. Get yourself a abn a shovel and a drill and your off to the races.
NDIS work also pays similar to construction.
You will struggle to find tech wages that match that for the majority of available work. Techs over saturated with employees and as software improves you need less workers to do more IT work erryday. Meanwhile it still takes the same amount of workers to lay a slab or stand a house frame as it did 20 years ago.
I have two friends who work(ed) in the trades (plumbing and construction) and have talked about their experiences with me a lot, and you're not telling the full story here though. Sure the pay is good, but first of all it takes years of taking lessons, being subject to being ordered around and taken advantage of by more senior union members, tons of red tape and bureaucracy, and a lot of tests to actually move through the ranks, and you need to get training to do even base level stuff safely. So "just walk on site and get $35/hr" is kind of misleading. Moreover, the job takes a serious, serious toll on your health and body, far more than any office job would. So the pay might seem good at first, but you'll realize why it's that good pretty soon — and it's not just because of unions. The friend that was in construction got the fuck out of there literally as soon as she could, ran to get a white collar job even at a pay cut. My plumber friend is doing it because she failed out of trying to get a computer science degree, so she doesn't really have another career option, but believe you me, she would sell her soul to be able to do software instead of a trade if she could.
The grass might seem greener on the other side (like that "if architects had to work like programmers" article the other day), but there really isn't any industry that's as easy to work in and high paying as tech is. That might be a bubble that'll pop eventually (I suspect it might) but right now that's the reality.
What does tech pay in Australia? AU$80/hour = AU$160K/year which I think is ~US$110K/year. Big Tech TC starts at about $200K/year for straight out of college and quickly goes up to around $450K/year by mid-career. Plus you don't need to do physical labor or risk your health hauling stuff.
I think construction is an underrated profession by a lot of folks in the U.S, but it doesn't really compare to software for effort vs. reward. It's a favorable alternative for folks who would otherwise work retail or push paper around in non-tech office jobs.
Outdated stacks are career ending. If you spend years on old stacks, it’s extremely hard for you to switch jobs and command the same amount of career growth.
I'm torn about this. I've been in FAANG for a while now, and while I do think I'd be more successful/happier at a smaller company (and I actually was), I don't think "smaller" tech is necessarily going to be better, especially right now.
Maybe we should just accept that these are just jobs, and no glamour is necessary -- so maybe big tech jobs losing it is not the worst thing. Let the talent spread and create more "glamorous" jobs.
Wages in the tech industry are still much higher than equivalent jobs factoring hours worked and additional compensation.
As long as that remains true, tech will remain a hot industry.
The ability to spend almost no money to generate ridiculously high margins (50-70%) is hard to beat. The only similar industry is Finance, but that is heavily gatekept due to the limited need for staffing.
+1 on this sentiment. I myself see myself leaving big tech. In the past I drank the kool-aid. There was a mission. There was a vision, and there were growth opportunities. Now I see people leaving left and right and none is inspired anymore - since it became clear that the mission is solely “making the world a better place by relying on our shareholders to do something with their money”.
I especially have the feeling that - while being in AI - leadership simply jumped too early on that train and now has teams full of people knowing that every project is set up for failure…
For me, it is management processes such as sprints, Jira story points, OKRs, interviews asking completely irrelevant questions, performance reviews based on completely useless metrics, stack ranking that pits people against each other - all this shit makes me want to quit.
If I am going to build important features and services, constantly improve my own and engineering skills, know our systems through and through, be on-call, deal with cross team issues, fix bugs, mentor juniors, and essentially keep everything running day in, day out - the least I can expect from management is to be on my side and not be my adversary. As long as this relationship is adversarial - as it is in big tech - I couldn't care less about the job, the managers, the services. For all I care, it can all sink.
Big tech jobs used to be fun. "Move fast and break things". It was the ultimate job for the intelligent underachiever who didn't want to waste time on paperwork and routines.
Over the last ten years I have watched the number of PMs and middle managers explode across the industry. Executives from other industries have crept in, bastardized agile, commoditized developer work, and began micromanaging everything. You get to build less cool stuff - there's less opportunity for achievement or advancement. So now these jobs are not much different than garden variety white collar work.
I think there are a variety of valid reasons: The market capital that created unicorns is gone - and with high interest rates comes risk aversion. The NYTimes decision to adopt an anti-tech editorial policy changed public perception. Pushes for diverse hiring practices clashed with tech's original meritocracy structure. Increasing regulation. The age of the average coder has gone up and so the corps have matured too.
But more than anything, I think it comes down to nature abhorring a vacuum. The other corporations in our economy are mired by risk-averse gatekeeping admins and executives - it was only a matter of time before enough consultants and management firms made their way into the building.
Not necessarily. I am alluding to a specific policy that the NYT adopted that said only negative stories about the tech industry would be run. Some NYT writers like Matt Yglesias have confirmed this policy and the knock-on affect at other publications.
Amazon and Google and Apple all still have extremely high public perception of their brands, despite only receiving negative national press, so it's hard to pin this as a reason that people wouldn't want to work at these places. But I think it's contributed to places like Google transitioning from being open and publicly glowing places to work, to circle their wagons and becoming more private and cagey with their employees.
Readit News
Sure there’s exceptions everywhere, but unless you’re self employed and contract in other industries, tech is still where it’s better.
NDIS work also pays similar to construction.
You will struggle to find tech wages that match that for the majority of available work. Techs over saturated with employees and as software improves you need less workers to do more IT work erryday. Meanwhile it still takes the same amount of workers to lay a slab or stand a house frame as it did 20 years ago.
The grass might seem greener on the other side (like that "if architects had to work like programmers" article the other day), but there really isn't any industry that's as easy to work in and high paying as tech is. That might be a bubble that'll pop eventually (I suspect it might) but right now that's the reality.
I think construction is an underrated profession by a lot of folks in the U.S, but it doesn't really compare to software for effort vs. reward. It's a favorable alternative for folks who would otherwise work retail or push paper around in non-tech office jobs.
Maybe we should just accept that these are just jobs, and no glamour is necessary -- so maybe big tech jobs losing it is not the worst thing. Let the talent spread and create more "glamorous" jobs.
As long as that remains true, tech will remain a hot industry.
The ability to spend almost no money to generate ridiculously high margins (50-70%) is hard to beat. The only similar industry is Finance, but that is heavily gatekept due to the limited need for staffing.
I especially have the feeling that - while being in AI - leadership simply jumped too early on that train and now has teams full of people knowing that every project is set up for failure…
If I am going to build important features and services, constantly improve my own and engineering skills, know our systems through and through, be on-call, deal with cross team issues, fix bugs, mentor juniors, and essentially keep everything running day in, day out - the least I can expect from management is to be on my side and not be my adversary. As long as this relationship is adversarial - as it is in big tech - I couldn't care less about the job, the managers, the services. For all I care, it can all sink.
(no need for BBC in the title)
Over the last ten years I have watched the number of PMs and middle managers explode across the industry. Executives from other industries have crept in, bastardized agile, commoditized developer work, and began micromanaging everything. You get to build less cool stuff - there's less opportunity for achievement or advancement. So now these jobs are not much different than garden variety white collar work.
I think there are a variety of valid reasons: The market capital that created unicorns is gone - and with high interest rates comes risk aversion. The NYTimes decision to adopt an anti-tech editorial policy changed public perception. Pushes for diverse hiring practices clashed with tech's original meritocracy structure. Increasing regulation. The age of the average coder has gone up and so the corps have matured too.
But more than anything, I think it comes down to nature abhorring a vacuum. The other corporations in our economy are mired by risk-averse gatekeeping admins and executives - it was only a matter of time before enough consultants and management firms made their way into the building.
The "move fast and break things" culture of tech was what changed public perception. The NYT was just a manifestation of that change.
Amazon and Google and Apple all still have extremely high public perception of their brands, despite only receiving negative national press, so it's hard to pin this as a reason that people wouldn't want to work at these places. But I think it's contributed to places like Google transitioning from being open and publicly glowing places to work, to circle their wagons and becoming more private and cagey with their employees.