Just go home
medium.com
medium.com
Working for yousef can be difficult and fruitless. Working for a company can be more lucrative, more secure, and easier. The latter are worth being bored with your job to many people.
Benefits can almost always be compensated for with more money. 401(k), heath, dental, paid time off -- all of these things are just another form of compensation. If you make enough money to make up for what you would otherwise lose, then these are no longer a reason to stay with a company.
Security, on the other hand, is a bit different, but in a way can still be compensated for with money. For example, think about how long it would take you to get a job after your own company goes under. 6 months? A year? If you're able to stash enough of a buffer to cover you during that period, then you have just established security.
Of course, I realize it's easier said than done to earn enough of an income on the side to make up for the monetary value of all of these benefits/security. But my point is, comparing benefits, security, and compensation as separate things overcomplicates weighing working for a company vs. working for yourself -- it all (for the most part) boils down to money.
Whilst working in the financial industry throughout 2008-2010 I saw many of my colleagues let go for no reason other than that they were told to reduce head count. Many of them had worked there for 10 years.
Unless you're working for a government organisation or similar there is every chance that you will be let go at any time with your minimum notice period.
The thing is that some of these are worth much more than their transformation into a raw dollar value. As someone who has just recently transitioned from primarily self-employed to primarily corporately employed, the ability to take a day of PTO at basically any time has been amazing and no amount of raw dollars can compensate for that ability (except as these dollars are deployed to arrange affairs such that others can assume your responsiblities at the drop of a hat, but this takes more than raw dollars). I can also say that health insurance is worth more than its face value -- health insurance is an admission ticket into the doctor; if you have an insurance policy, they'll give you everything you want and treat you well, and if you don't, they'll demand large sums of cash on an almost-daily basis to continue to provide for your medical needs. If you have an astronomical amount of money maybe this isn't a concern, but most people not making double-digit millions per annum are going to find it difficult to cope with self-pay rules for any significant medical work.
>If you're able to stash enough of a buffer to cover you during that period, then you have just established security.
Security doesn't really work this way either. As an employee, you have an implicit sense of perpetual security. As long as you continue to provide the base value you were hired to provide, you will, in general, continue to collect your paycheck indefinitely. Getting paid in perpetuity is MUCH more secure and less stressful than watching your six months' worth of saved money tick down, especially if major or unexpected expenses occur.
Though I did well consulting full-time for the last five years or so, my wife and I were always worried when it came time to make big purchases and would often opt not to do so, since we'd never know for certain when our next chunk of money would come in. Since I've switched to employment by a corporate entity, we've felt much more comfortable making these necessary purchases and have been trying to clear our backlog of major stuff needed (appliances, vehicles, etc.).
It's more than just money. There's a peace of mind and freedom from stress that comes with corporate employment that can't necessarily be mapped onto an [attainable] dollar value.
Everyone wants to cross the chasm to independent wealth, but they don't understand that the process of doing so can be extremely onerous and stressful. As for me, I haven't given up yet, but it's not a pleasant experience.
I'll play the devil's advocate here: Wouldn't the raw dollar amount it costs to work a day compensate for that?
When you are self-employed, you employ yourself. Most if not all of the benefits that a company can provide to its employees, you can provide to yourself. Many of these benefits qualify as business deductions, and while some of them (such as medical insurance) might cost more when not purchased as part a group (company), that's not always the case. For instance, if you're young, in relatively good health and have reasonable earnings, a high-deductible health plan coupled with a health savings account might actually be more attractive than what you receive from the average employer.
In other areas, such as retirement, self-employment can be a boon. If you're a sole proprietor, for instance, you can set up a self-directed 401(k). Each year, you can contribute up to $17,500 as an elective deferral and up to 20% of your net self-employment income up to a total of $51,000 (at 2013 limits). So if you're doing brisk business as a freelancer, it can be very easy to save more than you ever likely would if you worked at a company and just took the 3-5% 401(k) match (assuming this is even offered).
Can working for a company be more lucrative, more secure, and easier for some people? Absolutely. But for others, working for yourself can be even more lucrative, even more secure and far more enjoyable.
If you're young, in relatively good health and have reasonable earnings, a high deductible health plan coupled with a health savings account might actually be more attractive than what you receive from the average employer.
In my experience, a high-deductible health care plan coupled with a health savings account is what you get from the average employer. All of my employers have at least offered the option of a high-deductible health care plan, and for a couple, it was the only option for new employees. At that point, the usual group vs. individual dynamics apply. A high-deductible group health care plan through a corporate employer will be cheaper than an individual high-deductible health care plan.
I pay under $275/month for a HDHP and the maximum I contribute to the HSA each year exceeds the deductible.
I don't know what a similar plan would cost through an employer, but all things being considered, including the fact the premiums are a deductible business expense and the HSA contribution is pre-tax (post SE tax), I have never once considered that an employer could offer me a significantly better package.
I agree that if you have a pre-existing condition then the numbers might look a lot different. But if you are healthy, working for yourself is a great opportunity, and you needn't be deterred by the cost of private health insurance.
I agree that this is most of what I find on Medium. I'm always surprised that things like this end up on the front page, although I guess people debate their value and that drives it up. However, I think this is a feature of Medium, not a bug. I use Medium. I don't promote anything I write on it, or really even revisit it that much. I use it mostly as a pretty, easy to use, journaling tool. I often find that writing out my thoughts leads me to interesting conclusions (really what PG talks about in The Age of the Essay [1]). Medium lets me do that easily, for free, and in a way that looks very good (kind of like a free PostHaven). Also, although it's not something I have been good about yet, I like the idea of revisiting posts and making notes with their system and reengaging with my thoughts. Maybe some day I will use it as a drafting tool, or use it to share my thoughts with people I respect and let them interact with it in an interesting way.
But since corporations pay by the hours you sit at your desk, and require you to sit at your desk, there arent too many options.
I've done 80% work weeks for about 6 years now, so I actually can afford to leave right after lunch if I feel like it since I don't have to pull some crazy 14 hour day next day.
A machine filled packages with various powders and them on a convoy belt.
If a package was to heayvy or to light another mechanism pushed of the belt intpo a little bay where I was postioned.
My job was correcting the packages weight and putting it back on the belt.
I often had shifts where I got 3(!) package in 8 hours and I had no other dutys, and I could not bring a book or anything else to kill the time.
In the inflexible environment, surfing net locations that were somewhat work related was the only thing I could do to pass by time when I knew I wasn't going to write quality code or when I was too mentally tired to accomplish the task that was at hand. I had many times where going home and returning in the morning was the best thing for trying to solve a difficult problem.
Unfortunately, many employers don't care and want to fit development staff into the typical 9-5 mold even if it means reduced productivity.
Managing people is more about trying to make things appear fair to everyone. Disgruntled employees are a great way to bring down the entire organization.
I agree with your second statement, but your first statement sounds too cynical. If this is what you're learning from the person managing you, I would encourage you to do what you can to move to a different manager.
Some people might consider that a luxury but I considered it a first-class ticket to depression. There's no paycheck large enough for me to sit in a seat all day and do nothing of value.
Also, if you actually do something, even if it's for example some mundane programming, at the end of the day you gain a sense of accomplishing something. Even though the job performed is to the benefit of your employer and you'd be theoretically "better off" (less effort) doing nothing, getting the job done instills some sense of purpose and accomplishment, which are good for emotional well-being.
Even if you're not in a reactive role like sales or support, it may be important to be around and available to interact with or be consulted by your colleagues. In large organisations, it's rare for people to work entirely in isolation. They're usually part of a team or wider group that collaborate. If some members of the team/group keep strange hours, that can lead to delays (e.g. a quick question could end up not being answered until the following day). This is one of the downsides of offshoring work to different timezones.
It's very easy and glib to say "If you're not being productive, just go home!" - and that may well be the right thing to do if you work for yourself - but keeping regular hours greases the wheels of large organisations.
Besides, there are alternative methods of clearing your head. Early in my career, I found that the solution to a tough technical problem would often come to me while I was having a cigarette. I realised that the act of stepping back from the problem was what allowed me to solve it. I don't smoke anymore but I frequently get up from my desk to go for a walk around the block, pick up a coffee or just go do a bit of window-shopping for half an hour. Then I come back to my desk, refreshed, productive and still available if my clients/colleagues need to speak with me.
Sometimes, I don't even need to leave my desk - I just do a bit of web-browsing and read some discussions on HN. :-)
Taking a short walk is great because it doesn't take much of your brain to walk, so you can collect your thoughts. As one person on HN said some months ago, he used to have to take longer walks but now even a 5 minute walk is enough to clear his head.
The worst part about this for me is that it is a small office of non-developers with a serious work ethic, so any time I step out during the day, I feel like they are looking at me like I think I'm an elitist doing whatever I want. So, I try to limit walks to times where I'm really frustrated.
Very good point.
> The worst part about this for me is that it is a small office of non-developers with a serious work ethic, so any time I step out during the day, I feel like they are looking at me like I think I'm an elitist doing whatever I want.
This is a tough one. Essentially, if you adopt working practises that maximise your productivity/output, you risk creating the impression that you are lazy. In an ideal world, either they would recognise that you need to work differently to them or their opinion wouldn't matter because the boss understands what you're doing.
It might be worth thinking about raising the subject in conversation. Sometimes getting things out in the open and discussing them is the best way of clearing the air.
I would also suggest thinking about what you can do to avoid giving them the impression that you're slacking off. For example, say you had a whiteboard next to your desk. Whenever you felt the urge the go for a walk, you could draw out the problem you're trying to solve first, look at it ponderously for half a minute, then go for a walk, come back, amend the drawing and sit down to code up the solution.
Okay, so it's largely theatre, but if it allows you to go clear your mind (and, therefore, be more productive) without giving your colleagues the impression that you're slacking off... shrug
A job is not about individuals in the workplace. It's about people contributing to an organization to make it better: asking for work when none seems to be available; helping co-workers; coming in early and staying late.
Whether you work for a large corporation or you run your own company, you'll have to think about your whole team, not just yourself, to succeed. And when you think about procrastination from a group-oriented standpoint, workers always cheat themselves by pretending to work.
I was with you up to that last part where you define a job as coming in early and staying late. The hours worked do not define success especially if people are doing the kinds of things the article mentions. I come in late, hit it hard until time to leave, sometimes checking work mail in the evening but do not attempt to tell me I"m not a good worker if I'm not in the office even more hours.
I can understand (and will happily agree to) working overtime when it's a) necessary b) compensated fairly and c) under the understanding that I'm changing my plans at the last minute. Everyone has emergencies, and I don't mind working a bit more to help out in one, but, in general, longer hours quickly means less productivity overall (at least for me).
Maybe for me, and for you? the answer is to work from home...
I completely agree with the writer (being self employed). I no longer use alarm clocks, I only work when I feel like doing so and I often leave my desk to do something else to clear my head. (I can't "go home" since my office is at home). In the end, I am much more productive than I used to be when I was working for a boss. My work is also of much higher quality and I enjoy it a lot more.
While I agree that the nature of knowledge-based work is hindered by industrial-era work processes it is the nature of the beast that most organizations that can provide the safety net people need to raise families are not letting go of the past.
As with "please take a nap if you need one", another policy that would benefit the bottom line, I believe the usual absence of this policy is more about managerial "control theater" than about actually getting paying work done.
But productivity is a harder thing to measure-far harder than just tracking hours.
I use all caps and bold letters a lot.
"I no longer have to sit at my desk pretending to complete tasks, as the only person I am cheating is myself."