[jonnathanson]

I think we've fully transitioned from the old world, wherein we built our careers around a given company. These days we have to build our careers around skill sets, or industry circles, or knowledge bases. Essentially, the 40-year investment is no longer in Company X, but in Company Me.

This is not necessarily our choice. But the economy and the job market are a lot more fluid -- sometimes for good, sometimes for bad -- than they were in the past. Even if someone wanted to settle into one company for the long haul, that's not only unlikely, but perhaps even highly improbable. The company itself is likely to be changing and reorganizing at a pace as constant and rapid as its market.

The old tradeoff between BigCorp and Startups used to be that Startups were riskier and more exciting, whereas BigCorp was slower, a bit more boring, but highly stable. The stability has fallen out of that equation to a large degree. These days it's a choice between relative degrees of comfort and risk, rather than absolute degrees thereof.

Again, much of this is market driven. There are startlingly few companies, big or small, that look anything like what they did five or ten years ago. It's a safe bet that they won't look the way they do today in another five or ten years. Some people thrive in this sort of environment, and those people would probably call it "dynamic." Others hate it, and they'd call it "unstable." Both would probably have to admit, one way or the other, that it's not as easy.

[AnthonyMouse]

>Again, much of this is market driven.

Agree with this. Which is really the problem with this (from the original post):

>Working people to death to ship any one feature or product is a poor strategy, as it reduces the capacity to ship the next feature or product (burn out, build-up of bad rush practices).

Doing things like that is bad if you intend to still exist in 10 years, unless doing them is necessary in order to still exist in 10 years. Because if you spend the extra time to get it right, and your competitor ships the minute it compiles, by the time your product is on the market a huge chunk of your prospective customers are already locked into a competing ecosystem.

"Take your time and do it right" is Big Company Thinking, because big companies can afford to take a hit in a nascent business unit for a year or two in order to more than gain it back a decade down the road. If you're a startup, you often can't afford it -- even assuming your competitors don't beat you to market, "take your time and do it right" can easily cause you to run out of investment capital before the product is finished.

I don't mean to imply that this is actually a good thing, just point out that these are the incentive structures we're dealing with. Highly competitive markets have a lot going for them, but stability and long-term planning are not among them.

I kind of want to blame the antitrust laws, actually, for being such a catastrophic failure in every direction. On the one hand we have natural monopoly telecommunications companies abusing their control over radio spectrum into control over mobile computing devices and control over last mile wireline service into control over content delivery (classic tying arrangement in both cases), with nary a peep from the antitrust authorities.

On the other hand, we have the things that antitrust nominally does prohibit causing the market to run in the opposite direction from the efficient characteristics of monopolistic markets (i.e. non-duplication of effort). When we have multiple startups working on the same general idea, the natural thing for them to do is to get together into a single unified organization and pool their efforts, but we make that illegal. So then they execute the classic race to the bottom where everyone cuts corners and works unsustainable hours just because the first mover gets the whole pie and so nothing is sacred if it can provide a meaningful competitive advantage.

I think we need to rethink this whole mess. The shadow of antitrust regulation and the possibility of it being enforced is resulting in all of this widespread inefficiency while the almost complete lack of actual antitrust enforcement against anyone who deserves it is not even providing the supposed benefits that all of that inefficiency is supposed to be buying us.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that we don't need something like antitrust -- we can't have AT&T and Microsoft and whatever oligopolies exist in whatever arbitrary industries turning into de facto unaccountable private governing bodies, which is exactly what would happen with nothing (and has happened to greater and lesser extents already), but what we have just isn't doing the job.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any suggestions.

[jbail]

"Take your time and do it right" is Big Company Thinking

You'd be surprised.

My experience with Big Companies is that it's done "the wrong way" far more often than at the startups I've worked for.

The reasons for this are many, but none of them have anything to do with being able to afford it. You still have deadlines and managers who want stuff finished yesterday. More crucial than that, in my experience, Big Companies have far less capable talent as well as projects that have been marred by outsourcing adventures.

Again, only my experience, but I thought I'd share since it runs counter to yours.

[AnthonyMouse]

After I posted that I had seriously considered editing it to add the qualifier that it only applies to good big companies. Because the same stability and economies of scale that allow long-term investments and future proofing will under the wrong management instead provide a ready environment for inefficiency, laziness and incompetence to continue to exist for a long period of time without bankrupting the company.

[alexqgb]

In big companies, the idea that "there's no time to do it right" is often paired with the understanding that there's time to do it again, even if this rarely happens in practice.

Not having a runway or a burn rate to manage does a lot to increase the amount of "we'll just fix it later" thinking. Startups deal with technical debt as well, but there's a difference when it comes from a focus to get one thing absolutely right as opposed to a lack of interest in getting anything really right.

[trotsky]

I've never once heard the spectre of anti-trust enforcement cited as a strike against proposed M&A activity at any startup I've worked at. In fact such worries would be directly laughed at - I've never seen regulator interest in anything close to startup land. Consider facebook + instagram as an example of how far away you can get from really being startups yet not even broach the question of regulator review.

The main thing that seem to prevent similarly focused startups from joining together is a winner take all mentality in tech investors that discourages any kind of activity that's not winner/loser based or at least big fish/small fish based. The high valuations and the even higher expectations of investors make it very hard for series A or B round company A to absorb another company of that size. The lack of debt financing options in the valley doesn't help matters either.

When it comes down to it, a significant portion of your board is just going to be opposed to providing a "winning" class exit to any of your existing competitors unless they're primarily financed by the same people.

[AnthonyMouse]

I think you may be ignoring the shadow that long-standing laws cast on culture and practice.

The benefit from merging to monopoly is that you can avoid all the negative pressures that come from extreme competition. You can work 40 hours a week and not cut corners without worrying that someone who does will beat you to market. But that only works if you merge to monopoly -- two competitors merging when there are still five others doesn't get you that. And even if there are only two competitors at present, having them merge doesn't preclude the possibility that some others will spring up as soon as the ability to charge monopoly/oligopoly prices is on the table (which is why the antitrust authorities may not bother you in that case).

To get the benefit (and thus make it worth doing at all), you have to know that you can keep doing it -- that if another competitor shows up with the credible threat of breaking your monopoly, you can merge with them too. And if you can charge monopoly rents then that is exactly what would happen: Anyone qualified and willing to pose a credible competitive threat will threaten to enter the market and then it will become worth it for you to buy them out because retaining the ability to charge monopoly prices and continue working "only" 40 hour weeks is worth having to share the market, provided there are a sufficiently small finite number of such qualified people who would have to be cut in.

But you aren't guaranteed to be able to keep doing that without inviting antitrust scrutiny, especially after you become established. And if you can't be sure regulators will allow you to do it as many times as necessary then there is no incentive to start because the benefits only accrue as long as you can hold the monopoly.

[mniejiki]

Except you were talking about startups originally, don't change the scenario when someone points out flaws. Startups don't have the power or money to enforce a monopoly.

More than that, you're ignoring the reality of a merger which would be a lot of corporate politics ending up with most of the originals founders getting kicked out. The handful who played the game the best will end up getting the whole pie.

[AnthonyMouse]

>Except you were talking about startups originally, don't change the scenario when someone points out flaws. Startups don't have the power or money to enforce a monopoly.

Where did I stop talking about startups? All the participants, including startups, that compete for the same market would have the incentive to merge or collude, but only if they can ensure that no one defects or fails to join, because the first defector breaks the monopoly (especially in software where there is effectively infinite reproduction capacity). And they (startups included) could reliably do that with contracts and buyouts if it wasn't illegal, in any market with sufficiently few qualified participants. But it is illegal, which is why even startups don't -- not because it will necessarily be enforced against the startup during the first merger, but because they know that if it works and they ultimately achieve the end goal of a monopoly or cartel, that is what will raise antitrust scrutiny. So we don't start down that road because we know where it currently goes.

Also, I never intended to limit what I'm talking about to startups: I used a startup as an example, but this applies generally. Non-startup small businesses could benefit from working together in similar ways. (As could large businesses, though that quickly becomes the exemplification of why we don't allow it -- again, we still need something to address that.)

And I would also point out that trotsky started talking about mergers so I wrote to address that, but collusion would probably be easier and more manageable, especially if it could be legally enforced between business entities through contracts.

>More than that, you're ignoring the reality of a merger which would be a lot of corporate politics ending up with most of the originals founders getting kicked out. The handful who played the game the best will end up getting the whole pie.

How, if they all have to continue colluding in order for it to work? If you have unhappy former competitors they can quickly become happy future competitors. The only deal that works is the one that makes all the former competitors better off than they would have been otherwise. That might involve some of them not being involved in the operations anymore, but they would still get a piece of the pie.

[gbog]

"Take your time and do it right"

More often than not this means thinking about it a couple of hours more, and results in much faster development the next week, so for me the correct answer, even for start-ups, is " we can't afford doing it wrong"

[AnthonyMouse]

>More often than not this means thinking about it a couple of hours more, and results in much faster development the next week, so for me the correct answer, even for start-ups, is " we can't afford doing it wrong"

Sometimes, sure. Doing it right is always worth it if you have the time -- and if all it takes is a couple of hours then you almost always have the time. But sometimes doing it right means doing it over, because circumstances have chanced since you started, or there is a third party framework you can use which is clearly a bad fit for your application but the only alternative is to write your own from scratch. Then you're not talking about a few hours anymore, you're talking about a few months. Which you may or may not have.

[chrismarlow9]

It makes more sense to search out the company that fits you as opposed to bending and molding yourself to fit in company X.

Not everyone can afford this luxury to just hop from job to job, but if you're top 5 at anything, and I mean ANYTHING, someone is probably looking to hire you and pay you well (even something as meaningless as building models out of toothpicks). My advice to my kids will be to find what you're naturally best at and push it to the max. No matter what it is or how much you may think "this wont pay", there's someone out there that will pay you well for it.

Anyways, just an expansion and rant to follow your comment. Thanks for sparking this train of thought in my head. Upvote..

[jonnathanson]

"if you're top 5 at anything, and I mean ANYTHING, someone is probably looking to hire you and pay you well (even something as meaningless as building models out of toothpicks)."

I've definitely seen this effect in action (not personally, per se, but with peers) -- though it can also be fairly dangerous. For instance, a lot of big companies outside of the high tech industry will gladly fork over truckloads of cash -- I mean that almost literally -- to poach top talent from the tech world. Problem is, once you get there, you're kind of stuck. And you're working with people who have no real clue what you do all day, even if they ostensibly hired you to fill a very real knowledge/skill gap. ("I'll let my results do the talking," you might think, but long before you get to the results, you've got to wage daily battle with politics and ill-advised changes in scope or direction).

I guess the point is: skill arbitrage can be a very powerful factor in career growth, but it can also be a double edged sword. I think one needs to choose whether to make this -- almost a form of internal consulting -- a career in its own right. Pick an industry to focus in, or pick a skill set to focus in. Both can be equally valid and equally lucrative choices. But there's less fluidity between the two paths than you might expect.

I guess this doesn't apply so much if one is truly a recognized, top-5 expert in his or her given field -- and by truly, I mean this person keynotes national conferences on the subject, or has published a bestseller, or gets board invitations, or regularly books consulting gigs at an amortized hourly rate that would make a managing partner at a giant lawfirm gasp.

[codegeek]

"the 40-year investment is no longer in Company X, but in Company Me."

Upvoted for this. If everyone understands this well, they will surely be more happy in the long run.

[davidw]

I wonder if perhaps it's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way some. I mean, I'm pretty happy doing my own thing, but there are plenty of people who just want to have some security in life, and in a world where there's little of that, a company that provides some might be able to attract people. Maybe not in an industry like ours, but who knows... just a random thought.

[nathan_long]

To me, "job security" means having marketable skills. It means I don't depend on a single company. It does not mean I trust that my company will take care of me.

This is easy to say as a software developer because of the nature of our industry. Niche jobs are probably different, but a smart worker would recognize such a job as a personal risk ("if this company tanks, I have no marketable skills") and require more compensation in exchange for assuming that risk.

[codegeek]

Definitely. "Investing in me" should not just be about doing your own thing necessarily. For me, it is more about "looking out for self interest". If a company provides the things I want in a good way, nothing wrong staying with it for the long haul i guess.

[opminion]

That's what having a job means to most people in southern Europe. Everything that falls short of that, which are most jobs nowadays, is considered negative.

That's one reason why many people think it is normal that one of the roles of the state is to be a main provider of jobs.

Not saying that's good or bad, just what the general feeling is, which is very difficult to understand if your baseline is pure capitalism.

[davidw]

Yeah, I was talking more about the US. Here in Italy, I think people still need to get more used to not having jobs for life.

[001sky]

But the economy and the job market are a lot more fluid

-- And also management internally.

They are are surely related, but ultimately its almost always a people problem, in the sense that a manager is replaced or layered (or perhaps politically ostracised in some machivellian way). Then the employee is asking himself if he is throwing good money after bad, in a landscape where no wager--no matter how astute--will ever pay off.