[jswiente]

"You will have stability. If you are hired by Oracle or Google [...] chances are you'll be able to work on this specific problem for long enough to accomplish something."

Large companies change all the time. Departments are merged, strategies are changed and projects are stopped constantly. I think this point isn't valid.

[gaius]

A couple of years ago I failed every objective set by my manager in my annual appraisal. Why? Because all the projects I was on at the time didn't exist a year later...

[maigret]

Then you should have readjusted your goals together with your manager (or new manager if you switched departments), or am I missing something?

[gaius]

The point is to illustrate that even in big companies, stability is an illusion.

It was fine, actually, since my manager knew the score. The HR software we are forced to use only lets you set a person's goals once a year, and then you (the manager) confirm if they reached them or not, then it calculates their bonus. So that's fucking stupid, but he just ticked them anyway, who's to know?

[pestaa]

Engineers aren't fired just because a project is cancelled. Generally speaking jobs are safer than startups.

I agree the point isn't valid, though, but I think yours isn't, either.

[jswiente]

Sure, but job safety is another issue. The argument in question was that you have a more stable environment in a large company regarding the topics you are working on. In my opinion, this isn't the case. Think of the engineers working on Google Wave or discontinued Sun technologies.

[j_baker]

The argument was that you would probably work on something "long enough to accomplish something", and that's true. I mean, the Google Wave team did accomplish something. That isn't always true at a startup. Many times, you get hired to work on something that you never complete because you're constantly diverted to go put out fires elsewhere.

[Tangurena]

I work at one of the national labs. Almost everyone on my floor is an ME (I'm an EE, but I'm writing code). The majority party in this Congress hates what we do (renewable energy) and thus it is extremely likely that a large part of our budget will get cut next fiscal year. So in our case, lots of engineers will get fired when our projects get canceled. Partisan bickering might not get a budget passed before the fiscal year starts (October 1), but I'm saving money and paying off debts, just in case.

[robryan]

Sounds like NASA, constantly in limbo because of political disagreement. What's the public line though on wanting to cut money from renewable energy, one of the targeted for being "more efficient" in funding?

[pestaa]

I agree not all engineers have long-term contracts, but the water is not that deep at software corporations.

[bufordtwain]

It depends on the financial stability of the company in question. If the company, large or small, isn't making a healthy profit, your job is at risk.

[j_baker]

Chances are better that the large company is making a healthy profit though. To be sure, this is not true all the time (look at yahoo). However, I think it's fair to say that in general, your job is more secure at a big company than it will be at a small company.

[gruseom]

"Stability" in the quote doesn't refer to job security, but being able to work on a project long enough to accomplish results. The point that projects get canceled or changed all the time in large companies is entirely valid.

[pestaa]

For a completely technical-minded person who is responsible only for algorithms, and not keen on customer support and such, might not burn out due to a movement among departments.

[dkersten]

Recessions hit and large companies downsize...

[yannickt]

Recessions are built over a relatively long period of time (at least longer than your average engineer stays at one job). So by the time a recession hits, a good engineer at a large company should have accomplished something of significance.

The author's argument is not that chaos doesn't exist in large companies, just that it is far more frequent at a startup.