I’m just pointing out reality. Sorry I know it’s not “kind” or whatever. Just true though.
If someone makes a Faustian bargain, it will have consequences.
You make a deal with the devil (biggest capitalist empires on the planet - I don’t think they’re evil btw I’m just making analogy) and the devil will come for you.
For them, it’s just business. That’s their whole point of existence, to run their business and grow even at their stage. I don’t work for these companies but I do hold positions in them through my 401k.
Unions kill innovation, at least in US. And 10-20% of people do the actual work so 80-90% can have the time to complain nonstop while making 400k plus.
As an American I don’t really use that many cutting edge tools from Europe on a daily basis. Maybe my Miele vac.
On the other hand almost everyone in the world uses something made by American corporations.
It’s just business. And it’s not like swe aren’t making 400k or more at least in bay area.
People need to understand that just because you have a little bit of RSUs and a 200k base doesn’t mean you’re God.
You’re an asset like a machine. And you’re expensive to the bottom line.
This is literally explicitly laid out now with section 174.
If you’re taking this personally ask yourself why you’re even working for arguably some of the best most efficient capitalists on the planet. Maybe you should work for a government agency or smaller company. But you want that 400k plus right?
I believe the author must have worked with PMINO or Product Manager in Name Only. AKA, when companies hire Product Mangers (let's call them PM uppercase) and make them program managers (pm, and please this isn't me demeaning program managers by using lower case- just a differentiation).
A PM is in charge of setting product vision and realizing it. A pm is in charge of ensuring that happens by aligning resources. Both are really valuable parts of the team, but they are different roles. I don't believe it is good to mix the two because they are two distinct set of skills.
The PM is the war strategist who understands opponents' weakness and opportunities to strike for the campaign's success, while the pm is in charge of staging the battlefield to ensure those tactics can be carried out by keeping the battalions equipped for success. I know military analogies aren't everyone's cup of tea, but just using what I know.
The best PMs I've worked with were purely product focused. They didn't engage in resource alignment and dealing with middle managers. The best pms were purely managers. They engaged in working with engineering managers/directors to ensure the right people were working on the right initiatives. They kept schedules on track and helped everyone stay sane with the work that had to be done.
Maybe I am wrong too, but this is what I believe is the right approach that I plan to employ at my company. When the company is small and only a single engineering team (like 5 people total) I don't think there's any reason to have a pm. When there are multiple teams and distinct organizations, you really need pm so the PM can stay focused in their role.
If someone makes a Faustian bargain, it will have consequences.
You make a deal with the devil (biggest capitalist empires on the planet - I don’t think they’re evil btw I’m just making analogy) and the devil will come for you.
For them, it’s just business. That’s their whole point of existence, to run their business and grow even at their stage. I don’t work for these companies but I do hold positions in them through my 401k.