Going by the ££ signs I'm assuming you can get a job in London, where you can make >£200k total compensation as a good software engineer.
If you're just talking side gigs be really clear this doesn't interfere with your own job performance. The first target you hit because of your "side gig" will be your downward spiral.
Now .. running your own business is another option. For me I encourage my staff to have "side gig" of their own business, but will not sign off on them contracting on the side.
One is a valuable option where you learn new skills - the other is...
Imagine believing that you have the right to "sign off" on what your employees do in their free time provided they're not directly competing with you.
You can care about your team member's welfare and support them 100%, but part of that support should be defining the rules of play so that all parties know what the agreement is.
If they stop delivering, you do what you do if they stop delivering. Coaching, performance discussions, reassignment/termination. Whether it's because of a side gig or not is irrelevant.
If they get sick more often, you...? What would you do normally? Hopefully the answer is "support them." If this is cover for "they're saying they are sick but I think they're just working on their side gig" then refer to #1 but you better be right about it.
> You can care about your team member's welfare and support them 100%, but part of that support should be defining the rules of play so that all parties know what the agreement is.
I agree with this 100%. The agreement is that they're paid a full-time salary for full-time work (whatever that means whether it's ass-in-seat for 40 hours, or WFH or whatever). Whatever they do outside of that time isn't the company's business unless they're directly competing with them.
So if you have a side gig that matches your day job and your work output is covered by copyright: yes, you need your employer's sign-off.
> if you have a side gig that matches your day job
Well this is competition, isn't it? That's completely different.
I'm not clear on how that works. Could you provide an example?
My day job is very demanding, but my leadership team are aware, and the HR folks at my employer have documentation that supports me having a side business, and so if I say things like "I have to go the bank/lawyer stuff for my business", no one bats an eye as long as I am hitting my targets for the day job.
The expectation is that I will largely be available and focused on my day job during the 9-5, and where needed, provide support on escalations/on-call.
If I started taking on consulting contracts or was regularly juggling contracting or side-job related tasks against my day job, then it wouldn't be a good fit for delivering on that 9-5.
Why not start your own business? The upside is much better. Yeah, it might fail, but you can decide to start another one what you learned.
I'm happy in my day job; it's secure, I'm paid well and I get a lot of time with my family. Starting my own business would put family time in jeopardy which isn't an option, especially as I'd have to give up my main income.
But, perhaps not unsurprisingly, there really isn't a general source for short side gigs paying a few hundred dollars an hour--especially for asynchronous tasks you can do nights or weekends.
That said, be cautious about conflicts. If you work for a mega corp like a hyperscaler it is going to be very hard to avoid the appearance of conflict.
For instance, I have been working on a product in my spare time and I don't want to finance it through loans or giving up equity. Having £200k job (only £9,500 net per month) would get me closer to get the required tools, inventory, securing a rent for the workshop and storage, but that still not really too much money for that kind of endeavour. Unfortunately I am coming from a poor working class and I don't have a rich daddy to fund my start up, yet when people learn how much I earn they think I am rich, but reality is that kind of money is not enough to make anything sensible with it (you still have to save for years and live modestly), but people think it's the level of private jets and heated pool in a large back garden of a mansion.
Does it really matter? I'm on £200k gross in the UK, outside London ... but i'm not done climbing that mountain. Of course £200k is "enough" for anyone, but that doesn't mean you can't aim higher.
Ambition should be celebrated
I might agree with this depending on what the specific goal is. But why should ambition be generally celebrated?
There is certainly ambition that has brought about improvement in life. There has also been ambition applied to the wrong ends or failing that has brought suffering. I'm not sold on the idea that the goal of continually increasing comp above an already luxurious level is meaningful or worth a third party celebrating. I especially feel this way about our industry where comp seems detached from the contributions are not easily attributed/calculated.
With the caveat that no small number of companies are not OK with that if it could be perceived as competitive in any way.
I suppose I'm in the camp that finds it skeptical that it would be much benefit at that level. I might also view it as a negative to society as that gig could go to someone who needs it more. Granted we would then be admiring the ambition of the lower earner, which brings me back to me saying that the specifics matter more than generally celebrating ambition.
Based on the struggle to hire qualified candidates, it seems this is an unrealistic view. Also, there is a difference between someone having a single job, and someone double dipping.
Personally (and more selfishly), I tried to raise my salary to be able to afford not working for extended periods of time.
Working with “ambition” could result in more stresses that counteract this gain. Hard to say.
Also possible that the gain would disappear outside of a culture that places so much value on jobs and wealth.
1: https://crr.bc.edu/briefs/do-men-who-work-longer-live-longer...
Edit: To be clear the repayments on a £1m mortgage would "only" be like £60k a year, you only need £>200k to initially buy the place.
1. It's about the money, because you never know when you may have a 5-10 year underproductive period due to health/other unforeseen emergency.
2. It's not about the money, it's about the experience/knowledge gained/distraction/self-worth of accomplishing more.
To me, a side gig means accomplishing more of what someone else wants, with the trade-off of being less able to accomplish (or learn about, or distract yourself with) what you want. Which seems like an odd thing to want unless you need the money. I suppose for some people having a £200k income and not needing the money seem less synonymous than they do to me.
See: John Carmack at FB.
The money outcome isn't a zero-sum game. If someone works more, they can put that towards their children's education fund, retirement or other investments, or anything else at all.
Only if you mean skill growth and self improvement.
But pure greed - no, we have more than enough of that.
That will help me become a better axe murderer since people are less likely to see me. Still wanna celebrate my skill growth?
Every ethical dollar earned is a byproduct of value creation. Maybe you meant something more like "as long as he's not ripping off his customers," but otherwise that's an odd thing to say in response to someone who makes good money but is still looking for side jobs.
Personally, the way I see it, the more money goes to wages, the better, and if that's because some guy is earning millions a year, I still think it's good.
Income from people starting new companies, that's fine too. What's bad is rent extraction, ossification, monopolies and private institutions that have power over people.
That said, I would suggest that at that level of comp, maybe just use the extra time for your own enjoyment - hobby, relaxing, FOSS personal project, etc.
For engineers based in the UK that are shocked by this number I'd recommend reading this [0] article. It's about compensation in the Netherlands but the same principle holds for the UK.
[0] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala...
FTFY.
And considering the way the economy is going (at least in the West), it's probably smart to work a side gig and make as much money as you can, while you can, because work is going to dry up soon.
I am surprised by this. You can check levels.fyi to target the right companies. I guarantee you 100% that you can easily make > 230k base outside FANG for a remote position.
Really? I don't personally know anyone making that much. My mother is a software engineer with an additional 20 years of experience on me and has never made that much (currently makes less than me, in fact).
Been wanting to transition into another role. Not sure what exactly but within software development.
Can I send you an email?
I found it really hard to find jobs that pay anywhere close to US salaries in EU. Unless things are very different now, I would plan to move to US to make 'that kind of money'.
US has its benefits, but I would consider age as a factor ( if you are younger, you may be able to worry less about insurance and whatnot ).