It seems 99.999% or more are as lucky, but because something is rare and scary - it made a story on the news.
37 karma · joined February 3, 2016
Private sector: + 687,000
Government sector: – 319,000
Total: + 181,000
---
The government sector doesn't produce virtually anything that counts toward GDP, so GDP growth relates not to 181k of total employment growth but to 687k of private-sector growth. So, no, this is not about eliminating jobs and a few people getting rich. It is about statistcs, and lying to force the agenda.
1. I will take five automated CEOs. If I can split my company into five distinct companies (one per product), it would be amazing. We are splitting the company into two to streamline focus on different/incompatible industries, and I am dreading the process of finding another CEO. It is very, very hard.
2. I know a lot of CEOs. It helps. I didn't know a single one when I started. It is no more a cult than my programmer's peer group was.
3. Did I tell you how hard it is to find a good CEO? It is VERY, VERY hard. Think of hiring a great product guy with agency to do whatever needs to be done, with people skills to attract talent, a sales drive, and a willingness to deal with finance & legal. Oh, and I am in the tech field, so I need him to be very hardcore technical. Your mileage might vary, but this is who I need. Anyone who has that is running their own companies. Oh, and the person has to have a proven track record. I cannot let someone unproven ruin the company and well-being of hundreds of employees and tens of thousands of customers.
4. I don't believe CEOs are special in any way other than that most other professionals are special. There are probably some underlying qualities, but they're all so different.
5. Some CEOs got there because they were lucky, but they didn't stay there for long because of luck. It is very, very simple to screw up as a CEO.
6. Growing someone within an organization to become a CEO is very hard. We are trying - giving some people more and more responsibilities, trying to involve them in more and more aspects of the organization. The filter is - repeatable success. You don't have to succeed all the time, but you have to succeed most of the time. Most people don't want the pressure, aren't interested in certain aspects, or are unsuccessful more often than they should.
7. Boards are not a cult as well; they don't have CEO's back. Boards are represented by investors (pension funds, wealthy individuals, etc.) - they will oust the CEO if the company's performance suffers. They are willing to pay a lot to the CEO because ... it is so hard to find a good CEO.
DEI was weaponized in the USA, where in quite a few instances, people couldn't get promoted or hired because of their race (typically white or asian). It was about preferential treatment, where you would get hired because of your race, and not merit.
I am all for diversity, I am all for fairness, and I don't think we should exclude people based on the color of their skin or their socioeconomic status. Yet, that is exactly what DEI did, and I have seen it firsthand many, many times.
PSF is just being stupid (or pragmatic) about it.
I have seen sites just banning all the EU IPs, but I don't think that would work anymore, as California & India have similar laws. I am sure a bunch of other jurisdictions have it by now, as well.
I hate doing some tasks, and even if they cost more/save me little time, I would still outsource them. For example, I don't like cleaning the house or doing laundry. Making slides look good - I cannot do well or I don't enjoy it, so that would be in the quality/enjoyment category of outsourcing. Some tasks that I enjoy doing or I don't mind doing - and it provides me with a switch in my "work activity" - I would do. Like, I don't mind washing dishes or doing minor home repairs. So, I would do those things and use them as 'rest' from other activities that require thinking, coding, etc.
Now, talking as a technical CEO of midsize company, who coded in Lisp, and still codes: You are missing following pieces of data to justify your belief that List would be a good language for any projects for most companies: 1. Long list of successful companies with large Lisp codebases (are there examples of successful projects/companies based on such codebases) 2. Long list of examples of long term successful projects written in Lisp (how maintainable the code base will be if written in such language) 3. Long list of job positions for Lisp developers (ability to find more talent to expand the project when needed) 4. List of people in the company who can join the project (bus factor)
Management does care about how long it takes to write the code. Yet, it is only one of many aspects. So, while your beliefs might be profound, they are ... short sighted.
Even more so in Moscow.
Second surprise for you - there are plenty of russians who are poor and alcoholic. There are plenty of russians that drink vodka.
And while it is a poor taste, there are quite a few people in russia with very poor taste.
Yet, in SaaS world, when you sell per seat to a large company, you can either: 1. get a small deal / a few seats, and then expand (because your product is great) 2. try to land as big of a deal as possible from the get go.
The typical sales comp structure is forcing salespeople to go for #2, as they don't get as much money for expansion. My understanding is that the article is arguing for changing the comp structure to make #1 as exciting as #2 for the sales person. And that is the whole point. The chances to get the deal, and time to get the deal when sales person goes for #1 are much better than in case #2. IMHO: Makes a lot of sense.