You get what you pay for.(trenchescomic.com)
trenchescomic.com
You get what you pay for.
http://trenchescomic.com/tales/post/you-get-what-you-pay-for
16 comments
This would be my preferred resolution if we assume that decreasing defects is actually a priority for this organization. We have one pretty persuasive piece of evidence to the contrary: their anti-defect strategy is paying college kids $9 an hour to play video games. The company might have come to the conclusion that bugs don't move the bottom line as much as e.g. box art. This counsels either a) getting into box art or b) getting the heck out of dodge.
If that were genuinely the company strategy then why would they bother to hire testers _at all?_
It smacks more of "we know that software must be tested, and this looks like testing so this is what we must do" - a recognition of a requirement, but not one which has been adequately implemented and fulfilled. There may have genuinely been nobody there who knew any better.
It smacks more of "we know that software must be tested, and this looks like testing so this is what we must do" - a recognition of a requirement, but not one which has been adequately implemented and fulfilled. There may have genuinely been nobody there who knew any better.
> If that were genuinely the company strategy then why would they bother to hire testers _at all?_
Because they can get kids to do it virtually for free, and it isn't completely without value.
Because they can get kids to do it virtually for free, and it isn't completely without value.
Have got to agree. "Follow the money". If something is a priority it will be invested in. Always sucks when your priorities as an employee don't align with the priorities of your employer. Hopefully the author can find a position which aligns better.
You're missing the part where he's in the game industry, and they don't care to do things the right way.
Go read the archives; the quality of management in publishing is rather crap.
Go read the archives; the quality of management in publishing is rather crap.
"Needless to say, I had a meeting with management that did not end well. I did not mean to come off condescending and egotistical." - Who is to say this wasn't exactly the script that was used in this meeting? It could have been an attempt to be constructive or it could have been bitching and moaning about how crappy the other testers were. Unfortunately we can only speculate.
That presumes that the people he was reporting to could actually understand what the hell he was going on about. The reason QA in games is so bloody awful is because none of them have a goddamn clue, they won't pay for people who do have a clue and they're not going to bother learning on their own.
>>Lesson learned: this situation isn't cause for bitching and moaning, it's an opportunity to cut throats.
What if one is not a cut-throat, but simply a competent person who wants to be surrounded by people of equal or greater skill so that he or she can learn from them?
What if one is not a cut-throat, but simply a competent person who wants to be surrounded by people of equal or greater skill so that he or she can learn from them?
Google, Twilio, Matasano, Optimizely, Basecamp, and Fog Creek are all hiring, and all pay well enough such that one would be able to afford to play video games after coming home from work. (This is a non-exhaustive list of companies where I've been particularly impressed about ambient levels of competence.)
I prefer to state this principle as "what you pay for is usually an upper bound for what you will get".
The author is encountering the issue that skilled testing yields far more value per hour than unskilled testing without a rigorous way of demonstrating this fact. It makes me wonder if a rigorous method could be developed to quantify testing output. Presumably it could. (I'm generalizing my thoughts outside of the games industry here)
Out of my experience with great QA in the past the two significant things they bring which poor QA does not are: 1) they create a detailed testing plan that allows them to 'checkbox' off things rather than simply throw time at randomly fucking around. 2) they have very rigorous reporting of issues including detailed repro steps, environment information, issue categorization, and (if the technology is provided) stack dumps.
Perhaps a company that provides this service specifically would work? Especially if the company had a technology aspect that allowed them to automate their own testing. Testing as a partnership service sounds like a business idea that makes great sense to me yet would be a difficult sell. It's rare to acknowledge that defects are guaranteed to exist, that a systematic plan to discover them can be created, that the earlier the discovery is found the lower the cost (exponentially) is to fix.
On the other hand those great QA of my past also had very strong domain knowledge of what they were testing. The audit step to create the plan would be important: the best QA really need to know the intended results for everything inside and out.
It all feels like a pipe dream to me, unfortunately. The norm seems to be "we don't want to invest in Quality Assurance, but we want Assured Quality, so just don't make mistakes!"
Out of my experience with great QA in the past the two significant things they bring which poor QA does not are: 1) they create a detailed testing plan that allows them to 'checkbox' off things rather than simply throw time at randomly fucking around. 2) they have very rigorous reporting of issues including detailed repro steps, environment information, issue categorization, and (if the technology is provided) stack dumps.
Perhaps a company that provides this service specifically would work? Especially if the company had a technology aspect that allowed them to automate their own testing. Testing as a partnership service sounds like a business idea that makes great sense to me yet would be a difficult sell. It's rare to acknowledge that defects are guaranteed to exist, that a systematic plan to discover them can be created, that the earlier the discovery is found the lower the cost (exponentially) is to fix.
On the other hand those great QA of my past also had very strong domain knowledge of what they were testing. The audit step to create the plan would be important: the best QA really need to know the intended results for everything inside and out.
It all feels like a pipe dream to me, unfortunately. The norm seems to be "we don't want to invest in Quality Assurance, but we want Assured Quality, so just don't make mistakes!"
[deleted]
I do wonder sometimes if MBA and Business programs in general have some fundamental problem with teaching their student about skilled labor.
It looks like this is just another example of management believing these positions are unskilled labor that a certain type of folk likes to do versus an actual profession.
Now, having low-paying starter jobs isn't a bad thing in general. The local fast food joint probably has a fair number of high school students with no skills that are there for some spending money. People learn job skills by having a job.
Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a few business people unable to distinguish between I need professionals and unskilled labor. Ask any graphic designer about this one. I am amazed about how this is so common across multiple professions and roles. I honestly think the business schools in this country need to be overhauled because they are teaching people to make bad decisions.
It looks like this is just another example of management believing these positions are unskilled labor that a certain type of folk likes to do versus an actual profession.
Now, having low-paying starter jobs isn't a bad thing in general. The local fast food joint probably has a fair number of high school students with no skills that are there for some spending money. People learn job skills by having a job.
Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a few business people unable to distinguish between I need professionals and unskilled labor. Ask any graphic designer about this one. I am amazed about how this is so common across multiple professions and roles. I honestly think the business schools in this country need to be overhauled because they are teaching people to make bad decisions.
I think that many employers are hoping that they will get lucky and "discover" a genius just out of school that will work for entry level pay.
I recently found out my friend of many years and flatmate, a very skilled programmer, was making about minimum wage and had been for all of his working life (15+ years). These people exist.
I told him he was getting shafted hard, and convinced him to go demand a raise. Sure enough, the next day he told me his boss doubled his pay as soon as he asked. He just never had the confidence to ask before.
I told him he was getting shafted hard, and convinced him to go demand a raise. Sure enough, the next day he told me his boss doubled his pay as soon as he asked. He just never had the confidence to ask before.
My personal rules for maximizing my pay:
1. Don't have my head up my ass.
It can be hard. I can totally imagine myself being your flatmate in a parallel universe.
This should be required reading for each of us at least once a year: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
1. Don't have my head up my ass.
It can be hard. I can totally imagine myself being your flatmate in a parallel universe.
This should be required reading for each of us at least once a year: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
I wish I had read this before my job interview. I feel like I'm getting lowballed when I thought the offer I got was great. I'll definitely read this before my next job interview. Does this apply to freelance rate negotiation too?
Honestly I just screwed it up a few days ago myself. I let myself get backed into the corner of talking about my salary history. And it's not the first time I've done it, not even the first time year since reading that essay.
It is the same for me. I wish I could give you a pat on the back.
I'm just now getting out of a situation like this that I've been in for 7 years. It's a position that I got after I dropped out of a CS program after the first year, and my inexperience and lack of education made me feel like I didn't deserve all that much. But I did my job well, orders of magnitude better than some of my coworkers.
I clued up about 2 years ago, and have been asking for more and more money on a regular basis. The breaking point was when I asked for a certain amount and they literally laughed at me. I immediately started making plans to leave. Next monday I start a new job where I will finally be making more than my age in dollars per hour.
I clued up about 2 years ago, and have been asking for more and more money on a regular basis. The breaking point was when I asked for a certain amount and they literally laughed at me. I immediately started making plans to leave. Next monday I start a new job where I will finally be making more than my age in dollars per hour.
This was me for about the first 5-6 years of my career, then I was able to double my salary twice in two years (and had some more modest raises/bonuses since).
Definitely valuable to know what you're actually worth on the market, I didn't learn that until I got involved in the NYC startup scene.
Definitely valuable to know what you're actually worth on the market, I didn't learn that until I got involved in the NYC startup scene.
That is one of the most depressing things I've ever read.
Double minimum wage still sounds crazy low. Hopefully his experience will give your friend fresh perspective on requesting a fair wage going forward.
Depends on the location. Software devs aren't as highly loved in places that aren't The Valley and other tech hubs
I guess also of note is that in the USA, minimum wage is not a livable wage and would likely put the employee close to the poverty line even for a full-time hourly job (which is often not given because then the employer would be required to provide health insurance).
Is that the case where you live?
Is that the case where you live?
I know people that survive on just above minimum wage and even pay for their own housing. They almost always make rent, but until they both started working, it was very, very close. I'm actually surprised that they can survive. They don't eat very often or well... or didn't. I think that's improved since both of them are working now; but... yes.
But yes, I know a person. He has full time, surprisingly, but he refused health care BECAUSE he wouldn't be able to survive, and he is making more than minimum wage.
But yes, I know a person. He has full time, surprisingly, but he refused health care BECAUSE he wouldn't be able to survive, and he is making more than minimum wage.
And maybe they will, because the genius won't value themselves properly (on the flip side, I'm sure there's a ton of people with inflated expectations), but eventually they're going to figure it out and they'll leave. I'm seriously doubting that employers can find these kids faster than they leave.
I definitely agree with this. I dropped out of college and went full-time at the place I had been working and was making something like $12/hour (I think it was bumped up to $16) then turned into a salary. I didn't really question it. Luckily I have a more than fair boss who understands the value I bring to the table and gave me extreme raises twice in the first year. Had he not done that I wouldn't have realized how much I bring to the table with my skills and would think a low salary is perfectly normal for me.
I know a few companies for whom this is their businesses model. They hire the top tier CS talent from local universities and use them to build products for clients at hourly rates many multiples of their actual cost to the company. This opportunity exists all over the place because there are a lot of skilled programmers graduating from places that big companies' recruiters just don't look.
I worked at a software testing firm as a summer job one year while I was still at university. A few of the guys at the firm were refugees from game testing gigs, and they universally said it sucked. So this doesn't surprise me. Their experiences sounded pretty bad at the time, being that at this "superior" job, we worked standing up in a warehouse. Not the greatest working conditions unless you think it's cool enough to be surrounded by computers of every sort.
I was really impressed by the guys who had been there for a while--they actually understood what they were doing, like the author of the linked article. If they looked over your shoulder for even a few seconds, it felt like you learned something.
One day the higher-ups noticed that I knew how to use a particular kind of software and within an hour I had a raise and a desk inside an air-conditioned office. No chance of doing warehouse work anymore. It was like the feeling you get when you go from a parking garage into a hotel lobby. That put the testing conditions into stark relief--it wasn't really as fun or interesting as I thought it would be. Putting it on my resume afterwards attracted some really boring job offers. But lots of places want cheap QA.
The people on top at the testing firm had it pretty much figured out. If their clients wanted to pay for really high-quality testing, they could do that. The resources are there. On the other hand, if they are just getting their software out the door, they can pay weak rates for summer job kids, and tell their developers to yell and scream until they get the more interesting-sounding bugs narrowed down to something actionable. I remember a few irritated emails: "I don't really care that the button is out of alignment," or "I'm not paying for grammar advice," etc. My bad, buddy. Why don't you talk to management about the conditions of your testing contract, and they'll get one of those veterans on the job? So yeah, the customers got what they paid for, too.
I was really impressed by the guys who had been there for a while--they actually understood what they were doing, like the author of the linked article. If they looked over your shoulder for even a few seconds, it felt like you learned something.
One day the higher-ups noticed that I knew how to use a particular kind of software and within an hour I had a raise and a desk inside an air-conditioned office. No chance of doing warehouse work anymore. It was like the feeling you get when you go from a parking garage into a hotel lobby. That put the testing conditions into stark relief--it wasn't really as fun or interesting as I thought it would be. Putting it on my resume afterwards attracted some really boring job offers. But lots of places want cheap QA.
The people on top at the testing firm had it pretty much figured out. If their clients wanted to pay for really high-quality testing, they could do that. The resources are there. On the other hand, if they are just getting their software out the door, they can pay weak rates for summer job kids, and tell their developers to yell and scream until they get the more interesting-sounding bugs narrowed down to something actionable. I remember a few irritated emails: "I don't really care that the button is out of alignment," or "I'm not paying for grammar advice," etc. My bad, buddy. Why don't you talk to management about the conditions of your testing contract, and they'll get one of those veterans on the job? So yeah, the customers got what they paid for, too.
Maybe I'm imagining things way better than they are, but wouldn't everything a game tester does be recorded? At least the screen, I mean.
>Maybe I'm imagining things way better than they are
Yes, you are. Read the archives to learn more.
Yes, you are. Read the archives to learn more.
There are a lot of unfortunate laws and cultural practices that make it challenging for American companies that run at scale to surface merit in the hiring process. There are also a lot of cultural factors that go back even to the 18th century that lead Americans (almost uniquely so in the Western countries) to discount the notion that skilled people really are much more capable than the drooling fellow that they picked up off the side of the street.
The temporary solution is to refuse to work for such companies and to compete with them until they go out of business, despite their capital advantages.
The temporary solution is to refuse to work for such companies and to compete with them until they go out of business, despite their capital advantages.
Would love more elaboration on this. What factors are you talking about, specifically?
Alluding to Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America.' Americans have a tendency to discount the notions of expertise and mastery, instead trusting in the 'common person' to make sensible decisions, and for there to be special virtue in commonness.
Often times this is hypocritical. Warren Buffet has a folksy demeanor, but his IQ is off the charts and he reads more than several hundred pages per day of challenging material and makes numerous critical decisions besides. But he knows that affecting a down-home-average-man persona is the way to sway Americans who distrust eggheads who show off their expertise.
The negative effect of this in the workplace is that American pretenses to egalitarianism result in a lack of respect for skill, acumen, and intelligence. It's not quite the 'tall poppy' effect you might see in other countries, but it can have some similar effects.
Often times this is hypocritical. Warren Buffet has a folksy demeanor, but his IQ is off the charts and he reads more than several hundred pages per day of challenging material and makes numerous critical decisions besides. But he knows that affecting a down-home-average-man persona is the way to sway Americans who distrust eggheads who show off their expertise.
The negative effect of this in the workplace is that American pretenses to egalitarianism result in a lack of respect for skill, acumen, and intelligence. It's not quite the 'tall poppy' effect you might see in other countries, but it can have some similar effects.
This is a great vignette on why I insist on working in Bay Area-style companies.
The kind of places that view software test/dev as labor or "resources" really are missing the point. Owing to work styles, tools, experience, and knowledge, the best people in this field (software) can do things that less talented/experienced people simply can't. Not "I can get it done 2x as fast as the next guy", but "I can find issues, bugs, and defects others wouldn't find, AND I can do it more quickly."
Coming back to reality, a lot of software doesn't need to be the best. For every blockbuster game, or operating system kernel, or billion-user social network, there are hundreds of CRUD apps, Wordpress sites, etc. that are more rote. But to compete in the winner-take-all kind of markets, you have to pay for the best.
I think the point is, buyers and sellers of talent need to be realistic about what they need and what they're willing to pay for it. To the guy who wrote the article, find a place that (1) NEEDS your skills (frankly a lot of places don't) and (2) is well-funded enough to pay market rate for them.
The kind of places that view software test/dev as labor or "resources" really are missing the point. Owing to work styles, tools, experience, and knowledge, the best people in this field (software) can do things that less talented/experienced people simply can't. Not "I can get it done 2x as fast as the next guy", but "I can find issues, bugs, and defects others wouldn't find, AND I can do it more quickly."
Coming back to reality, a lot of software doesn't need to be the best. For every blockbuster game, or operating system kernel, or billion-user social network, there are hundreds of CRUD apps, Wordpress sites, etc. that are more rote. But to compete in the winner-take-all kind of markets, you have to pay for the best.
I think the point is, buyers and sellers of talent need to be realistic about what they need and what they're willing to pay for it. To the guy who wrote the article, find a place that (1) NEEDS your skills (frankly a lot of places don't) and (2) is well-funded enough to pay market rate for them.
Clarification:
Broadly speaking, I think there are two major classes of software.
"Class 1" software is produced under tight budget constraints, often for a cost center. These are the payroll systems, the receivables tracking apps, employee training websites, admin portals, etc. Big consultancies write a lot of this stuff (Deloitte, IBM, etc.) This kind of software is tremendously important, but isn't seen as differentiating by management. "Success" here means (1) it works "well enough" and more importantly, (2) we didn't blow the budget writing it. Cost is always a factor.
"Class 2" software contributes directly to the bottom line of the company. It's produced by expensive, in-house developers who take their craft seriously and want to deliver the best product possible. Budget is defined by P&L and success means "the project will generate a lot of revenue". Note that cost control isn't as big a concern here.
Now, having worked in the industry, I've realized probably 90% (99%?) of all software produced in the world is "Class 1" software. But you really, really want to be working on "Class 2" software; it's better in every way, including attention to quality, willingness to pay developers, etc. For developers, the experience of making Class 2 software strictly dominates Class 1.
As for the article, I've noticed how when management crosses over from one class to the other, there's a lot of conflict. Beware of "operations"-type people working as project managers. You really want line management to be former developers who "get it". It might take moving to a different geo, or working remotely, but just don't work on crap.
Note: as I write this, I realize I'm reiterating a stack exchange answer I saw a while back -- great reading for all developers. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/45776/why-do-...
Broadly speaking, I think there are two major classes of software.
"Class 1" software is produced under tight budget constraints, often for a cost center. These are the payroll systems, the receivables tracking apps, employee training websites, admin portals, etc. Big consultancies write a lot of this stuff (Deloitte, IBM, etc.) This kind of software is tremendously important, but isn't seen as differentiating by management. "Success" here means (1) it works "well enough" and more importantly, (2) we didn't blow the budget writing it. Cost is always a factor.
"Class 2" software contributes directly to the bottom line of the company. It's produced by expensive, in-house developers who take their craft seriously and want to deliver the best product possible. Budget is defined by P&L and success means "the project will generate a lot of revenue". Note that cost control isn't as big a concern here.
Now, having worked in the industry, I've realized probably 90% (99%?) of all software produced in the world is "Class 1" software. But you really, really want to be working on "Class 2" software; it's better in every way, including attention to quality, willingness to pay developers, etc. For developers, the experience of making Class 2 software strictly dominates Class 1.
As for the article, I've noticed how when management crosses over from one class to the other, there's a lot of conflict. Beware of "operations"-type people working as project managers. You really want line management to be former developers who "get it". It might take moving to a different geo, or working remotely, but just don't work on crap.
Note: as I write this, I realize I'm reiterating a stack exchange answer I saw a while back -- great reading for all developers. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/45776/why-do-...
Just want to thank you for this comment. I've been wrestling in my mind with trying to define the differences between great jobs and not so great jobs I have had, since 'obvious' things like salary/hours/perks/equipment/thing-i'm-working-on have proven to not be a useful correlation. The closest I had come to is "I want to work on companies bottom line, which means I want to work in a company where the bottom line is the software they make" rather than "the bottom line is getting contacts, the software being made is a side effect of that". Your explanation (and the answer in that stack exchange question) captures my thoughts much more clearly.
Maybe you're right and class 2 helps the company care more about quality and actually paying their developers (but if they don't, why do the devs work for them?), but I think I work in a class 2 project, and it's the worst project I've ever been in.
The management is completely incompetent (no clue how a sw project works), so even though they blow millions every year, the project setup, architecture, separation of teams, is all abysmal. The different teams cause everybody to no longer give a damn, because if something is broken, you are guaranteed to never be able to fix it - you'd need to call in lots of meetings first. So we all build up little fortresses that call the other module's services.
I'd differentiate projects as: those where people in charge care about the underlying build quality (call it technical debt, but that's not nearly all of it), and those where people in charge don't give a damn for anything except their current deadline/objectives (doesn't matter if anything of value makes it into the current build).
The management is completely incompetent (no clue how a sw project works), so even though they blow millions every year, the project setup, architecture, separation of teams, is all abysmal. The different teams cause everybody to no longer give a damn, because if something is broken, you are guaranteed to never be able to fix it - you'd need to call in lots of meetings first. So we all build up little fortresses that call the other module's services.
I'd differentiate projects as: those where people in charge care about the underlying build quality (call it technical debt, but that's not nearly all of it), and those where people in charge don't give a damn for anything except their current deadline/objectives (doesn't matter if anything of value makes it into the current build).
One problem with the gaming industry is that it sounds fun to be in, so many young people are willing to accept shitty conditions just to be employed by a game company.
After a few years if they figure out it's not worth it, the company just have to hire again in the endless stream of youngsters.
After a few years if they figure out it's not worth it, the company just have to hire again in the endless stream of youngsters.
[deleted](1)
What in the holy hell? Management complains about issues that you have a perfect way of solving, you meet with said management, and you come out of that meeting having damaged your career instead of leveraging your knowledge and experience and track record into a leadership role and pay bump?
You need to really re-examine how you deal with people going forward.
You need to really re-examine how you deal with people going forward.
The gaming industry has lots of people for which its "one of their passions" and who will accept low pay for the chance to work in it. And the industry prices salaries accordingly.
I'd recommend we form a trade group and boycott working for the industry, but there are lots of people for which its "one of their passions" who would (as is their right) break ranks and still do it, so it would be an exercise in futility.
In any industry in which lots of people pursue it with little regard for compensation, salaries are going to be in the toilet.
I'd recommend we form a trade group and boycott working for the industry, but there are lots of people for which its "one of their passions" who would (as is their right) break ranks and still do it, so it would be an exercise in futility.
In any industry in which lots of people pursue it with little regard for compensation, salaries are going to be in the toilet.
Many game companies won't even hire developers who are very good but don't have (much) game experience because this is seen as not being passionate enough about games. And yes, they're happy to hire the inferior but "passionate" candidate.
Wow, what a nice opportunity completely wasted.
I enjoyed the anecdote but the piece read as a drunken boast.
Aww, I thought it was gonna be a comic.
Haha, I've seen it all now. This kid is 25 and is totally, no-tongue-in-cheek impressed with himself for bettering a few teenagers at a shitty job. People will literally stick their chest out about anything.
Kid, there are people in this world putting rockets in space, making self-driving cars and making lasers that can shoot flying mortars out of the sky. Maybe one day you will actually have something legitimate to be cocky about, but until then I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for some perspective.
Kid, there are people in this world putting rockets in space, making self-driving cars and making lasers that can shoot flying mortars out of the sky. Maybe one day you will actually have something legitimate to be cocky about, but until then I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for some perspective.
The reason why you're being so heavily down voted is that your comment adds nothing of value to our understanding of the issue at hand.
It is empirically of no value whether or not this person is "sticking their chest out" over "bettering a few teenagers at a shitty job." What's valuable is understanding that relegating something this crucial to such a position can harm the long term prospects of a company and this article brings that issue to light.
That said, all accomplishments are relative as is the emotional pride someone feels over them. Sebastian Thrun can be bested at even his best by von Neumann at his worst, does that mean Thrun shouldn't take pride in his work? Nope. Life is complicated. Feel happy about what you can and let the rest be.
It is empirically of no value whether or not this person is "sticking their chest out" over "bettering a few teenagers at a shitty job." What's valuable is understanding that relegating something this crucial to such a position can harm the long term prospects of a company and this article brings that issue to light.
That said, all accomplishments are relative as is the emotional pride someone feels over them. Sebastian Thrun can be bested at even his best by von Neumann at his worst, does that mean Thrun shouldn't take pride in his work? Nope. Life is complicated. Feel happy about what you can and let the rest be.
You mock (what you perceive to be) a display of arrogance by an astounding display of arrogance.
He was actually polite about the people he worked with an identified the issue as been at a more senior level, the guy also has the experience to back up his claims.
Now I could say "I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for a little perspective" but then I'd be the condescending douche.
Also that there are people making self-driving cars and lasers that can shoot mortars out the sky devalues other peoples work not at all, indeed I suspect the mortar shooting out the sky laser is rigorously tested by Q&A.
He was actually polite about the people he worked with an identified the issue as been at a more senior level, the guy also has the experience to back up his claims.
Now I could say "I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for a little perspective" but then I'd be the condescending douche.
Also that there are people making self-driving cars and lasers that can shoot mortars out the sky devalues other peoples work not at all, indeed I suspect the mortar shooting out the sky laser is rigorously tested by Q&A.
I agree with this, in the sense that he is obviously on one end of a major chasm between his own perception of his value and the market's. I say "market" because he quickly glossed-over the fact that he took the job reluctantly because he couldn't find any other work.
The simple answer is to run your own finances like a business. Know what you need to earn to be profitable to your level of satisfaction and turn down offers that don't meet that requirement. I've been in manys a job interview when the inevitable awkward question about salary expectations arose and I simply put out my number and didn't hear from them again. Fine, they made their decision on my value and I made mine and I move along without wasting anybody's time. I didn't blast the other employees at the companies or proclaim myself as an expert in the field.
I would say stop taking things so personally and if the company isn't willing to pay what you believe yourself to be worth, find one that will.
The simple answer is to run your own finances like a business. Know what you need to earn to be profitable to your level of satisfaction and turn down offers that don't meet that requirement. I've been in manys a job interview when the inevitable awkward question about salary expectations arose and I simply put out my number and didn't hear from them again. Fine, they made their decision on my value and I made mine and I move along without wasting anybody's time. I didn't blast the other employees at the companies or proclaim myself as an expert in the field.
I would say stop taking things so personally and if the company isn't willing to pay what you believe yourself to be worth, find one that will.
Forget lasers. There are people that can shoot a mortar out of the sky with bullets. ...And you have no idea why that is so much more difficult than lasers, do you, kid?
I read it more as a "look how stupid this company is" piece, rather than a "look how smart I am" boast. If he were really smart, he would have kept his flappy mouth shut at $9/hour, then offered to consult for the company about their quality assurance efficiency at ten times the hourly rate after quitting.
A business so clueless as to cheap out on quality control probably values advice by how much they had to pay for it.
And if he were really smart and evil, he would have used his skill to sell all bugs found beyond his quota to the other "testers". If all it takes to not be fired is to find one new bug every two hours, you find maybe six for yourself in the morning, and sell the rest at $10 each just before the management metrics get compiled.
I read it more as a "look how stupid this company is" piece, rather than a "look how smart I am" boast. If he were really smart, he would have kept his flappy mouth shut at $9/hour, then offered to consult for the company about their quality assurance efficiency at ten times the hourly rate after quitting.
A business so clueless as to cheap out on quality control probably values advice by how much they had to pay for it.
And if he were really smart and evil, he would have used his skill to sell all bugs found beyond his quota to the other "testers". If all it takes to not be fired is to find one new bug every two hours, you find maybe six for yourself in the morning, and sell the rest at $10 each just before the management metrics get compiled.
I think the point here is that individuals with necessary experience have a higher economic efficiency.
The obvious choice is to hire one 18 dollar an hour tester and 4 9 dollar an hour testers. After a training period (probably < a month), you'll have 2 quitters and 3 good testers at 2/3rds the price.
The obvious choice is to hire one 18 dollar an hour tester and 4 9 dollar an hour testers. After a training period (probably < a month), you'll have 2 quitters and 3 good testers at 2/3rds the price.
Put it another way. He's the only person in the organization who knows what they're doing when it comes to testing. He's in a position where he can have a tremendous positive effect on his organization. If instead of complaining that his fellow testers are incompetent, he could bring a benefit to the organization and pocket part of it.
Here's the script: "Hello Mr. Suit. Notice how I've discovered ten times as many bugs as my compatriots combined in the same amount of time. Why don't you fire ten of them and bump me up to fifty an hour. You'll be saving ninety dollars an hour at the cost of an extra forty-one going to me." Every business-minded manager would at least consider this. Naturally the numbers need to be adjusted, but anyone with a significantly higher output than their colleagues has the opportunity to make this sort of case.
Here's another potential script: "Lemme level with you, Mr. Suit, these guys are all kids who like playing games, while I've got years of experience as a professional tester under my belt. Why don't you replace their manager with me, and I'll train them myself. Ill whip them into shape, their overall bug detection rate will double, and you won't have to pay a penny. Just replace their ineffective manager with me."
Lesson learned: this situation isn't cause for bitching and moaning, it's an opportunity to cut throats.