[7Figures2Commas]

> People bitch about how hard it is to find good developers and yet hire talented developers but put them in shitty positions.

Notwithstanding the fact that the GSD mentality is often nonsense that comes from folks who don't know what they're doing, I would make the point that a lot of software jobs are "shitty" in the context of what many expect to find when they decide to become a developer. And that's life.

Even at many of the biggest names in tech, a lot of developers are performing mundane tasks that are not nearly as interesting or sexy as one would imagine. If even the biggest companies in tech, which deal with some of the biggest problems, can't create more "good" positions than "shitty" ones, it shouldn't come as a surprise that smaller companies and startups can't either.

Incidentally, it's like this in just about every profession that is glamorized in some fashion (i.e. investment banking, law, etc.).

[jamra]

I'm not sure if performing mundane tasks is the same thing he's talking about. When you are prevented from doing your tasks because of a lack of support by your company and a lack of communication under the guise of "Getting things done", you are given accountability without responsibility i.e. You are punished for failure but not given the tools to make yourself succeed.

[jaegerpicker]

Exactly. Everyone has to write migrations or make new branches in source control or a million other mundane tasks that few actually like doing. I meant a shitty position as in a job that should be a great gig but isn't because you are constantly told "GET SHIT DONE!" without being told what type of shit you should be getting done. I'm completely able to make up my own shit to work on but don't bitch if my shit doesn't match your shit that was locked in you mind.

[jaegerpicker]

I completely get that but a shitty job at a cool competent company that communicates well is a world of difference away from what should be a great job at, what turns out to be a shitty company. In other words you can be treated like a valued employee or like a scapegoat. How shitty your tasks are usually have little to do with which end you land on that scale.

[AsymetricCom]

"That's life" what a load... no, that's a corporate job which doesn't give a shit about you. It's not really life.

The only reason people put up with it is because they're told "that's life" or "that's just how it is." when that's meaningless bullshit.

[7Figures2Commas]

You clearly glossed over my comment. I wrote:

"I would make the point that a lot of software jobs are "shitty" in the context of what many expect to find when they decide to become a developer. And that's life."

It is easy to develop unrealistic expectations and romanticized notions about a lot of things. That is life.

Tech companies aren't forcing employees to perform "mundane" tasks (fix bugs, refactor code, etc.) in air-conditioned offices in exchange for $xxx,xxx/year in salary plus benefits and perks the vast majority of American workers don't receive.

If you want something different, there are of course many other options. But here's an inconvenient truth: if you think running your own show (freelancing or building a business) is eight to twelve hours a day of fun and intellectual stimulation, you are probably going to be very disappointed when you're your own boss as well. If anything, "doing your own thing" is even more romanticized than working at Google, Facebook or [insert hot startup name here].

[AsymetricCom]

I agree with you but your conceptualization doesn't explain why people should put up with suffering just because they've seen suffering and are used to suffering. That's not logical. There's no reason to go in depth unless you can actually present an argument based on necessity or some kind of platform that would explain it other than "people put up with it".

[aidenn0]

How about "because you're being paid 6 figures to do it and you could be getting paid $25k for something a lot more shitty"

[keithnoizu]

Bah, it's a soul sucking reason. I quite my microsoft job to go bum around in SE asia while my SO finishes her TOEFL master degree. My startups annual revenue is only like 60k and I have two developers, an assistant, content guy and a designer on the payroll part time but I'll take my 100k less a year salary out here versus doing boring crap back at Microsoft any day.

[crucifiction]

Suffering? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[AsymetricCom]

Hur, I can suffer harder than you! I almost can't believe you want to one-up me on a race to hell.

[RyanZAG]

Major upvotes to you - ignore these other comments, you're entirely correct.

A lot of these mundane jobs do need to be done, but a lot of people enjoy stable mundane jobs. Leave these kinds of jobs to them, they will actually thank you for it. If you're more interesting in accomplishing something, there are far more jobs that really need someone with some skill to come and do them - or, more realistically, find them.

I agree completely in the terribleness and lack of will in a statement like "That's life". No it most certainly is not. Life is entirely what you make of it and we are a long, long way from being forced to perform mundane tasks. If you can handle the stress of doing something new instead of doing something mundane - the door is always right over there. Walk through it and find your own path.

[enko]

> A lot of these mundane jobs do need to be done, but a lot of people enjoy stable mundane jobs.

It took me way too long to accept this. I always thought those people just did not know better, or something.

I will never forget the QA department at a previous company and their ~200-step excel-based manual QA procedure. For me, that is basically a nightmare made reality. I tried to talk them into automating it, but they resisted that, almost angrily. They liked stepping through that 200-step spreadsheet.

I cannot understand it, at all, but I now accept it. People are different.

[marrs]

It could also be because they thought you were going automate them out of a job. People who aren't in the business of change don't like it as a general rule.

[enko]

I actually took some pains to assure them I was not trying to do that. I offered to teach them the techniques I would use, which would actually have increased their market value. They just would not have a word of it. About 6 months later we were all laid off when the company folded.

I now hire spreadsheet testers on odesk for $10/hr. Upskill when you have the chance or die.

[Megatronic]

I think you may be confusing two different types of people. The idea, to me, of making $xxx,xxx while working 40 easy hours a week (manytimes fewer) and spending the rest of my time with money for my hobbies and lifestyle sounds great; I feel like I'm beating the system. Mundane tasks are the price you pay for that. There may also be people want to press that button 200 times, but they're a different group.

[nostrademons]

Why would you expect a corporate job to give a shit about you? It's not a person (regardless of what the Supreme Court says...), it doesn't have feelings.

Your parents love you unconditionally. If you want anyone else to care about you, you have to make it happen through your actions.

[HarryHirsch]

Why would you expect a corporate job to give a shit about you?

Why would I expect the company to treat me decently? Why do I expect the company to treat me decently? It's because people do not only have rights, they have duties towards their fellow man, that's why!

This is a long-standing idea in German political thought - it's called Sozialpflichtigkeit des Eigentums, and it made its way into both the Weimar and present constitution. "Eigentum verpflichtet", it says there. Americans have a hard time understanding this.

[jimbokun]

"Americans have a hard time understanding this."

Because most of us don't speak German!

[ForHackernews]

> they have duties towards their fellow man, that's why!

That's exactly what he's saying. It's a company, not a person. You are not its "fellow man"--because it's not a man. It's a legal structure that exists to generate profit.

[nostrademons]

Yeah.

It's not unreasonable to expect your boss to treat you decently, at least if you treat her decently. She's a person, after all.

But the corporation as a whole? The corporation is a system. It responds to the environment around it. If it doesn't make the right response (as in one that maximizes its chance of survival), it is replaced by other corporations that do. That right response may be at odds with your interests as a person.

You, your boss, your boss's boss, and all your coworkers are part of that system. If they don't take the "right" action (as in, the one that maximizes their chance of survival within the organization), they will be replaced by others who do. If you feel you've been mistreated by this, your only option is to look for a different place in that system where you will be happier.

It's a two-way street. It's not just that people should refrain from treating you poorly, it's also that you shouldn't put yourself in a position where you will be treated poorly.

[chii]

The documentary "The Corporation" actually illustrates this point quite well. The psychological profile of a corporation is one of a sociopath, hell bent on making profit, at the disregard of all else.

Don't be loyal to a corporation, don't buy into propaganda about the well-being of the corporation == your well-being.

[keithpeter]

"It's a legal structure that exists to generate profit."

There just might be differences in the behaviour of an organisation that generates (and maximises) profit over the short term and one that generates profit over the long term.

The latter organisation may have to pay more attention to the 'social obligations of ownership' than the former, including the training and skill level of its workforce.

[raverbashing]

Here, I'll help you with that

Sozialpflichtigkeit des Eigentums can be roughly translated as "Social duty of property"

"Eigentum verpflichtet" is more or less "Property committed (to a duty)"

[zeroonetwothree]

Corporations don't make decisions, people do. In most jobs the people you work with and work for DO care about you.

[nsxwolf]

I've worked for corporations that treated me well.

[nostrademons]

I have too. In those cases, I treated the corporation well as well. Hence the "make it happen".

It's a two-way street, and when you're a faceless unknown dealing with a large entity, you usually have to make the first move.

[cnlwsu]

Same here. Although its true theres a lot of bad corporations out there, there are plenty of bad startups as well. People don't like to hear about great paying corporate jobs that treat you like human beings though.

[acron0]

This is a prime example of the attitude the author is warning against. This kind of anti-establishment ignorance comes from people with little clue as to how 99% of software is written...

[fleitz]

Which is why a small but vocal minority of us prefer not to work in overly structured corporate environments.

No one really fucking cares that the implementation of the design is pixel perfect, they care whether it moves the needle whether it matches the design or not.

Like anything there is an effective version of 'get shit done' and a cargo cult version, most are the cargo cult version where people are not actually empowered to make decisions.

99% of software is developed in shitty cargo cult conditions, half the world lives on less than $5 a day, I don't care to trend toward the average. If you want to hold up the average as something to strive toward knock yourself out.

[acron0]

There is never an effective version of 'get shit done'.

[f7t7ft7]

Or because of the pay and the stability.