[throwaway95837]

Tech skills are only one dimension of a multidimensional process that employers like me use to make decisions. I am here to offer contrarian advice that might be helpful to someone early in his career who might be a great programmer but may also be dismayed because he thinks the only path to a successful tech career is devoting your life to your job or going to an ivy league school and I am here to say that is not the case.

[mattschmulen]

I don't understand why (forgive me for the generalization) blue collar work ethic and blue collar loyalty are so often dismissed in the tech field. Some of the best advice I ever received was 'execute in the seat your in'. Sure there are higher order strategies to work out but grow into it and growth is around growing into the company, not just growing into your specific vertical profession. Kudos on your directness.

[bleachedsleet]

A few reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Anything that can be effectively described as "blue collar" will probably be replaced by automation within 3-10 years depending on the job. 2) Creative thinkers should be valued more highly in the tech field than those that can just follow orders blindly. Very few tech fields emulate an assembly line and the ability to think for yourself and develop an alternative solution is and should be highly valued. 3) Most people in the tech field, both employees and employers, are probably intellectual to a degree and free thinkers in and of themselves. So the cycle continues.

I'd also like to point out that this idea of a blue collar work ethic is somewhat flawed. There is not specific work ethic associated with the blue collar worker naturally; it's just a result of never having enough money for pleasure, so work becomes a part of the routine. The job doesn't matter as much when you're dirt poor as long as it's making money, and the risk of job loss is what you're describing as loyalty. This is really nothing more than a capitalist machine at its worst, not some utopic worker's attitude we should all aspire to.

[IndianAstronaut]

>Very few tech fields emulate an assembly line and the ability to think for yourself and develop an alternative solution is and should be highly valued

A lot of management hates this. Less skilled managers, just want a dev shop where they can build and assemble parts.

[dhimes]

It might have something to do with the business you're in. If you are b2b in certain areas, innovation isn't as highly valued as reliability. In fact it can be downright disruptive.

[lostboys67]

And the traditional "blue collar" jobs often have/had "Spanish" Practices designed to game the system - eg postal workers deliberately holding back first class post on a Friday to provide OT at the weekend - or doing a go slow in order to get a bung in a brown envelope.

[sunir]

That seems fatalist to me. The idea of a work ethic is to avoid fatalism and enjoy the present moment.

[bleachedsleet]

I think this is an idealistic view of what a work ethic is. This may be anecdotal, but I left home earlier than I should have and worked my fair share of "blue collar" jobs as a result and in none of these jobs were there people enjoying the present moment or describing any sense of loyalty to their jobs. They all hated their lives, hated their bosses and hated their jobs. Many could probably fit the description of a borderline alcoholic because that was the coping mechanism: Work all week, 9 to 5, then cut loose on the weekends until sloppy drunk and forget that you had to wake up and do it all over again Monday. And yet they were all "hard workers" with what may be described as a good work ethic. They cared because they had to...they needed the job and for them, anything better was a pipe dream. People in this position will literally fight each other for just a few extra hours of work...work that's shit and barely pays for a cup of coffee per hour. When you have the luxury of quitting, a strong work ethic should be valued higher because it shows an employee that genuinely takes pride in what they do. But when your life literally hangs in the balance of an extra shift a strong work ethic becomes instantly more selfish and less of an objective measurement of someone's capacity and instead is just a modern statistic on how far someone will go to survive. Most of these people are not noble altruists; they just lost their ambition when they realized their childhood dreams could never be accomplished and they've made the best of the situation. Working class heroes, indeed.

[varelse]

I can only respond with "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work" which is my favorite Edison quote. A 9 to 5 effort IMO will have disappointing 9 to 5 results. If you offset that with a fantastic personal life and a sensible retirement strategy, that's an epic win. If instead you squander that time on couch potatoing, you might want to rethink that outlook.

I wouldn't work for this guy, I want to work with people who are smarter than me and from whom I can learn new things. That said, he's right to not want someone like me, I get bored pretty quickly when I'm the smartest guy in the room so I try like hell to avoid that situation. But to each their own of course.

[mahyarm]

The plodders he wants are not well paid either. The people who tend to rise to the top of silicon valley companies tend to be like he describes, and tend to work many many hours.

[throwaway95837]

You don't have to be at the top of a silicon valley company to have a successful tech career. I wouldn't want that for myself. Too high stress, not enough free time. I think that people that rise into those roles truly enjoy the stress and challenges of such a position, and good for them, but it's not something I'd ever want for myself.

[platz]

what does the successful tech career that doesn't involve 'devoting your life to your job' look like?

How would is such a person define success for themselves, and how does your prescribed plan achieve that?

In other words, are you prescribing a plan that is beneficial for the company, but bad long-term for the employee, because they didn't grow enough by not 'devoting their life to their job'?