[strlen]

The problem I had with this article is that while it covers the case of people who are "losers" monetarily but have meaning outside of work (Pam, Angela) it doesn't cover the case of people who find that meaning in their work ; the latter category includes most good scientists and engineers and many business professionals as well.

That being said, the engineer position is also fairly privileged: the pay of a Silicon Valley engineer -- even if you take into account the standard of living (provided you live in a part of Bay Area that's comparable to most suburbs e.g. San Jose, rather than a hip part of SOMA) -- is more than middle management in most other parts of the country. The starting salary for a software engineer out of college can be as high as $75,000-$95,000. They can live a very comfortable lifestyle, where additional money (outside of "fuck you money") just brings diminished returns. This isn't true for many scientists (postdocs generally make a pittance).

[turtle4]

I think you're getting out of scope. This isn't a 'life' theory, it is a 'business/management' theory. In terms of business/management, those scientists/engineers are losers. They will never rise to the top, and are destined to work for people less skilled them themselves.

Note that there isn't anything -wrong- with that. As you say, there may be reasons they do that, whether it is derived pleasure, or something else, but because they aren't actively gaming the 'ladder', they aren't going to move up it, and thus will always be losers.

I think this article works better, if you don't call them losers, and instead call them exploited, because there is such a strongly negative connotation associated with the term loser that it is hard to get past. The author is really saying that bottom layer is exploited (not compensated sufficiently).