[drekipus]

The issue is they want to maximise Y.

If you're working for someone else, it is by definition meaning that Y has plenty of room in it and can be done better.

They could replace the worker with anyone else that has the same skill as them, but who would put all effort into Y, and effectively double the rate of production for not much change.

It's even better than that, because they now have one big lever to tweak the workload. Some weeks it might be 1.5Y, other times it's 2.1Y, software engineering definitely has its good and bad periods, week-by-week.

If the person who works two jobs isn't replaced, not only do we have less work done than what's possible, but they can also burn out easier.

And we can't change what their other work is telling them to do.

If an engineer is burning out or need a break, there's only so much could be done (other than stopping work altogether.. but again, why? For another company to burn out our employees?) - there's a lot less wiggle room in 1Y than 2Y.

(Note: I said "we" from pov of manager but I am not one, I'm just an engineer, and I thought about the two job question for quite a while, but determined that it's definitely not worth my time. I get more fulfilment from doing my own things.)

[ManlyBread]

>If you're working for someone else, it is by definition meaning that Y has plenty of room in it and can be done better.

And why would I care about that as an employee? It's the employer's problem to use my time effectively, not mine. It is ridiculous to assume I should have interest in helping you make me work harder for the same amount of pay.

>They could replace the worker with anyone else that has the same skill as them, but who would put all effort into Y, and effectively double the rate of production for not much change.

So there's this pool of magical workers who can do twice the amount of work for the same salary as the current employee and yet the company is not utilizing this opportunity at all? This scenario makes no sense, if it was possible to do then the company should already be doing it regardless of whether someone has a second job or not.

[drekipus]

> And why would I care about that as an employee?

You don't, the company cares. And whether or not you're a part of that company affects how much you care.

> It is ridiculous to assume I should have interest in helping you make me work harder for the same amount of pay.

You are making yourself work harder. Not the company.

I guess we're having a miscommunication here because you're thinking in terms of "value of labour" and all that cruft.

> So there's this pool of magical workers who can do twice the amount of work for the same salary as the current employee ...

We have people on our team who don't know what CSV files are, and who spend 3 or 4 days on typing out things from spreadsheets, rather than using copy paste. Labour is not inherently valuable for the sake of labour.

The value from a software engineer isn't from hours worked. It's the quality of the result. Man is more than machine.

As long as you can produce twice as much quality software from two companies, then there's no issue with moonlighting a job.

But I'm saying that you're painting yourself into a corner, because now you have to negotiate and do all the "non-labour-related" BS twice as much, and I would argue that the quality of your output degrades, not improves.

It would be more effective to double your money with the current employer as it gives you and them (and you) more space, vacation, room to slow down and speed up when you need, etc.

[bheadmaster]

> The issue is they want to maximise Y.

Exactly - they want to maximize Y while keeping X constant.

[drekipus]

I think most places will give you more money if it's a reliably true way to get more work done.

That's always been my experience anyway.

You can't blame people for wanting to conserve money, especially against unknowns.