Sounds pretty accurate for a business-oriented role. Didn't have the same experience in the engineering teams. Maybe I found only shitty companies. Maybe it's just the role itself.
For example, everybody says "there are better companies out there". But all of them seem to be the same. And it's more of a gamble on the position. Find a good team and the company is great. Find a bad team in the same company and the company sucks. Maybe you got lucky and I didn't. Hence the different perspectives.
'Except in holidays' > Nice straw man. All day doesn't mean every day.
'Do you have free universal medical care for all citizens yet?' > Yes, I live in Europe.
'Not a single european country in the list of the five most polluting countries in the planet' > You are very good at building these straw men. Not sure what understanding technology has to do with pollution.
I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. You're very happy about things that are normal in Europe. And you are willing to be underpaid to get them. You don't have to be. You can get a good salary and the benefits too. It's funny how you're fighting the guys that want this to happen.
'again not sure which countries you speak about (ukraine or romania lol?), maybe it's like that in some, but some have very relaxed attitude' >
I'm talking about Western Europe. Mostly Germany, Netherlands, UK and Scandinavia. I was referring to office jobs, not remote.
Eastern Europe is actually pretty great because it has an American influence. No stupid EU brainwashing. Only capitalism. Also, your tone about Ukraine and Romania is condescending. Not very nice.
'again, there're tons of EU based remote work, and I just won't comment on the rest of this generalisation.' >
It's low quality. Basically, remote work in Europe means "Let's find some third-world slaves that will work for cheap.". They offer remote because they don't want to pay the high salaries in their own countries.
I've got a nice remote offers from Spain and Netherlands as we, despite being in UK. I'm getting them all the time.' >
I get these offers all the time. And they all offer average salaries. They search in other countries because they are trying to find cheap slaves.
'my EU company gives me a lot of benefits that guys in US don't see (despite that average salary I'd say is lower in here)' >
Your mistake was accepting the lower salary. But it's understandable since you don't seem to be familiar with how things actually work.
Just to give you an idea, I work in Eastern Europe. And the equivalent salary in UK to maintain my quality of life would be about 150k GBP. I'm happy that you're happy. But I'm pretty sure you're concentrating too much on the silver lining.
I worked for European companies. And I worked for American companies with branches in Europe. And American companies are simply on another level. They might suck in the US, but they don't when they come to Europe.
In Europe software companies are more like factories. You punch in, work like a slave all day, then punch out. The socialist mindset created retarded managers. So anything deviating from the standard factory setup is seen as depravity. Europeans don't understand technology. For them software development is like manual labor. Get some monkeys, throw them some peanuts and use a whip to make them do stuff.
Overall, remote working in Europe is mostly done for US companies. EU companies are usually mentally disabled.
Looks like people don't like it when you criticize their idols. People forget Paul Graham is in the business of making money. Ethics and morality are not a prerequisite. They actually start getting in the way once you reach a certain level of fame.
Wait for a new idea. Each of us has very specific talents that others don't. If you can find yours, you can be the one building it better. It's all about maximizing efficiency. Ideas come and go. You don't have to jump on the first one to succeed. Just on the one that makes the most sense.
No, it's almost impossible without being a jerk. This personality trait is a requirement for succeeding.
And it's mostly because of the way capitalism works. Once you enter the market, you're automatically forced to turn a profit or get investments. If you don't, you die. Competition is also pretty fierce. You may choose to play by the rules, but others choose not to. So you can easily get killed.
Customers also become your worst enemy. They are forced by the market to buy cheap instead of good. So you're now in a race to the bottom. Plus, the entire market is volatile. Things can change almost instantly. One well targeted review or article can either make you or break you.
So when your entire success is built on a tower of cards, only by being ruthless can you make the climb. We could have had megabit internet 30 years ago. But instead we got AOL and Comcast. People can spin it any way they like. But in the end, actions talk louder than words.
I didn't say anything about firing. In Europe it's very hard to fire someone. But give them a stack of cash in exchange for pursuing other opportunities and almost everybody will take it. It's actually a common practice for non-tech jobs. Layoffs are not possible, but getting a year's salary for quitting is.
My best interviews were the ones where money wasn't an issue. They focused on getting talent first and dealing with bad hires later. So the process went like this:
- "I see you have done this and that, have some years of experience and seem to know how to do things. Here is what you would do in our company ..."
- "Still interested? Great. Can you please reverse a string?"
- "Well, looks like you can code. Let's talk salary."
- "Welcome aboard. :)"
Whenever someone turned out to be bad, they simply asked them to leave. Usually with severance. So easy and simple. I really can't understand why only a few companies work like this. No tests, no homework and definitely no hazing and grilling. Just some guys that want to build some stuff.
It's the future. Crowdsourcing through job candidates.
I had a similar experience with a company in Berlin, Germany. They didn't care about the code or my skills. Only if the submitted solution worked against their existing tests.
I think it's just a sleazy way of getting things built for free. Basically, write only a test for the functionality you want. And give the actual task to job candidates. If someone succeeds, you have both the algorithm and its test for pennies. It's based on P = NP. Testing the result is easy. Designing a solution is the hard part.
I now refuse both technical interviews and take at home tests. Limits my choices a lot. But the ones that remain are usually top shelf.
- Check glassdoor.com for reviews, interviews and salaries.
- Read a local version of glassdoor where employees talk about their former companies.
- Look at the company facebook account to see photos of the workplace and current employees.
- Search for forums and online communities where the company name is mentioned. Check the context and opinions.
- Research the CEO/CTO and potential supervisors on LinkedIn to determine competency and chemistry.
- Read articles and interviews about the company to gauge vision and the current state.
- Use the government public data to check company finances. In a software company wages are the biggest expense. So if you divide the yearly expenses by the number of employees, you can estimate an average salary.
This worked great so far. Dodged a lot of bullets and managed to get massive increases in pay. The tech industry would be a lot healthier if everybody shared information. Salary, reviews, what you like about the company, what you don't like. Post them everywhere you can. I do. Knowledge is power.
Yes, more politics. We don't have enough of it in our lives.
In your broken view a good politician is a more valuable employee. And only because there is a slight chance that he will bring you some short term profit with his contacts and friends. What if he doesn't. What if he leaves to the next company. Where is the value then?
This is how companies fail and die. Hiring politicians and letting them talk instead of hiring skilled people and letting them work.
Neither. It's bad design riddled with technical debt. The body is inefficient and a resource hog. It was built fast and in harsh conditions. Nothing was planned or structured, it just went with whatever was needed at the moment.
This is why your life is like the bell curve of a company. Start. Gain traction. Adapt and grow. Solidify your position. Admire the view from the top for a while. Start losing touch with reality. Start going on a downwards spiral. Become irrelevant. And then have a sad and lonely death.
Mortality is the inevitable result of our actions. We could fix it. But we're too busy thinking like a business.
Pay a huge salary. If you can't afford it, share the profit. Three guys means 33% for each one. So offer 33% of all profits for the next two years, paid monthly or when the company gets money. It's expensive, but you keep your equity. Offer less, and nobody will be interested. The offer must be compelling. Nobody likes cheap nitpickers.
After a year or so you can also figure out if this new developer should be an equity owner. Or if paying him for work is enough.
For example, everybody says "there are better companies out there". But all of them seem to be the same. And it's more of a gamble on the position. Find a good team and the company is great. Find a bad team in the same company and the company sucks. Maybe you got lucky and I didn't. Hence the different perspectives.