Hacker News Reader

Consulting is like running though: the minute you get tired and stop a minute or two, your velocity is gone - no more money coming in. A functioning business is more like a bicycle - it's not like you're just along for the ride, you have to work, but you can coast a little bit now and then. For instance, vacations. That's true for both bosses and employees.

I enjoy consulting too, but it leaves me with the feeling of not building or being part of something for the future... if that makes sense.

Hope you caught the Tom Rossi interview on Mixergy :)

Agreed. Awesome interview! Here's the link: http://mixergy.com/tom-rossi-molehill-interview/

Ah, but in your analogy, salaried employment would be like walking, since it moves you forward more slowly (in terms of money) and is more continuous.

If you're running, you can stop every once in a while, sometimes for long enough to get a cup of coffee, and still stay ahead of the guy who set off walking at the same time as you.

I'm not going to try and push the analogy too far, but in good jobs (I think they're rarer, but do exist), you can take vacations, get sick, and things like that. With consulting, the minute you're not working or hustling to find new gigs, you're not going anywhere.

Right, that's the good part about consulting, the honesty. The agreement is "Pay me roughly twice what you pay everybody else, and I'll deal with all the benefits stuff myself".

Also included in that price tag is the ability to be let go at any time for any reason. In an ironic way, that actually tips the terms further to the site of consulting, since the reality is that salaried employees will also be let go at any time when the company decides to do so.

So yeah, you have to save some money. Fortunately, they give you a lot extra so that you can.

I enjoy consulting too, but it leaves me with the feeling of not building or being part of something for the future... if that makes sense.

Here's how I'd fix that: start building a set of reusable components which you own the property to and license it to your contractees. If it gets useful enough and you need the money, you might even be able to start charging money for it. Think of whatever you're building as the platform of the future ;)

Worst part about consulting (for me) was having to be gone from my family so much -- and the lack of permanent friendships at work.

The part about not being able to slow down or you die? I actually like that part. Technology is always changing, and I like the fact that I'm constantly challenged to find real, solid value in what I'm learning or doing. Keeps me on my toes. Although I freely admit it's not for everybody.

I coast by taking as much time as I want between gigs.

I have family members who are "normal" -- they want a 9-5 job, long-term responsibilities and friendships, and they want to forget all about work when they punch out. The don't want things to change, and they want promises they can rely on for the future. They want somebody else to worry about things changing. I respect that. I'm just not that way. I tell folks that consulting has probably ruined me for life as far as ever being a useful company man.

I really get not wanting to do a 9-5, but on the other hand, the more I get long-term responsibilities of my own, like a child, the more I think trying to build a business of some kind is, long term, better than consulting, in terms of doing stuff on your own terms.

As you age, you get more experience, but are less able to pound out tons of code, and spend tons of time keeping up with the latest thing.

I think you've just accurately described why I'm on HN so much and why I've spent the last several years learning about startups instead of .NET 7.0

And also why I now help teams out instead of being the 18-hour code monkey. Still love coding, but you reach the natural limits of these things and have to move on. You also reach the point where you have to start thinking long-term instead of short-term.

EDIT: I'd add that I'd much rather be the guy who knows a dozen different languages and databases, has had experience in a lot of industries, and is used to working hard and saving, yadda yadda -- I'd rather be that guy looking to get into startups than the guy who took the 4-year degree, punched the clock everyday for years, trusted his company to take care of him, and is now wondering where his future went and whom to blame.

I think we pretty much agree: I think my writing is mostly to encourage younger people to think about building something rather than just going off into consulting.

I even had one government employee who had a high level job at a place we all know tell me "Look. This is easy. You do all the work. Solve all the hard problems. I'll take credit for it."

The only thing that is missing from this Don Draper-esque speech is the "That's what the money is for" line, as that's what consultants are supposed to do.

>It's a very simple and easily understandable deal.

This is also one of the big reasons I switched to consulting. I find it a more honest way to work. My career advancement is completely in my own hands and not tied to a specific company. There is no tit-for-maybe-possibly-someday-tat involved.

> There are a lot of implied or assumed promises in corporate full-time jobs

There is a lack of unions and labor laws.

bye karma.

I'm not one of the libertarian crowd, so what I say below is not just a knee-jerk response, and in any case I don't really wish to pursue these sorts of discussions (politics) here, because they end badly.

Suffice it to say though, that you can't summarize the problem and solution in "lack of unions and labor laws". Italy, where I reside, has both, especially the latter, and they are quite detrimental in many ways.

It's a complex issue with many factors, and likely has both regulatory, cultural and economic causes and solutions, some of which are easy to change and some that aren't.

There needs to be balance. God knows we don't have that in the U.S.A these days. But maybe we only have ourselves to blame.

My grandfather, with no education, came from Italy had 3 kids a stay at home wife and a home. I on the hand am very educated and skilled and can barely afford a two bedroom apartment.

Somethings changed.

The lack of unions is due to culture rather than labour laws.

I've spent a lot of time trying to convince IT people to start a voluntary union for their own benefit. In a word, they are too competitive and naieve to make it happen.

IT employees in general could double their average salaries without resorting to labour laws just by starting voluntary unions and doing a modicum of collective bargaining.

Instead they allow themselves to be divided and conquered and they even hide their salaries from co-workers which benefits no one aside from management.

Ideologically, I am against government-enforced unions.

However I am very much in favour of voluntary unions and there is lots of evidence that they can work especially when they behave in reasonable ways that don't threaten the existence of companies. Some corporations will prefer to hire from unions for a variety of reasons including less variability in work quality and higher morale.

Anyway collective bargaining does not have to be enforced in law to be effective.

The real issue is that the most talented and resourceful people in society tend to be the ones who become owners, and they use their talent and influence to convince IT employees that unions are bad.

The average programmer is stubbornly anti-union for no logical reason - the reason is that he's brainwashed by the strong opinions of industry leaders who don't want to pay him what he's worth.

I'm stubbornly anti-union for this reason:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=QpfonhAfJ6Q_2b96Izwz...

Chart 16 is a breakdown of salaries for StackOverflow users, nearly all of which are so low that a good developer should be insulted to be offered it. Where, on that chart, do you suppose the Union would decide to set my fair salary based on my experience in the trade? 60k? 80k? 100k?

No thanks. I'll stick to the free market.

1. A rising tide floats all boats.

2. Unions don't have to fit the rigid model you have in your head of the UAW. They can still allow for inequality of pay negotiated on an individual level, but after an initial negotiation on a collective level. Basically you can design the union to still pay higher performers what they are worth and pay low performers a lot less - but with everyone's salaries being increased relative to management.

> 2. Unions don't have to fit the rigid model you have in your head of the UAW.

Maybe not, but let's see some examples that have been significantly better for over 10 years. (And no, teachers unions aren't better.)

I agree that it isn't obvious that unions must necessarily be a disaster in the US, but that's a theory argument and you know what they say about theory and practice....

IMO american unions are a disaster because of government intervention.

In other countries there are successful unions in industries and contexts where the government plays little role.

> IMO american unions are a disaster because of government intervention.

Given that, would you recommend that programmers join unions in the US? If so, why?

Programmers should organize.

The precise form of organization can be grown organically to fit the situation, whether you call it a "union" or just as "association"

The point is that programmers should organize so that they can improve the pay and general standard of life of every programmer and so they can increase the quality and value of every programmers output and the esteem of the profession in general.

Programmers should treat their profession with the same seriousness that Doctors, Lawyers, Psychologists, Actuaries, etc treat their professions. They create professional bodies that stand up for their interests whether it is by lobbying, marketing, bargaining, etc.

> The precise form of organization can be grown organically to fit the situation, whether you call it a "union" or just as "association"

How is it that calling something an association will avoid the problems from being a union in the US?

> The point is that programmers should organize so that they can improve the pay

It's poor form to assume your conclusion.

You keep bringing up doctors and lawyers (and you misstate what their professional organizations actually do and overstate their influence), yet your goals for a "programmers association" are more akin to those of teachers unions.

I understand why you want to avoid the comparison with teachers unions, but the only legitmate way to do so is to stop pushing the same thing.

Saying "this will be different" isn't enough. Same means, same ends.

in brazil we have unions (sadly mandatory because of labor laws). it never had a single say on my salary.

but for professions abused by the industry, they did set up a minimum wage they would agree to accept, raising the overall pay among the entire profession.

and i have no idea what charts 16 does to help you point.

As a gag, years ago, I started a 'union' at a small software vendor/consultancy I worked at. Our first demand? Lower salaries.

I'm anti-union for a lot of good reasons. They cost money, the leadership is often corrupt, they will sacrifice a part for what they believe is the good of the whole, and they promote seniority over merit. I don't want to be part of another organization that I don't have the time or desire to take an active part in. Workers in our industry have enough skill to get good compensation and benefits.

I don't think there's been one situation in my career where an union would have helped me.

You are anti-most-current-unions but does that mean you are against the idea of a union? Unions have not always been such bloated top heavy pigs.

> Workers in our industry have enough skill > to get good compensation and benefits.

This is true but I've found that there is a lot of hidden costs to being a salaried employee, in the form of a lot of pressure to "get things done" so other people can benefit (make more sales). If you are part of a revunue sharing program then that's different, but revenue sharing doesn't seem to be that common.

It doesn't even have to be a union in the way you think of it.

It could just be an organization that exerts power on a wide scale without directly negotiating on behalf of the professional.

Look at the difference between Doctors associations, Lawyer associations, and computer science associations.

The most powerful medical authority is a collective body run by doctors, NOT run by the employers of doctors. This is because doctors as a collective have banded together and decided to take collective power.

Computer scientists on the other hand choose not to do this and so the powerful groups are run by corporate interests.

Who represents the voice of the collective programmer? No one really.

A body of software professionals similar to the AMA would raise salaries and provide many other benefits without having to directly negotiate on behalf of the employees.

One thing it could facilitate for instance would be scientific and wide-scale income information sharing which alone would raise the pay of every single software professional. It would level the playing field in negotiations and allow software professionals to capture more of their own productivity.

you have excellent points and i agree with every one of them.

i said unions AND labor laws. i also do not agree they should mix. but the former should try it's best to influence the later.