This guy goes into a bar in Mexico and there’s a dog lying in the corner, every so often the dog whimpers and whines a little. The guy asks the barman “what’s up with that dog?” And the barman said “oh, he’s probably lying on a nail.”
After a few more minutes and another set of whines, the guy asks the barman “so why doesn’t he move?” And the barman says “it probably doesn’t hurt enough for him to get up.”
It is not so easy. Changing jobs cannot be always the answer. In Europe there are not many "remote friendly" companies and also it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you switch. On top, it is extremely hard to find software development jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are around 60-80K.
A job change can also mean - inheriting someone else's problematic code base, new office politics and colleagues who may not get along with you. Hardly 0-5% of pay rise really does not justify all this. All in all, one cannot switch jobs easily when the options and benefits of switching are not so good.
> In Europe there are not many "remote friendly" companies
This is not true. There are many such opportunities if you ask, especially now.
> it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you switch
If you work in IT (generous, but it is HN...), this should be your experience unless you switch more than once every two years. Then everyone will mistrust you, but you can still do it as a contractor.
> On top, it is extremely hard to find software development jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are around 60-80K.
Making around or above 100K in the EU is indeed very unusual. Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.
>This is not true. There are many such opportunities if you ask, especially now.
Your statement definitely does not apply where I currently live (Austria). No tech company I've interviewed here is 100% remote as of now. They always expect more or less around 30-50% in office presence for new hires. They almost always have some staff at near 100% remote but those are usually tenured employees that management does not want to lose, so they get extra privileges as a bonus.
>Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape.
That's also not true. American tech workers don't have higher salaries because they get less social safety, but they have higher salaries because a lot more investment money, by orders of magnitude, gets poured into their tech sector compared to Europe where most goes into real estate instead, while the US also has a smaller supply of devs due to their expensive higher education and tougher immigration laws than Europe, meaning that the high demand of devs in the US can't be met by their low supply of workers, so their salaries naturally rise accordingly. It's that simple, basic supply and demand, nothing to do with the presence or lack of social safety from the government, as US taxes aren't that much lower than in Europe.
Hmm - it appears I was mistaken: "regional offices in London, Berlin and San Francisco." But the gentleman that interviewed me was in Austria. They are remote first, and have people all over from our conversation.
> it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape
>Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.
Can you elaborate?
I assume the canonical source for information about the US is American TV, but I really can't imagine what you watch that makes you think there is no safety net, even for people making $100K.
I have american colleagues who are undergoing various treatments and they know they can't lose their job because their health insurance would end and they cannot afford to pay for it without a job. Yes some kind of medicaid or other would eventually kick in, but it would still mean potentially months of going without cancer treatment because you lost your job.
In (most) European states it's just not a concern that anyone ever has - if you are getting treatment under national health service then it has nothing to do with your employment status and any treatment would just continue. If you need time off due to ilness it has to be paid for as well(employer only pays for a while, then the state takes over).
There’s a patchwork of federal, state, and local safety nets with a lot of holes to fall through. Generally speaking, you have to be just fortunate enough (esp. with regard to mental health, social support, and having a mailing address) to have the wherewithal to secure the benefits, but not so fortunate that you don’t qualify. People with everything stacked against them tend to become homeless, and there are few people going out into the field to rescue them.
So there is obviously no bottom-most robust safety net, as plainly evidenced by the homeless situation. But there are a bunch of safety nets that do sustain millions of people. Welfare, subsidized housing, social security (retirement, and disability), medicare, Medicaid, to name the big ones.
In severe cases, they fall into the unable to secure benefits / care for themselves category. In the absence of consistent policy, they're at the mercy of individual psychiatrists who have sole discretion to place them in long term care, or turn them out on the street. In America, life is like a box of chocolates.
Can you list off the top of your head five laws, programs, or benefits that your American buddies making six figures told you don't count as part of a safety net?
>It is not so easy. Changing jobs cannot be always the answer.
This. Everything you said is true about most of Europe, and even more so outside of major tech hubs.
Companies call the shots and employees have to follow if they want to stay employed, because there are no good alternatives to go to, when all companies just act the same and pay the same. And most companies here don't give a damn about what their employees actually want and presume they can bait you with a +10% salary increase but exact same inflexibility, toxic environment and management practices. Good luck with that.
Plus, interviewing and changing jobs in the tech world is a monumental effort, taking both time and a mental toll after several rounds of interviews with several companies, on top of your regular job, time that could have went into hobbies, dating, socializing, travelling, cooking, etc., so there's a lost opportunities cost associated with the job hunt.
I've been interviewing around for about 4 months so far, to hopefully change to a better , less stressful tech job, and I'm already completely exhausted from all the "complete our 20-questions, 6 page HR online form about yourself, before you can submit your application, because our time is more valuable than yours", "solve this week long take home test, and when you're done, we'll let you know that unfortunately this position has already been filled", "there will be several rounds of interviews after wich we'll just ghost you, because f*ck you", "you didn't sound passionate enough about our company's products in your cover letter", etc. And, apparently there's a labor shortage. Yeah ... right.
God, I'm so exhausted from all this, some days I just can't get out of bed anymore and sit there wishing I get hit by lightning, or die in my sleep and end my misery.
I'm glad you acknowledge it; with rising cost of living, housing prices, and (in my case) medical expenses (the part not covered by insurance, like physical therapy; we're still trying to get a diagnosis so it will be covered), I can't afford a 20% pay cut.
Even pre-pandemic, I rejected an offer from a company literally across the street from where I live, because their offer was >30% lower than what I was earning at the time. I just flat out told them I wouldn't be able to afford to live there - and I live in some of the cheapest houses in this area.
Yeah, there is a 'just change jobs' crowd who pop up in every conversation about working conditions.
There are switching costs which mean the employee often takes a hit on attempting to move. It's like buying a car, car doesn't work as advertised so someone says, "well stop whining and sell it, you're in market." Like yes, but also nope.
I'm starting to doubt this advice. I'm a "change it" sort of personality by nature - a reformer. When faced with these 3 options, I've chosen "change it" many times. And more often than not, I've found myself in a political crossfire, with new unwelcome knowledge of the various forces (typically some combination of self interest, ego, and turf-guarding) that are responsible for the thing I'm trying to change.
My current lesson is - most things that look like an easy win would have been claimed a long time ago if not for some unholy hidden mess. If I'm to vote for "change", I should be prepared to deal with the unholy mess. It doesn't matter that I don't see it, it's out there somewhere.
Since I rarely want to take on an unholy mess, and I'm not good at the kind of doublethink that would allow me to love a thing I'm not inclined to love, usually that just leaves one option.
> If I'm to vote for "change", I should be prepared to deal with the unholy mess. It doesn't matter that I don't see it, it's out there somewhere.
Yes. This is the old point about the Serenity 'prayer': grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference. Or, as soldiers say more succinctly, "Pick your battles".
I've slowly internalised this over the years. It also applies on a micro-level: when reviewing someone else's work, if something that isn't critical actually gets the job done, just go with it, unless there is an actual problem with an obvious solution that you can suggest. Don't complain just because something is done differently to how you would do it.
The point about Unknown Unknowns is also totally relevant. And cans-of-worms. You really must be very confident you are right before opening them.
"I'm a "change it" sort of personality by nature - a reformer."
One of the things I've learned is that authority is a real thing. If you don't have the authority to change something, don't try. You will fail, and it will do nothing but cost you. I've jousted with this many times, and it was a failure every time. (More technical type stuff, but the same holds for this sort of thing too.)
Authority doesn't have to be given from on high; there is also some distributed authority that arises from the unofficial de facto org chart that every organization has. I've managed to push some things through with that (and relevant amounts of consensus) when I was more careful to ensure I had the authority.
But if you don't have at least some authority, you will fail.
This comment is is, not ought. You are welcome to feel about it however you like. But when it comes time to determine your own actions, you should work in the space of is and not ought.
That doesn't mean the only option is to give up. One may attempt to acquire the authority. This can either be by direct appeal, or in some cases, through the long-term acquisition of authority called "respect". One may attempt to convince an existing authority to help with whatever your issue is. Though in this specific case if the problem is specifically fighting existing authority that may not help. There are other options.
But it is a total wishful thinking myth that if you're just smart enough and good enough and just take charge, by golly, you can get anything done! In fact, after a while, when you see someone and on day 3 you see them charging around just trying to change things, you start to see someone who isn't going to be there long.
(Now, I actually like fresh perspectives on my team and don't squash people if they have new ideas, but at the same time, I ask them to take a couple of weeks and be sure they fully understand the changes they are proposing before we consider their suggestions. The end result is better suggestions, and we have taken many of them. This is why I'm specific about it being "day 3"; on day 3, you may know enough to have identified a problem, but you don't know the solution yet.)
But if you can't acquire some authority somehow, your options are reduced to deal with it or leave it. There is no "just bull through and change things anyhow". The entire political structure built into our very genes will not permit it. You're fighting not just your current organization but millions of years of evolution. You will not win.
I think this is an excellent point. At the start of my career I would blithely assume that my authority was that which was formally given to me, in the official org chart. I'm still learning how to gauge how much real (formal plus unofficial) authority I have at a given moment, what it entitles me to do, and how to build it if I need to.
I guess this is what it looks like when a nerd learns how to do politics.
>If you don't have the authority to change something, don't try. You will fail, and it will do nothing but cost you.
My theory has been that you look for things people already want to do but can't, and try to enable them with the resources at hand. You can change things that you don't have formal authority for (possibly not for the better) by simply removing roadblocks.
I agree - from experience - but your assertion the easy wins are deceiving also reminds me of the joke about the economist who won't pick up a ten dollar bill in the street because in an efficient market someone else would have already got it.
Worse yet, IME, being a keen participant in HN's technical side almost precludes one's ability to overcome the other players, those who fight in the name of some combination of self interest, ego, and turf-guarding.
To vanquish these, in the name of The Right Way, one ultimately must engage them in social combat, whether by proxy or directly. And they're better at it than you are. Nerds may be clever, and they may actually be right, but the other players are usually more convincing. And I don't mean merely argumentatively.
Exactly. I was once tasked with replacing a piece of software. Enterprise software is such a mess, but I had 4 vendors before the downselect, and one was clearly the optimal choice both for price and performance. Presented it to upper mgmt and was asked to keep researching the options. Did this dog and pony show for another month until one of the sales engineers for the #1 vendor mentioned that my executive had a previous relationship (at another company) with the sales exec. A bad relationship. So my exec was never going to sign off on a sale that would benefit the sales exec, but he didn't want to come out and tell me outright. He simply wanted me to read between the lines and skew the evaluation in favor of the other candidates.
The "Schmoozer" class is full of this type of crap. I'm convinced that outside of a few unicorn companies, meritocracy is an illusion.
I hear ya--influencing change is indeed exhausting. I think the love and change aren't mutually exclusive, though it depends on we're defining it. For me, if I don't "love" a place, I won't care to change it. If I do love it, I'll put in the work, and I'll be pretty loud about it because if change doesn't happen relatively quickly, then there's no point in my sticking around.
I think you're missing the point. If you don't love it, then either change it or leave. It doesn't require doublethink to love something. If you get somewhere, and you don't love it, _then_ you're left with two choices. If you're unwilling/unable to go through a change process, or if you've selected a company that's bad at change, then yes, now you only have one option.
I read “change it” as encompassing any modification to the status quo short of quitting it altogether. So, yes. But so also would be writing a petition to reinstitute work from home as a “performance bonus” and getting it signed by as many other company bright-lights as possible. Lots of options.
I'm doing this, new company policies are half a week in office. I get there 2 days a month since December (4 days this month but I needed to met coworkers). I do get email from the management occasionally but I either ignore them or use a poor excuse 'i didn't feel well enough to take the train this week '. They know I'm able to find a new job so they don't have any leverage.
Reporting in, both as employer and targeted as employee through recruiting channels. Recruiters are in full swing and it is hard to find people with data/analytics skillsets. Developers seem similar. Knowing coding seems like foot in the door, modern applications have all kinds of disparate dependencies like k8s, docker, virtualization, Kafka, etc.
At least give it a try. I suspect based on join dates that I’m similar or older than the OP. The more senior you get, the more time it can take on a search, but with remote work, you should definitely be trying.
That said the dog has only one nail to deal with. Adult life means balancing rent / stability / safety / job. It's sad that manager never understand what people want to be happy for their company and so easily find ways to make us go into cynical mode (slow down and cope with side project).
Or, it’s that the dog does tell all his doggie friends about his predicament, but any time they’re about to give him actionable advice for solving the core problem, he cuts them off, more interested in emotional catharsis.
Ageism is real. After some point in time, it isn't so easy to hop jobs anymore while your current company still values you (even if they make mistakes). So you don't rock the boat until you don't need to job anymore.
In countries where it is very hot during the day, there is a cliché that people make the minimum effort necessary or even less.
The cliché is true during the hottest hours, but it fails to admit that it is simply because most activity moves to the twilight hours when the heat subsides.
When I was in Cairo for work, the amount of people flowing out of their homes at dusk was unreal. Areas that were literally dead an hour earlier, became bustling with humanity.
When I left, I thought it was so stupid to build these big offices near the desert and to pack them full of people working 9 to 5 with massive amounts of aircon, effectively imposing on them the Northern European way of life - folks have been inhabiting those areas for millennia, they know how to properly deal with the environment they live in, let them work at night instead and save all that energy.
After a few more minutes and another set of whines, the guy asks the barman “so why doesn’t he move?” And the barman says “it probably doesn’t hurt enough for him to get up.”