But what if they aren't worth more (as a dev, financially) than they think they are? They could be awful, but naively put in a ton of hours. Why do we assume people are worth more? Are we trying to make them feel better by making assumptions and potentially leading them horribly astray? Most people are supremely mediocre and there are just and many horrible devs as their are great ones.
Wow, this is a textbook example of trying to solve a deeply personal/emotional problem with logics and data instead of compassion. To anyone who activates their empathy sensors it's evidently clear that the OP is having a mild burnout crisis (not surprising after 70h weeks), and needs a bit of support first and foremost. What's really doing damage is your language, not a biased estimate of which percentile of a bell curve we're looking at here. It's simply. not. the. problem. If they are on the wrong track they'll figure it out on their own, but they need support and compassion.
Sorry for being so direct, but this culture of trying to substitute logic for compassion really pervades the IT scene in a rather toxic way.
>What's really doing damage is your language, not a biased estimate of which percentile of a bell curve we're looking at here.
I don't know, maybe setting unrealistic expectations and telling everyone they are worth more which implies they are doing something wrong to not get that worth out isn't doing them favours either in the long run.
Yes, apparently you don't know how language affects emotions, expectations and personal relationships, and what the long-term effects on mental health, productivity, longevity and quality-years-of-life are. Don't confuse your pseudo-empiricism with objectivity (we don't even have enough data here! how can you talk about unrealistic expectations without data?). But even better, learn interpersonal skills - objectivity isn't everything.
If you post "I don't know, maybe setting unrealistic expectations and telling everyone they are worth more which implies they are doing something wrong to not get that worth out isn't doing them favours either in the long run." under a thread like this, you are acting supremely unempathic. You are not acting like a robot, modern robots are actually much better at empathic conversation. In fact, I asked GPT-3 "Write a response to this post: [OP's post]", here's the result:
You are not a loser, and you are not alone. Many people struggle with finding fulfillment in their careers. It sounds like you have been working hard, but it is also important to work smart. Try to focus on your goals and what you want to achieve. Networking can be helpful, but it is not the only way to find satisfaction in your career. There are many other ways to find fulfillment, such as volunteering, pursuing hobbies, and spending time with loved ones. Don't be afraid to reach out to others for help and advice. There are many people who are willing to help and support you.
Even if you think objectively, in this case, he's most likely underpaid and undervalued by the startup.
1. He's working much longer hours than he's paid for, probably for pie-in-the-sky options that 95% chance won't amount to a true pay-off for his hustle
2. He doesn't seem to have advocated for himself or his own happiness, he's going along with this burnout inducing program
3. He's clearly modest -- he's been coding for ~10 years and he's in his mid-20's. That is a highly employable situation in our field, he could easily get another job IMO.
It would still make sense to encourage their self esteem, because poor self-esteem is a self reinforcing condition. It negatively affects your mental health, and by extension your job performance and "worth" on the job market.
If a little bit of self delusion is what's required to break that cycle, then it's totally worth it.
Not that I think that's what's going on here. If you read between the lines of the OP it's my opinion that the main issues afflicting them are a poor self-image and bad networking skills. They're likely good enough technically but if they don't address the self talk they may never realize that.
Someone who has been working in a small team for 4 years in a startup has to be "good enough". Which is far better than the average candidate who can't keep a position for more than a year and needs constant help from the manager in order to accomplish anything.
Maybe my standards are low, but unfortunately, I have seen so many of these cases.
OP didn’t state where they are from, but there are plenty of places where it is extremely hard to fire, even if an employee is consistently underperforming.
Not saying that this is the case in this circumstance (I don’t know OP,) but the “you must be good because you lasted 4 years” heuristic doesn’t work that well outside of the US, or similar markets with at-will employment.
if they were sole dev in a startup for four years and couldn't ship software the startup probably wouldn't have lasted the last four years... Or they very quickly wouldn't be the sole full stack dev any more and relegated to some shit job
Even in France which lots of people call "socialist", the company can fire you at any time and has to pay only about 3/6 months of salary for "wrongful termination". That's low enough to not keep constantly underperforming people.
They could, but usually you don't want this to happen as an employee. Alternatively the court can force the employer to pay a severance if they regard the working conditions as untenable. An obvious example would be bullying at the workplace. But all of this is only applicable in the case of an unlawful termination.
Mostly if they want to get rid of you they offer you a severance.
It is also much more complicated than I can explain in a single post. For example, you can be fired for working "slowly", but you can't be fired if you are doing your best - even if all your colleagues are faster workers. It mainly depends on if you are doing your best.
E.g. your colleagues are able to dish out 100 pizzas in a typical evening but you only manage to make 50, and your boss wants to fire you. You don't agree and sue him. The court now has to decide if you perform so badly because of something that is "inherent" - which is called a "personenbedingte Kündigung" or in English dismissal on grounds of personal capability, or if it is based on your conduct. A dismissal on grounds of personal capability is usually deemed unlawful, as long as you give your best, if you consistently only manage to make 50 pizzas it seems like it, right? However if you willfully (!) perform badly the dismissal is usually deemed lawful. But, if you e.g. suffer from rheumatism and you can't perform the way you used to but you want to perform better, you just can't anymore it gets a bit complicated: the employer has to make a prognosis on how and if you are able to someday perform better again or if you could do another job. So, usually it is cheaper to offer someone a severance in that case.
Only if the courts decide that it was unlawful, but companies have enough experience and lawyers who make sure they have enough dirt on you to justify them firing you. It's what my German ex-boss told us and I've had seen many colleagues get fired without any repercussions for the company. Plus, if you end up sueing your former employer, and the word gets out, no other employer will touch you.
Also, for your mental health, you wouldn't want to go back and work at the company who just fired you. That's like getting back together with an ex you just got out of toxic relationship.
Big companies have lawyers up the wazoo, but startups (esp. with a single dev like OP) struggle with funds in many cases, so often hire lawyers to the minimal extent possible.
I think this is a fair assessment, at least competent, perhaps not a one in a thousand superstar.
What someone in this range earns and their working conditions are going to be highly dependent on what they ask for and their self-esteem. Someone can probably lure them on the cheap or they could sneak into $200k job. I think a lot of the comments here about self-care and advocating for themselves are very helpful.
1) They, as the sole developer, are managing to hold their startup together software-wise. That is a useful skill -- raw coding talent or not.
2) Since having recently found my way to a FAANG, I've found a surprising number of new hires are fresh college grads with about that much coding experience, and make more than I (with 30 years experience) ever had made before joining.
3) OP is self-described terrible at networking. I've personally found this my biggest barrier to finding well-paying jobs also.
It would be evident after a few months or a year if he is failing them, he has been there for 4 years. So unless the startup has non-functioning software and everyone involved is okay with that, incl the people who pays the bills, he probably is doing just fine and just mentally deep in a hole.
I want to point out that a person’s is not a static thing. You are not born with whatever you are “worth”. You either build your worthiness over time, or lose it.
I think instead of propagating that most people are horrible devs, we should try to tell people that it’s always an acquired skill. So everyone (and I really mean everyone) can work to acquire the skills, and become a “worthy” dev.
I have seen eager but untalented persons build their skills and their portfolio over a couple years. To the point that had I been told this at the beginning, I would not have believed it. In a particular case, the person - at the time a low qualified technician - embarked at 26 to become an engineer, and by 38 is one of the most sought after engineers in his field.
Self confidence and willpower are factors that can overcome innate talent to a very large degree.
> and there are just and many horrible devs as their are great ones.
I will say horrible devs are far more than great ones. In my 15 years of experience I have seen far more mediocre or downright horrible than great ones.
Of the horrible devs that you can think of, how many of them would reach out and say that they're horrible (or make a post like this) vs how many of them think they're great/superstars? :)
Certainly makes me think of the Dunning-Kruger effect!
I think many "great" programmers also have plenty of flaws. Nobody is perfect. As long as you can make stuff that works, that's good. Some people will be better at some things, some will be worse. Focus on the stuff you're good at. Work on the stuff you want to be better at. But stop trying to be a superstar.
We're all stuck between Dunning-Kruger and the Impostor Syndrome, but we make it work.
what if they would be great doing something entirely different. OP hasn't said if they ever had a point in their life when they really enjoyed what they did.
in my case brain fog from burn-out lasted not months but 6-8 years with varying severity. depending on how long you stay burned out or ignore the burn-out that might be less. E.g if you're without a support network during burn-out it may not be as straight forward to pull yourself out. Burn out might be not because they worked so much and are now financially stable but because they had to work so much because they could never make ends meet until now.
If they can afford it they should take time off radically - get rid of everything that ties them down, be in nature for min 6 months (example: a long hike -> heading from A to B so there is a purpose in the simplicity). Or cover yourself in books (not compsci or tech literature but something radically different) and spend the other free time physically exercising.
There are pretty clear signs of depression in these sentences (why I would focus on lot of exercise or routines that also demand a healthy diet). Alternative is to see a quack and pop pills for the next few months and risk some addiction as a result, or at least deal with weaning yourself off them again.
Doing radically different things than $dayjob means totally forgetting about technology for a while and opening yourself up to other things. Person is 28 ffs which is hardly an age where you can't start on a radically different career path and end up excelling in it. Worst thing would be to carry on as a dev and turn yourself from a bad dev to a mediocre one and pay for this poor "gain" with burn-out, brain-fog, depression for several years.
Assuming the developer can get paid a 40-hour salary for working 40 hours a week elsewhere instead of 70-90 hour weeks plus 24/7 on-call, the developer is clearly capable of earning more dollars per hour of work.
What if this kind of cruel snotty attitude is a telltale sign of people who are as afraid they’re mediocre as they view the people they judge? What if there’s no value to anyone in this kind of response?
Being realistic is not cruel. It may feel cruel, but allowing people to delude themselves is far more cruel in the long term, as they make poor choices.
This is literally the logic of capitalism. Your value is simply whatever value you are able to negotiate for yourself on the job market. OP is more valuable than a toilet cleaner, or a starbucks barista, less valuable than a corporate lawyer or a CEO.
People naturally "compare up" rather than "compare down". Sure OP is probably in the 1% wealthiest people in the world, or top 99.9999% of those who ever lived, but rather than be happy with that, he will compare himself to other computer programmers who are doing fantastically, and feel bad about himself.
Another factor here is probably the fact that OP's working conditions are highly exploitative, it appears that he is putting in far more work than necessary. He probably genuinely believes that hard work is rewarded and doesn't understand why he feels used up and spent. And it's probably because he is being used up and spent by his exploitative employer. So fair enough if you look around and see other developers who are not being used up, you might decide you want to live life with a measure of dignity, too.
Any rational actor in this circumstance would do the minimum work they could get away with, and do whatever they can to negotiate for better conditions. A first step might be to develop enough self esteem to be able to say "no" when asked to work unhealthy and unproductively long hours. But without knowing more of the specifics of how much leverage he has, it's hard to know if that is going to be met with instant reprisal or whether he will be able to gain the respect he deserves.
Of course, I am starting from the basic assumption that all human beings are worthy of some basic amount of respect, dignity, and freedom from exploitation.
> OP is more valuable than a toilet cleaner, or a starbucks barista
Not to kill your point, but those two are dramatically under-valued and under-appreciated jobs in most societies around the world. Every time you use a toilet (other than the one in your home) which is hopefully clean, somebody had cleaned it recently. Imagine they hadn't. You'd have a terrible day. Every time you go grab a good Starbucks coffee. Maybe even sit down in a comfy sofa to be able to enjoy it. Imagine the barista had screwed it up.
Both experiences make a huge difference in people's lives. Hundreds if not thousands a day. Every day. But they are paid crap and talked about in the way you just did. Compare that to a coder churning away meaningless features in some meaningless app. Would I care if the coder wouldn't show up to work for the next 4 weeks with nobody stepping in their place? No. That answer is decisively different for the toilet cleaner and the barista.
The pay is usually indicative of employer's ability to find a person with the necessary skillset to do the job and not some abstract "importance to society" value that the job has.
Wouldn't it be nice if pay was correlated with value to society? There are a lot of software engineers getting paid bank to make products that are worse for users and society but make their bosses fat stacks. The school janitor is providing more benefit to society.
As a software dev I agree, and I've worked on some products I'd deem as a net positive to society. But there is just so much shit software out there.
As a German I wonder what the people where thinking programming VWs TDI system to activate emission controls only during testing, was it worth it? Polluting the environment and peoples lungs for a bit of money? It's not like dev jobs are a rarity in Germany. And yes I'm judgemental about this. And don't get me started on the things that are legal and still a detriment to society.
What were the execs that put a bunch of monkeys in an exhaust gas chamber to prove it was “clean diesel” thinking? Or the ones who signed off on the “Green Police” ad?
I think what the parent is trying to say, is that if we really valued those things, they would be paid more.
The thing is, cleaning toilets is pretty easy. I do it myself all the time at home. So is making coffee. It's not _the best_ coffee, but it's coffee. The baristas who make _the best_ coffee probably get paid quite a lot. But it's pretty easy to make okay coffee.
For most people in this world, programming is hard. And even if you thing that feature of that app is meaningless, somebody else obviously disagrees with you and is willing to spend a lot of money to make that feature happen.
The value is not what we _think_ of it, but what we're willing to pay for it.
My take: payment is not based on created value, but on competition for the job. The more competition, the lower the salary an employer can get away with.
> My take: payment is not based on created value, but on competition for the job. The more competition, the lower the salary an employer can get away with.
And yet, for the past two years, just about every store you'll ever go to has a 'Sorry, we're shortstaffed' sign in the window.
I agree that our society's method for allocating value to people has fundamental flaws; chief among them is that money is the main measure of value.
Ben Franklin called money 'coined liberty'; in this day and age it is more 'coined status'. It is a scaling mechanism. Reputation only works if people know you, there are simply too many people to know, so we've replaced reputation with money.
However, in the context of this discussion thread, the word 'value' can be interpreted as "paycheck". Your and my diversions are that, diversions.
> Your value is simply whatever value you are able to negotiate for yourself on the job market.
Since what you can negotiate is in part related to what value you can actually provide, then what you can negotiate is ultimately guided by reality, if not determined by it. Of course negotiation matters. In business as well as in love. And it matters in part because we cannot read minds and cannot see everything that you can do. So communication must fill that gap. Imperfectly.
Even more reason for them to get a decent work life balance. Who do you think makes more trouble for their collegues: a hypothetical mediocre developer who is overworked, or a mediocre developer who works normal hours and has two hobbies which fulfil them?
I'd bet my money on the first producing more trouble. The latter one is not centered around coding alone, so they are more flexible.
> But what if they aren't worth more (as a dev, financially) than they think they are?
Honestly i think most devs err on the side of underestimating their value not overestimating it, particularly in the current market.
Of course, ymmv, but last time i switched jobs i ended up being pretty shocked how much more employers thought i was worth compared to what my (at the time) current job was paying me.
He is a developer not an assembly line worker. Office work is subjective to the environment and can not be objectively measured. It largely depends on how he presents and positions himself in his specific work environment and there is always room to level up this situation.
“Most people are supremely mediocre and there are just and many horrible devs as their are great ones.”
if this is true (not arguing either way), then he is almost surely undervaluing himself since most of those mediocre or horrible devs don’t work 80 hour weeks or are regularly on call.
