CEO behind Japan’s best-performing stock says his secret is raising salaries(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
CEO behind Japan’s best-performing stock says his secret is raising salaries
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-16/ceo-behind-5-500-stock-gain-says-his-secret-is-raising-salaries
265 comments
As a further example:
In my last full-on japanese company it was basically impossible to find any developer with more than 3 years experience by accidental design because:
1: No applicants studied computer science in university so they started learning when they joined the company and were assigned a development role.
2: After 3 years they they got promoted to a "manager" level role and stopped doing development. There was no concept of junior developer -> developer -> senior developer progression. If you wanted promotion you went from developer -> manager; it was the same for sysadmins. Their IT and development suffered heavily for it.
A team of 10 "western" style trained senior developers and sysadmins would have been able to do the work of 50 current employees at least for a large overall cost saving even with higher salaries.
Just the way things worked. Japan is indeed very different when it comes to how the workplace works in relation to tech in traditional companies.
In my last full-on japanese company it was basically impossible to find any developer with more than 3 years experience by accidental design because:
1: No applicants studied computer science in university so they started learning when they joined the company and were assigned a development role.
2: After 3 years they they got promoted to a "manager" level role and stopped doing development. There was no concept of junior developer -> developer -> senior developer progression. If you wanted promotion you went from developer -> manager; it was the same for sysadmins. Their IT and development suffered heavily for it.
A team of 10 "western" style trained senior developers and sysadmins would have been able to do the work of 50 current employees at least for a large overall cost saving even with higher salaries.
Just the way things worked. Japan is indeed very different when it comes to how the workplace works in relation to tech in traditional companies.
> No applicants studied computer science in university so they started learning when they joined the company and were assigned a development role.
Couple of years ago I had to integrate with a newly built api in japan. 2017, and they basically wrote their own web server in Java. Their own xml parsing. It looks like they read the spec for HTML and SOAP and implemented their own variation of it.
It’s the worst integration I’ve ever had to deal with.
If we got a 500 error from their system we had to write an incident report about why our system failed to call theirs. If they tried to call ours and it failed they would call up and we would ask them to “retry the call” and they would ask us to patch the data in our system because they can’t retry.
Couple of years ago I had to integrate with a newly built api in japan. 2017, and they basically wrote their own web server in Java. Their own xml parsing. It looks like they read the spec for HTML and SOAP and implemented their own variation of it.
It’s the worst integration I’ve ever had to deal with.
If we got a 500 error from their system we had to write an incident report about why our system failed to call theirs. If they tried to call ours and it failed they would call up and we would ask them to “retry the call” and they would ask us to patch the data in our system because they can’t retry.
This is the exact same problem we have with Indian outsourcing.
You get that one who's really damn good at what they do. Just as they are up to speed on your project and working style, they get promoted to manage a group of 10+ engineers.
And then you start again with the next one, hoping that they're as good as the previous one.
You get that one who's really damn good at what they do. Just as they are up to speed on your project and working style, they get promoted to manage a group of 10+ engineers.
And then you start again with the next one, hoping that they're as good as the previous one.
My company has found good luck in India by not outsourcing, instead we have a branch office. Gives us the ability to grow people to be what we need them to be. Looking at all the names on the buildings around ours, I don't think we are the only ones to figure this out.
There are good people everywhere. You just need to find them, and grow them to where they can shine.
There are good people everywhere. You just need to find them, and grow them to where they can shine.
A company I consulted for did something similar, they flew their team from India to their offices for a month or two so they could teach them the proper company culture faster.
Simple things, like it's better to ask when you don't know than say "yes everything is fine" until it's too late.
Worked pretty well, a few from the team actually ended up immigrating and are still living over here with their families =)
Simple things, like it's better to ask when you don't know than say "yes everything is fine" until it's too late.
Worked pretty well, a few from the team actually ended up immigrating and are still living over here with their families =)
I've heard that big, well-known consulting companies have refined this pattern into a business model that scales even better.
Why do any sort of progression, when you can just have a bunch of skilled people visiting customers to secure contracts, and once projects are started, they can be substituted for an army of juniors? Meanwhile, the seniors go secure more contracts elsewhere.
Why do any sort of progression, when you can just have a bunch of skilled people visiting customers to secure contracts, and once projects are started, they can be substituted for an army of juniors? Meanwhile, the seniors go secure more contracts elsewhere.
This is exactly the case - large consulting companies tend to hire loads of people fresh out of college (out of any engineering discipline) get them through a crash course and hand over work that's secured by onsite consultants. Attrition is a factor that's already been taken into the equation.
Basically you get what you pay for. Large consulting companies offer peanuts compared to good software developer salaries. But compared to the salaries you can expect in other fields of engineering if you are an average student (considering the glut of mediocre engineering colleges here)- consulting salaries seem decent.
Create a branch office in India and offer the expected salaries for software engineers and you can find great developers.
Basically you get what you pay for. Large consulting companies offer peanuts compared to good software developer salaries. But compared to the salaries you can expect in other fields of engineering if you are an average student (considering the glut of mediocre engineering colleges here)- consulting salaries seem decent.
Create a branch office in India and offer the expected salaries for software engineers and you can find great developers.
> 2: After 3 years they they got promoted to a "manager" level role and stopped doing development. There was no concept of junior developer -> developer -> senior developer progression. If you wanted promotion you went from developer -> manager; it was the same for sysadmins. Their IT and development suffered heavily for it.
Do you have any insight into how this works in Japanese companies that do more traditional engineering? I find it hard to believe that companies like Toyota have no senior engineers.
Do you have any insight into how this works in Japanese companies that do more traditional engineering? I find it hard to believe that companies like Toyota have no senior engineers.
They're referring specifically to software engineers.
Yes, but then the question arises: why is software treated differently to other engineering in Japan?
Because software is more an art than an engineering discipline?
Software is - or needs to be - an engineering discipline. It is very much less mature than the others, and the challenges are different too. You wouldn't expect a civil engineer to design a new chip without a lot of training in a completely new discipline.
I can confirm that Toyota has Senior Engineers (and Nissan).
Although I've seen this title on Teams be given to a 28 year old that didn't seem to be Senior quality, but I'm not much more experienced.
Although I've seen this title on Teams be given to a 28 year old that didn't seem to be Senior quality, but I'm not much more experienced.
Physical engineering is a much older discipline and has/had (this is 7 years ago in my company) much more respect as a "real" career socially in corporate life. Makers of physical things tend(ed) to get more respect.
I don't have any special insight into Toyota outside of some anecdotal stories from friends though.
I don't have any special insight into Toyota outside of some anecdotal stories from friends though.
My experience was similar. And if it’s not promotion, it’s rotation.
The system isn’t all bad. It’s just that it produces general managers at the expense of functional expertise. (The other extreme where 100% of the org’s entire skill set and network is limited to their own silo rarely works outside of Apple) Balance is needed.
The system isn’t all bad. It’s just that it produces general managers at the expense of functional expertise. (The other extreme where 100% of the org’s entire skill set and network is limited to their own silo rarely works outside of Apple) Balance is needed.
About 1. Are you sure? I think 80% of Japanese go to university. Or you mean they studied a different subject?
They studied a different subject.
Remeber in large traditional japanese companies you don't apply for a job, you apply for a well-known company and then they assign you a role that may or may not have anything to do with what you did at university.
The company I worked at was not a tech company so very few (none? I never saw any) applicants who studied computer science.
Remeber in large traditional japanese companies you don't apply for a job, you apply for a well-known company and then they assign you a role that may or may not have anything to do with what you did at university.
The company I worked at was not a tech company so very few (none? I never saw any) applicants who studied computer science.
Thanks. I was aware of the hiring system but not the assignment. So basically non core jobs are assigned not by degree, good to know. (I just assume core jobs are, like Tepco hopefully uses EE for power generator and nuclear engineer for the nuclear plants)
... You would hope so but honestly I wouldn't be willing to bet money on it.
So the real job is being done by Indian outsourcers then? I can't believe that someone who never coded before can get to build anything decent in only 3 years.
The stuff did get built in the company, usually half by contractors and half by the internal staff developers under guidance form the aforementioned managers. It was just build very slowly and it was held together by sticky tape and dreams.
One manager spent 50% of his time keeping an old system he wrote as a developer years earlier from completely falling over because no one else could understand it, byzantine doesn't begin to describe it.
He worked many, many, many hours overtime doing this in addition to his managerly duties but, of course, because this is Japan, he won an award for hardest worker of the year and a trip to Hawaii... which he couldn't take because otherwise the system would fall over.
One manager spent 50% of his time keeping an old system he wrote as a developer years earlier from completely falling over because no one else could understand it, byzantine doesn't begin to describe it.
He worked many, many, many hours overtime doing this in addition to his managerly duties but, of course, because this is Japan, he won an award for hardest worker of the year and a trip to Hawaii... which he couldn't take because otherwise the system would fall over.
Reminds me of a relative's tale when he talked with a Japanese developer to find out why one product of their company was really slow at processing data and the other was much faster. Turns out they were developed by two different teams, one of which had the idea to use the GPU for acceleration. The two teams were neighbours in the same company building but communicated so little they didn't know what the others were doing, and how.
This would be a pretty good short film.
There is a lot of outsourcing to Tata and others in Japan, yes. With many many middlemen between the poor guy spitting out the code and the one writing the requirements
3 years is enough time, but you will produce trash for your first year. The problem is that you just spent 3 years training someone and now you throw all that training into the trash and start from scratch with the next guy.
Don't forget that the training of the new people is done by the managers, i.e. the people with 3 years experience before they stopped learning and practicing themselves. "Blind leading the Blind" in many cases.
As a 195cm tall, 120kg, non-Japanese, senior developer who has never been to Japan, I kind of want to get a job at a Japanese company and just see what happens.
Try Vietnam, they are the shortest in south east Asia. I'm 190 and couldn't fit in a seat at a restaurant outside of tourist spots.
There's tons of non-tourist spots where you'd fit. It's not super uncommon to find guys who are 180cm or taller, the tallest I've met is 194cm while waiting for the bus.
Even at 181cm you do have to watch your head though.. I've hit my head many times while going up stairs, and for those who don't know stairs are extremely common because many businesses are split up across multiple floors of a narrow building.
Even at 181cm you do have to watch your head though.. I've hit my head many times while going up stairs, and for those who don't know stairs are extremely common because many businesses are split up across multiple floors of a narrow building.
When I say I don't fit I'm being a little hyperbolic. I'm talking about sitting at a table with tiny plastic chairs and having my knees sit well above the table.
Very true, especially hiring "Scrum-experts/Agile coaches" and cheap engineers from outside.
Based on my experience, they don't have good understanding of the business, so business people need to write up word-for-word documentation (e.g. Take this column from spreadsheet and multiply by 100 to show the numbers in percentage).
At this point, business people who have programming skills wonder why they have to work with corporate IT.
On the other hand, don't many western companies outsource IT work as well? Having never worked in US/EU tech industry, I don't see much difference when it comes to outsourcing. (hiring temp engineers is obviously different from outsourcing, but the concept must be the same)
On the other hand, don't many western companies outsource IT work as well? Having never worked in US/EU tech industry, I don't see much difference when it comes to outsourcing. (hiring temp engineers is obviously different from outsourcing, but the concept must be the same)
Do we get respect as SWE in EU? In every eu state I have been, except maybe uk in some sector, there was the meme that we are "the new blue collar workers" and indeed in a lot of places salaries were pretty much aligned
I am a software developer, and I feel software developers expect a lot more than is reasonable if they consider themselves part of the same society as everyone else. It's just a job like any other, and it's only in certain bubbles that developers are treated like rockstar prodigies.
For the rest of the world, or even just the rest of the US, to expect exceptionally high compensation in order to feel respected is unreasonable in my opinion. Software is an incredible tool and I'm glad to still find ways to love it, but as a profession, it's just like any other.
I have felt this way for a while, because I feel we can do a lot more meaningful work within our communities with software than we currently do. But all the developers are instead busy building Nudity in Kettle Reflection algorithms for market place image uploaders while getting rained on by VC money.
For the rest of the world, or even just the rest of the US, to expect exceptionally high compensation in order to feel respected is unreasonable in my opinion. Software is an incredible tool and I'm glad to still find ways to love it, but as a profession, it's just like any other.
I have felt this way for a while, because I feel we can do a lot more meaningful work within our communities with software than we currently do. But all the developers are instead busy building Nudity in Kettle Reflection algorithms for market place image uploaders while getting rained on by VC money.
> It's just a job like any other, and it's only in certain bubbles that developers are treated like rockstar prodigies.
The bubbles that did however did incredibly well compared to the rest of the market. And often crushed traditional companies with a traditional view Software and engineers.
> Software is an incredible tool and I'm glad to still find ways to love it, but as a profession, it's just like any other.
The thing is, software scales almost infinitely. For a doctor to double his output, he'd have to put in twice the hours. For a software engineers to double his. But a 10x userbase growth? Happens overnight at some companies. That's where it's different.
The bubbles that did however did incredibly well compared to the rest of the market. And often crushed traditional companies with a traditional view Software and engineers.
> Software is an incredible tool and I'm glad to still find ways to love it, but as a profession, it's just like any other.
The thing is, software scales almost infinitely. For a doctor to double his output, he'd have to put in twice the hours. For a software engineers to double his. But a 10x userbase growth? Happens overnight at some companies. That's where it's different.
From my observation in several countries and industries, software development is not the job like any other.
Simply becase software development sucks thinking and knowledge from the product/sales/manager silos.
To make things works you have to know much more than many managers do. Effectively you do the digging, the thinking, the analysis, the design - via tooling or via POCs directly, and SDE is the sink who gets everything that other folks didn't think or care.
It's not like Uber driver who drives you where you want. It's more like baby-sitter who also serves like a Virgil, a guide in the hell, and who takes all the risks.
Simply becase software development sucks thinking and knowledge from the product/sales/manager silos.
To make things works you have to know much more than many managers do. Effectively you do the digging, the thinking, the analysis, the design - via tooling or via POCs directly, and SDE is the sink who gets everything that other folks didn't think or care.
It's not like Uber driver who drives you where you want. It's more like baby-sitter who also serves like a Virgil, a guide in the hell, and who takes all the risks.
hmm, maybe i should study computer graphics so i can work on those algorithms lol
EU devs get a lot of respect... here in the Valley!
I think it you want to feel respected as developer in Western Europe, you should be consulting. The best way to get a respectable compensation for your efforts.
The governments found out that people are making too good money doing this. For example in the UK there is a term "disguised employment" thrown around and consultants being smeared as tax dodgers. This year they changed the law, so that company must declare whether hired person is a genuine contractor or de-facto an employee. There is a fine if they declare a disguised employee as a contractor, but not the other way around.
The effect is that companies now offer contracts that always place a contractor as a disguised employee to avoid problems with the tax man. As a result such consultant has to pay over 50% in effective tax.
Many good ones I know already looking to move overseas.
> he respect that a lot of software engineers enjoys in US/EU
And then you go on describing the average attitude towards software developers I perceived in the Netherlands… :)
And then you go on describing the average attitude towards software developers I perceived in the Netherlands… :)
I think it varies a lot between the countries. You can the difference even within German-speaking area. Recognition and the salaries (not sure about respect) are growing in Berlin and other large cities across Germany, but I heard that in Austria, software engineering is mostly seen as IT support cost centre.
I live in Austria. With the risk that comes from generalizations, I think you are mostly correct. They get respect from the general population, but when it comes to management and executives, software engineers are mostly seen as IT support, which is of course reflected in the very, very (!) low salaries.
There's this societal idea that "working in IT" is a good thing, but there is no distinction in most people's mind between different IT fields. Most people think that software engineers and people installing printers are more alike than similar.
There's this societal idea that "working in IT" is a good thing, but there is no distinction in most people's mind between different IT fields. Most people think that software engineers and people installing printers are more alike than similar.
I have an Austrian brother in law, he had a top position in a major Austrian company and he was ridiculously low paid.
He ended up moving to San Francisco where he's making 20x what he was making in Austria.
He ended up moving to San Francisco where he's making 20x what he was making in Austria.
In my experience, in EU it’s just the average perception and you’ll find a good section of big companies having better views. In Japan it’s more like finding exceptions to the rule.
Could you elaborate?
I am not OP but I have noticed in several European countries that many companies see software engineering (and IT in general) as a "necessary evil". Even in SMEs selling automation solutions, the perception is that the "real" work is done by the mechanical/electrical engineers and the marketing department, while the software engineers are just...support people, aren't they? And everybody has learned a little bit of python programming at the university, no? /s
You need official certificates to be allowed to work with high voltage. But the program that controls that machine there, well, it can be written by some Germanistics student who can't find a job in his original field (no offense intended. I know several brilliant programmers who never studied. I just want to illustrate the difference).
If you understand this attitude, you will also understand why the general state of cybersecurity in such companies is such a problem.
You need official certificates to be allowed to work with high voltage. But the program that controls that machine there, well, it can be written by some Germanistics student who can't find a job in his original field (no offense intended. I know several brilliant programmers who never studied. I just want to illustrate the difference).
If you understand this attitude, you will also understand why the general state of cybersecurity in such companies is such a problem.
I think this is common in the rest of the US/EU as well. The difference between how "tech" companies treat software engineers is very different from how "normal" companies treat software. Tech companies "get" that the difference between good and bad software is enormous and that it's worth doing the work to get good people to build it, other companies usually don't.
Can confirm this was the case in the US, made me promise myself to never take another software engineer role at a non “tech” company ever again which I’ve held to ever since.
They outsourced every possible role in software engineering and IT to India to the bare minimum where all that was left were the devs who worked on the firmware for gov related projects and regulatory concerns meant only US citizens could work on it. For the devs that were left, it was an uphill battle for resources and salaries while it felt like Sales and marketing were put on a pedestal when this company’s entire product was our work.
They outsourced every possible role in software engineering and IT to India to the bare minimum where all that was left were the devs who worked on the firmware for gov related projects and regulatory concerns meant only US citizens could work on it. For the devs that were left, it was an uphill battle for resources and salaries while it felt like Sales and marketing were put on a pedestal when this company’s entire product was our work.
"Do not work in a department that's only seen as a cost center" is a maxim I live by too. Everyone up the reporting chain is being antagonized, including the C-suite. If you're not (directly) contributing to the profits, the bean-counters will try to reign-in your departmental expenses, including salaries and equipment.
More specifically: I'm also a cross-professional, having obtained a degree in Electronic Engineering and learned software engineering out of personal interest (obviously with significant knowledge gaps.) Yet, I still notice I'm patronizingly put down by "the grown ups" in management that cultivate an obvious disdain for the "techies" and "engineers" (as in "the steam engine operator shoveling coal into the furnace"), despising their poor intellectual and professional quality, while at the same time trying to price them out with all means possible.
whatever...
whatever...
[deleted]
>But the program that controls that machine there, well, it can be written by some Germanistics student who can't find a job in his original field
I think you'll find that the people who write control software are mostly Electrical Engineers.
I think you'll find that the people who write control software are mostly Electrical Engineers.
I spent a lot of time in Berlin where there's no industry, just software. I can imagine that the attitude is much different somewhere in the west or in the south.
> Japan is very very behind in IT/digitalization compared to most western countries. This doesn't just mean it's behind in product portfolio and quality, but that perception of software engineer & managers and still quite behind.
Have you used anything digital in Japan? I find the interfaces to be fast, user friendly, and energy dense. Far better quality than what most of the western software people put out. You might need to clarify what you mean by behind - just business culture?
Have you used anything digital in Japan? I find the interfaces to be fast, user friendly, and energy dense. Far better quality than what most of the western software people put out. You might need to clarify what you mean by behind - just business culture?
What? The digital interfaces in Japan looked and felt like they were at least 10 years behind the curve. And if "energy dense" you mean that every single possible option was crammed to a small screen estate then sure.
Is it a coincidence that sony and nintendo have horrendous online offerings?
I have a personal lifetime ban on buying Panasonic/Matsushita products because of the cruddy alpha quality firmware they built into a dvd player. It crashed 100% of the time when playing CDs among many other unforgivable flaws. Their fix in the revised model was to put a reset button on the front panel. Japan cannot manage complex software without a lot of time and manpower.
I can see that you mean well but I really cannot agree with this statement.
I feel as though I was thinking about web applications for major companies and everyone else was thinking of software for built in electronics, which I agree is awful
> Tange, 46, says his business model is an attempt to remove inefficiencies in Japan’s software industry, where layers of subcontractors take cuts on orders before passing the work to another company below.
This reminds me of a role I once had back in the late nighties.
I was hired on contract by a multi-national consultancy firm to help out on one of their projects. The need someone to come in with good C programming skills.
When I started I was amazed to find a 70 developers and testers workforce working on the project, most of whom were straight out of university.
A nice earner for the consultancy firm; they were charging their development team out at $150.00 per hour, yet only paying graduate salaries.
It must have been $100+ profit per hour per developer.
This reminds me of a role I once had back in the late nighties.
I was hired on contract by a multi-national consultancy firm to help out on one of their projects. The need someone to come in with good C programming skills.
When I started I was amazed to find a 70 developers and testers workforce working on the project, most of whom were straight out of university.
A nice earner for the consultancy firm; they were charging their development team out at $150.00 per hour, yet only paying graduate salaries.
It must have been $100+ profit per hour per developer.
This is basically the bread and butter of large parts of the consulting industry in Norway as well, although not quite as dysfunctional. Always be recruiting promising young engineers from university, pay them graduate salaries and bill them out at senior rates. Keep enough experienced engineers around to mentor them and ensure that the delivered product is good. Profit margin for each of these developers is excellent.
When they get enough confidence and experience to realize they're underpaid, they'll jump ship to a company that pays senior-level salary (but still bills at very similar rates!), or to a consulting firm that mostly pays commission.
Don't quite agree with myself whether this is an example of a gross inefficiency or just the logical way to train people.
When they get enough confidence and experience to realize they're underpaid, they'll jump ship to a company that pays senior-level salary (but still bills at very similar rates!), or to a consulting firm that mostly pays commission.
Don't quite agree with myself whether this is an example of a gross inefficiency or just the logical way to train people.
This is still alive and well in eastern Europe - I worked for such companies.
They would go a step further and lie that:
-They can quickly expand that team of three mid-level developers to eleven, adding mostly seniors.
-A team of junior to mid developers is comprised of seniors.
-The team is working at FTE on this project and has no other responsibilities.
Currently stakeholders often have to resort to requesting the CVs of all the people involved, but that doesn't shield them from that last trick.
Of course the client is billed $100+/h, while developers can count on around 25-30% of that.
A lot of people got rich like that around here.
They would go a step further and lie that:
-They can quickly expand that team of three mid-level developers to eleven, adding mostly seniors.
-A team of junior to mid developers is comprised of seniors.
-The team is working at FTE on this project and has no other responsibilities.
Currently stakeholders often have to resort to requesting the CVs of all the people involved, but that doesn't shield them from that last trick.
Of course the client is billed $100+/h, while developers can count on around 25-30% of that.
A lot of people got rich like that around here.
Yup, this was a well-known (in the IT circles) working model for a prominent Finnish IT firm.
They brought out all of the most highly educated people front and center when bidding a project. People with masters and doctorates in the field. Dozens of them.
Of course they won every project bid.
Then the experienced people leave to front the next big project and the actual work is being done by people fresh out of school combined with outsourced teams.
The result was utter shit every single time, but their sales people had the magic touch and managed to get the clients to sign the weirdest contracts. All missing features and bugs were usually fixed at a hourly rate in a leisurely pace. Pure profit every second.
I worked for a small firm that managed to snag a few of those projects, mostly because of our legend of a salesman. The customers were astonished more than once when we delivered features in weeks, not in months or years. We consulted them during development instead of at end of a quarterly cycle. One time our caffeine-for-blood 10x coder actually coded a full proof-of-concept implementation during the sales meeting discussing the project =)
They brought out all of the most highly educated people front and center when bidding a project. People with masters and doctorates in the field. Dozens of them.
Of course they won every project bid.
Then the experienced people leave to front the next big project and the actual work is being done by people fresh out of school combined with outsourced teams.
The result was utter shit every single time, but their sales people had the magic touch and managed to get the clients to sign the weirdest contracts. All missing features and bugs were usually fixed at a hourly rate in a leisurely pace. Pure profit every second.
I worked for a small firm that managed to snag a few of those projects, mostly because of our legend of a salesman. The customers were astonished more than once when we delivered features in weeks, not in months or years. We consulted them during development instead of at end of a quarterly cycle. One time our caffeine-for-blood 10x coder actually coded a full proof-of-concept implementation during the sales meeting discussing the project =)
> requesting the CVs of all the people involved
Can't the agency provide made up nice looking CV:s?
> client is billed $100+/h
That's interesting, then seems it's not much different from hiring a local person (in western Europe).
> A team of junior to mid developers is comprised of seniors
I suppose the clients usually won't notice? They're often non technical (or at least the managers there?) and don't know what to expect? (If the clients had enough technical in house people, they could do their own recruiting instead, didn't need agencies? Or how does it work)
Can't the agency provide made up nice looking CV:s?
> client is billed $100+/h
That's interesting, then seems it's not much different from hiring a local person (in western Europe).
> A team of junior to mid developers is comprised of seniors
I suppose the clients usually won't notice? They're often non technical (or at least the managers there?) and don't know what to expect? (If the clients had enough technical in house people, they could do their own recruiting instead, didn't need agencies? Or how does it work)
There's a line between 'misleading' and 'actual fraud' that these service providers like to stay on the right side of (but very close to). Producing made up CVs is the sort of thing that would make it a very short court case if they got caught.
Actual conversation I had a few years ago:
-Client requires <skill>. Can you add it to your CV?
-I don't know, can I?
-Client requires <skill>. Can you add it to your CV?
-I don't know, can I?
> Can't the agency provide made up nice looking CV:s?
Yes! But this is countered by a 30min call with the candidate.
Regarding billing: this is how much SV companies are charged. At the same time they're the ones who fall victim to such practices the most often.
For everyone else the average rate is around $45-55/h and you get what you pay for.
Yes! But this is countered by a 30min call with the candidate.
Regarding billing: this is how much SV companies are charged. At the same time they're the ones who fall victim to such practices the most often.
For everyone else the average rate is around $45-55/h and you get what you pay for.
Its same in Indian IT. When I joined Infosys straight out of university, my salary was approx `$350` per month.
They told client, I have 2 years of experience as Informatica developer and charged $50 per hour.
Before joining the project, I had never seen the Informatica tool.
They told client, I have 2 years of experience as Informatica developer and charged $50 per hour.
Before joining the project, I had never seen the Informatica tool.
This explains a lot of my experience with our offshore engineers.
Glad to see I’m not crazy.
Glad to see I’m not crazy.
In my experience it's the same with western/American consultancies.
Yeah, similar story from Western Europe - graduate consultancy gave me 3 months of Java programming material to essentially self-teach myself straight out of university with 0 programming experience. 3 months later I was starting a C# role at a bulge bracket investment bank where the team was expecting someone with at least some exp. seeing as I was costing 75kpa to them (I received 20k as salary).
Only reason I didn't get sent back the first week was my boss taking a liking to me, same story for the other 30/40 'consultants' starting at the same bank at the same time.
Worse part was the precondition to accepting the graduate consultancy role was a 20k bond that I would have had to pay if I wanted to leave within 2 years of my first contract. While without them I wouldn't have ended up where I am today, at the same time they earned absolutely zero good will from me due to the terrible wage/cost ratio they gave me and the complete lack of any training while I had to take personal responsibility on the client site for my lack of experience.
Only reason I didn't get sent back the first week was my boss taking a liking to me, same story for the other 30/40 'consultants' starting at the same bank at the same time.
Worse part was the precondition to accepting the graduate consultancy role was a 20k bond that I would have had to pay if I wanted to leave within 2 years of my first contract. While without them I wouldn't have ended up where I am today, at the same time they earned absolutely zero good will from me due to the terrible wage/cost ratio they gave me and the complete lack of any training while I had to take personal responsibility on the client site for my lack of experience.
> my boss taking a liking to me
The boss in the client company (the investment bank)? (Not in the agency that employed you?)
I wonder what your coworkers in the client company thought about you / your skills, in the beginning
The boss in the client company (the investment bank)? (Not in the agency that employed you?)
I wonder what your coworkers in the client company thought about you / your skills, in the beginning
At the client, trust me when I say that basically everyone else didn't want us to be there apart from my immediate line manager! Wasn't a fun experience getting grilled by the adjacent team lead, my boss's boss and the other developers on the team on things that I didn't know I didn't know.
It was quite harrowing to be frank, to feel like no one wanted you there but without any choice but to turn up to work under threat of a 20k fee for my 'education' if I quit.
It was quite harrowing to be frank, to feel like no one wanted you there but without any choice but to turn up to work under threat of a 20k fee for my 'education' if I quit.
How did you get to know what they told the client? Your bosses wanted you to know, so you didn't say the wrong things, if the client asked something? (eg so you knew to day yes if the client asked if you had two years experience)
My boss asked me to change my resume and show experience of 2 years in Informatica. Also, I had to lie to client about experience during introduction.
My client was non technical person and we use to get work from Onsite coordinator
My client was non technical person and we use to get work from Onsite coordinator
Interesting, thanks for explaining :-)
Want to say that this model is still alive and well in Japan (like anywhere else obviously), and these days it looks like charging $10k/month (a lot to companies here for a single developer) for $2-5k/month developers in APAC or eastern Europe, with the guarantee that the project will be looked after based on the sensibilities of someone local/from the US (this person is usually the face of the business or extremely high up, etc).
At it's worst this pattern is parasitic but at it's best it's mutually beneficial symbiosis -- if we look at the reality of whether the developers could clear the trust barrier (whether it should be there or not is another question) to getting the roles, it becomes a question of what that barrier skip is worth.
BTW, Japan is rife with middlemen taking cuts. If you want to have a chuckle, look into property purchasing in japan/proptech. There are usually 3+ middlemen in the apartment purchase flow here, and fees that you do not see in most other places, ex. "reikin" (AKA "Key Money")[0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_money
At it's worst this pattern is parasitic but at it's best it's mutually beneficial symbiosis -- if we look at the reality of whether the developers could clear the trust barrier (whether it should be there or not is another question) to getting the roles, it becomes a question of what that barrier skip is worth.
BTW, Japan is rife with middlemen taking cuts. If you want to have a chuckle, look into property purchasing in japan/proptech. There are usually 3+ middlemen in the apartment purchase flow here, and fees that you do not see in most other places, ex. "reikin" (AKA "Key Money")[0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_money
While Japan is rife with middlemen taking the cut, 礼金 (key money) is not a good example. It goes directly to your landlord, just like your rent.
Hiring in IT does have a lot of room for taking cuts. Most Japanese companies (even large ones - or rather, especially large ones) are very bad in doing their own recruiting, so they have to pay a lot of upfront fees to headhunters for every direct employee hired. This is another reason why hiring consulting staff can seem cheap on the short term.
Hiring in IT does have a lot of room for taking cuts. Most Japanese companies (even large ones - or rather, especially large ones) are very bad in doing their own recruiting, so they have to pay a lot of upfront fees to headhunters for every direct employee hired. This is another reason why hiring consulting staff can seem cheap on the short term.
I have never had a problem with "key money". I just see it as asking for 2/26ths of your rent up front (the average key money being 2 months rent and paid again every 2 years). I know it's labeled as "礼金" but functionally there is no different from them asking for 2/26ths of my rent up front and then asking for 1/26th each month for the next 24 months. That the system has evolved to have this strange system is curious but looking at it as just an upfront portion of the rent removes most negative feelings about it, at least for me.
The thing that still bugs me a little though is the fact that move in costs to the average apartment is 6 months rent. first month + 2 months deposit + 2 months key money + 1 month to realtor. So, a $2.5k a month apartment costs $15k to get started. You can often get 100% of your deposit back when you leave but still, I know lots of people, especially younger people, that saving up 6 months rent to move is hard which suggests it's a barrier to mobility.
Note: I'm comparing to Los Angeles where for large apartment complexes it was often just first months rent + $500 deposit to move in.
The thing that still bugs me a little though is the fact that move in costs to the average apartment is 6 months rent. first month + 2 months deposit + 2 months key money + 1 month to realtor. So, a $2.5k a month apartment costs $15k to get started. You can often get 100% of your deposit back when you leave but still, I know lots of people, especially younger people, that saving up 6 months rent to move is hard which suggests it's a barrier to mobility.
Note: I'm comparing to Los Angeles where for large apartment complexes it was often just first months rent + $500 deposit to move in.
> The thing that still bugs me a little though is the fact that move in costs to the average apartment is 6 months rent. first month + 2 months deposit + 2 months key money + 1 month to realtor. So, a $2.5k a month apartment costs $15k to get started.
Well that's simply the result of having so many middlepeople! :)
The middlepeople figuring out that they should charge a multiple of rent rather than a static fee for the actual amount of work that may not keep up with inflation. A truly elegant solution. Another fun bit is the Guarantors that are sometimes required based on just how much the other side thinks they can trust you (or extract from you, since they often require guarantors they know).
> You can often get 100% of your deposit back when you leave
This I've not seen happen very often, most places will put it right in the contract that they're going to take 0 < x < 5 man out of what you paid just for "cleaning fees" and "AC maintenance" or what not, like an AirBnB would.
> You can often get 100% of your deposit back when you leave but still, I know lots of people, especially younger people, that saving up 6 months rent to move is hard which suggests it's a barrier to mobility.
I can see this, but a friend and I were discussing this the other day and he brought up an interesting point -- it could be that mobility was so common and bustling (maybe during the bubble?) that these middlepeople sprung up as a sort of natural reaction. I don't know the history but it's an interesting theory -- so maybe it's like a bad feedback loop -- middlemen appeared to facilitate lots and lots of real estate deals during a historic real estate boom, but they never geared back down so the friction persists.
Well that's simply the result of having so many middlepeople! :)
The middlepeople figuring out that they should charge a multiple of rent rather than a static fee for the actual amount of work that may not keep up with inflation. A truly elegant solution. Another fun bit is the Guarantors that are sometimes required based on just how much the other side thinks they can trust you (or extract from you, since they often require guarantors they know).
> You can often get 100% of your deposit back when you leave
This I've not seen happen very often, most places will put it right in the contract that they're going to take 0 < x < 5 man out of what you paid just for "cleaning fees" and "AC maintenance" or what not, like an AirBnB would.
> You can often get 100% of your deposit back when you leave but still, I know lots of people, especially younger people, that saving up 6 months rent to move is hard which suggests it's a barrier to mobility.
I can see this, but a friend and I were discussing this the other day and he brought up an interesting point -- it could be that mobility was so common and bustling (maybe during the bubble?) that these middlepeople sprung up as a sort of natural reaction. I don't know the history but it's an interesting theory -- so maybe it's like a bad feedback loop -- middlemen appeared to facilitate lots and lots of real estate deals during a historic real estate boom, but they never geared back down so the friction persists.
Parasitic implies one party (implied the employee?) is left worse off than otherwise. If these jobs are being accepted normally it's because the local offers are worse and the developer is not good/doesn't want to deal with the international business side (inc. finding clients, negotiating, etc). So it seems that in a free-ish market, this relationship would be strongly symbiotic, right?
Interestingly in Japan they have "Key Money" and "Lock Change fee", which are two different non-refundable BS fees and they confused me initially. The key money also depends by region, with Kansai having it almost everywhere and in other areas "it depends".
Interestingly in Japan they have "Key Money" and "Lock Change fee", which are two different non-refundable BS fees and they confused me initially. The key money also depends by region, with Kansai having it almost everywhere and in other areas "it depends".
Note that "key money" is a "translation" of 礼金, which literally means "gratitude money" and has nothing to do with keys. That doesn't make it less bullshit, but it makes it clearly unrelated to lock change fees.
> Parasitic implies one party (implied the employee?) is left worse off than otherwise. If these jobs are being accepted normally it's because the local offers are worse and the developer is not good/doesn't want to deal with the international business side (inc. finding clients, negotiating, etc). So it seems that in a free-ish market, this relationship would be strongly symbiotic, right?
It's hard to guarantee that the labor side wouldn't have been able to land the contract without the labor re-seller, so it's up to your own personal bias to see this as a service or as predatory. Could go either way but on a case by case basis this is subjective in my opinion.
There's not much magic here (well if there is, it can vary greatly), the contracting agencies are middlemen reselling labor that is in various states of compatibility to the company purchasing the labor. Perfectly compatible market actors could be using middlemen when they don't need to, and middlemen are incentivized to make this the case.
The usual questions of whether middlemen are good or bad apply and it's not as simple as it being strongly parasitic or strongly symbiotic in any case, it's more like a spectrum which is why I described it as such.
A bit of anecdata: I know someone who worked for a contracting firm in NYC that hired Japanese developers (and relocated them) to work in the American market and paid them Japanese wages to work at American companies. The Japanese developers were always happy at first because they were blissfully ignorant and didn't know what the company actually charged. Just because the host isn't aware of the parasite doesn't mean it's not being adversely affected -- some hosts just live severely degraded lives with no idea that they're being drained. It's possible to take the stance that labor is simply paying for imperfect knowledge/market conditions but by that logic exploitation might as well not exist, and if that's the argument then we probably disagree on fundamental grounds about lots of things.
> Interestingly in Japan they have "Key Money" and "Lock Change fee", which are two different non-refundable BS fees and they confused me initially. The key money also depends by region, with Kansai having it almost everywhere and in other areas "it depends".
Sure, it's possible that the region a person wants to live in does not have Key Money in Japan, but I wouldn't count that a likely outcome. ~55% of apartments in Tokyo look to require Key Money[0], but I'd argue that even if it's not required, most first and maybe second time renters in Japan will pay it, thinking it's just a cost of doing business. All that changes in the second or third transaction ins knowledge on the renter's part.
[0]: https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-percentage-of-a...
It's hard to guarantee that the labor side wouldn't have been able to land the contract without the labor re-seller, so it's up to your own personal bias to see this as a service or as predatory. Could go either way but on a case by case basis this is subjective in my opinion.
There's not much magic here (well if there is, it can vary greatly), the contracting agencies are middlemen reselling labor that is in various states of compatibility to the company purchasing the labor. Perfectly compatible market actors could be using middlemen when they don't need to, and middlemen are incentivized to make this the case.
The usual questions of whether middlemen are good or bad apply and it's not as simple as it being strongly parasitic or strongly symbiotic in any case, it's more like a spectrum which is why I described it as such.
A bit of anecdata: I know someone who worked for a contracting firm in NYC that hired Japanese developers (and relocated them) to work in the American market and paid them Japanese wages to work at American companies. The Japanese developers were always happy at first because they were blissfully ignorant and didn't know what the company actually charged. Just because the host isn't aware of the parasite doesn't mean it's not being adversely affected -- some hosts just live severely degraded lives with no idea that they're being drained. It's possible to take the stance that labor is simply paying for imperfect knowledge/market conditions but by that logic exploitation might as well not exist, and if that's the argument then we probably disagree on fundamental grounds about lots of things.
> Interestingly in Japan they have "Key Money" and "Lock Change fee", which are two different non-refundable BS fees and they confused me initially. The key money also depends by region, with Kansai having it almost everywhere and in other areas "it depends".
Sure, it's possible that the region a person wants to live in does not have Key Money in Japan, but I wouldn't count that a likely outcome. ~55% of apartments in Tokyo look to require Key Money[0], but I'd argue that even if it's not required, most first and maybe second time renters in Japan will pay it, thinking it's just a cost of doing business. All that changes in the second or third transaction ins knowledge on the renter's part.
[0]: https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-percentage-of-a...
In 2003 or so, I was 4 years out of grad school and making a solid $85k or so doing software integrations. My company billed me out at $250/hour and my typical week was about 40-60 hours of billable time (yes, that's real, and that's why I quit!)
Hello everyone, this is my company and in the newly created dev department we are looking for Japanese speaking full-stack engineers, designers, Project managers etc based in Japan.
Japanese is almost definitely needed, but may make an exception for rockstar level engineers.
Remote work (inside Japan), visa support, good salary, even 1 million yen present for joining are in the package.
You can find more and contact us if interested https://topics.shiftinc.jp/recruit-daae/
You can find more and contact us if interested https://topics.shiftinc.jp/recruit-daae/
Have they thought of lowering their competitors' salaries?
https://www.theregister.com/2015/09/03/apple_wagefixing_clos...
https://www.theregister.com/2015/09/03/apple_wagefixing_clos...
Having had experience in a company that acts as middleperson/outsourcing company, many of the employees where working for company A and then outsource to work for company B. They would be hired as full time employees at company A and let us say in my example start with a salary at around 30k USD per year and the company A would receive around 120k USD per year by letting that employee work for company B.
I thought it felt strange to know(although they tried to keep it secret) that one received about 25% of the work one did in terms of salary. This was a hugely profitable business model for a company and in a more competitive economy, such models would be difficult. Apparently, this gentleman realised that if you can cut off these middlepersons there are great opportunities for business, you could double and triple the salaries of the employees and probably still make a profit.
I thought it felt strange to know(although they tried to keep it secret) that one received about 25% of the work one did in terms of salary. This was a hugely profitable business model for a company and in a more competitive economy, such models would be difficult. Apparently, this gentleman realised that if you can cut off these middlepersons there are great opportunities for business, you could double and triple the salaries of the employees and probably still make a profit.
Paying someone X and charging 3X for their time is not "hugely profitable". Employing someone is pretty expensive. You have to account for all the costs of employing them (payroll, admin, HR, project management, etc), the fact you still need to pay them for the time they're not being charged to a client, the cost of an office for them to work from and equipment for them to do the work, and so on. It's common in business admin to account for at least 2X of someone's salary as the cost of employing them. If you charge less you'd be making a loss.
I've seen the "paying 4x" phenomenon at a former company (a long time ago tho). The external "expert" consultants worked with us for 3+ years, used our equipment and offices, and at least one of them didn't understand why C sizeof() was not giving him the length of the string.
Companies hire external experts (or "experts") in order to fix hiring problems (can't find the necessary people), or because they find it hard to predict future needs (might only need them for 3 months, or 3 years), or because they don't have the management team in place to manage those people (every person hired is a call on managers to give them work to do, and more admin to do). These are all things that are often well worth paying 4X what it'd cost to employ the staff themselves.
Yeah, I mean it worked. Projects got delivered on time, I assume on budget, and functioning to spec. Lacks in some places were compensated with excesses in others. Some things were not pretty, but there's no denying the place ran like a well oiled machine. I learned a lot there.
At the time I thought the in-house knowledge and expertise these people would take with them when they moved elsewhere would be a big loss, but then the company was bought and dissolved into a larger parent, and that knowledge mattered exactly zero.
At the time I thought the in-house knowledge and expertise these people would take with them when they moved elsewhere would be a big loss, but then the company was bought and dissolved into a larger parent, and that knowledge mattered exactly zero.
I used to work for a company that did this. After two years of asking for a pay raise, I left to be a freelancer. I found out how much they were charging the client and I made the decision to leave.
Not sure about this specific company but it's true that salaries in Japan have been increasing for tech positions.
I gathered up a ton of data points to try and prove this here:
https://japan-dev.com/blog/software-developer-salaries-in-ja...
I'm also attempting to keep track of modern companies that operate in Japan and pay globally competitive salaries here:
https://japan-dev.com
It's an exciting time for Japan (especially Tokyo).
I gathered up a ton of data points to try and prove this here:
https://japan-dev.com/blog/software-developer-salaries-in-ja...
I'm also attempting to keep track of modern companies that operate in Japan and pay globally competitive salaries here:
https://japan-dev.com
It's an exciting time for Japan (especially Tokyo).
If you pay slightly above average and treat your employees well you will get the best talent, they will be motivated and they will stay longer. Caveat is that only a fraction of the companies can run this strategy or the average pay rate will start to rise continuously.
That’s not a problem as it’s not a zero-sum game. Everyone could get their pay raised at the same time and the overall productivity would go up accordingly, until some point of equilibrium.
If you increase all wages at the same rate then inflation rises (as you don't increase productivity and resource availability accordingly) and you devalue savings. This is not a bad thing overall. It certainly is better than losing a war.
As it rises it starts to pull in talented people from other fields who wouldn't take the job otherwise (coming from everything from finance to biology).
There is a lot more supply-side variability than people realise based on salary differences, and money can paper over a lot of work satisfaction issues, at least temporarily.
Maybe also some clients will be happy to pay more, if they notice the quality is better
Short term it steals competitor's employees, which will be biased towards the higher quality individuals (as in, they should be able to pick and choose). Longer term it brings new people into the field, which might depress skill and aptitude levels, since these are people to who this was not their natural calling.
> longer term brings new people into the field
To me, that raises the question of how to find out if someone from another field, will be able to get good at software.
This CEO mentioned they have training programs -- how do they know if someone from, say, biology and with some basic programming skills, is the right person to hire and maybe join a training program
To me, that raises the question of how to find out if someone from another field, will be able to get good at software.
This CEO mentioned they have training programs -- how do they know if someone from, say, biology and with some basic programming skills, is the right person to hire and maybe join a training program
Not disagreeing, but the devil’s advocate: sometimes you don’t want to be keeping the contractors longer, and will use them as fuses to shelter your business when bad times come. This is at least part of the reasoning behind having layers and layers of sub-contracting companies paying their employees low wages.
It's not the whistle that pulls the train!
Chances are that Tange hired well qualified employees tht fit the corporate culture (and fired the ones who didn't fit in), and continued to reward as objectives were met.
Remind me of Netflix and GE 20 years ago.
Chances are that Tange hired well qualified employees tht fit the corporate culture (and fired the ones who didn't fit in), and continued to reward as objectives were met.
Remind me of Netflix and GE 20 years ago.
Some context on the japanese job market from what I've seen:
- The entire japanese job market's wages are depressed[0]
- In 2019, pressure had to come from the PM (not the local unions) to raise the minimum wage to 1000 yen/hour (~$9/hour)[1]
- Engineers are underpaid here, possibly more so than the EU in relation to the US. This is amplified for japanese companies (whether "black"[1] or not)
- With nationalized healthcare and generally low cost of living (even in Tokyo, a "world city"), most workers do not feel the pain of being underpaid sharply. Cultural differences and a propensity to save (more ant than grasshopper, let's say) generally feels like the backstop behind the economy (other than the BOJ's enormous purse and very active involvement).
- There is a sort of inbuilt trust in the society that expresses itself in economic transactions (loan companies can be very trusting, risk is considered low with Japanese applicants, etc) and greases the wheels of commerce most of the time, if all participants are local. There are other factors (sometimes the same ones) that make it difficult/slow down japan but those are well discussed generally.
- "Super Salaryman" is a colloquial term here (I can't find it on wiki or elsewhere) for a salaryman[3] that makes 10 million yen (~$90k) per year
- Japanese companies often provide "free" company housing to new grads to enable them to save while being paid relatively little. Many live with for a bit after graduating (women more so than men) as well without much stigma.
- Company standing/appearances mean alot -- $60k at [large conglomerate] is far and away more prestigious than $80k at [unknown startup] in the eyes of many.
[EDIT] Added some more from a different comment that might be useful.
[EDIT2] - fix the super salaryman yen estimation, confused with 10 million
[0]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/03/17/business/lowest...
[1]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/07/national/japan-...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_company_(Japanese_term)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaryman
- The entire japanese job market's wages are depressed[0]
- In 2019, pressure had to come from the PM (not the local unions) to raise the minimum wage to 1000 yen/hour (~$9/hour)[1]
- Engineers are underpaid here, possibly more so than the EU in relation to the US. This is amplified for japanese companies (whether "black"[1] or not)
- With nationalized healthcare and generally low cost of living (even in Tokyo, a "world city"), most workers do not feel the pain of being underpaid sharply. Cultural differences and a propensity to save (more ant than grasshopper, let's say) generally feels like the backstop behind the economy (other than the BOJ's enormous purse and very active involvement).
- There is a sort of inbuilt trust in the society that expresses itself in economic transactions (loan companies can be very trusting, risk is considered low with Japanese applicants, etc) and greases the wheels of commerce most of the time, if all participants are local. There are other factors (sometimes the same ones) that make it difficult/slow down japan but those are well discussed generally.
- "Super Salaryman" is a colloquial term here (I can't find it on wiki or elsewhere) for a salaryman[3] that makes 10 million yen (~$90k) per year
- Japanese companies often provide "free" company housing to new grads to enable them to save while being paid relatively little. Many live with for a bit after graduating (women more so than men) as well without much stigma.
- Company standing/appearances mean alot -- $60k at [large conglomerate] is far and away more prestigious than $80k at [unknown startup] in the eyes of many.
[EDIT] Added some more from a different comment that might be useful.
[EDIT2] - fix the super salaryman yen estimation, confused with 10 million
[0]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/03/17/business/lowest...
[1]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/07/national/japan-...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_company_(Japanese_term)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaryman
You are off by an order of magnitude, 1 million yen is ~9k USD. That's a ridiculously low salary here, fine for a college kid with a part time job ("arubaito") at your local konbini, but not much else.
Maybe you got confused because China, Japan and Korea group numbers by powers of 10 000 ("man")? Now a 1000-man (10 million yen, around 90k USD or 75k EUR) salary would be amazing, the average Japanese salary is 3 million yen.
Maybe you got confused because China, Japan and Korea group numbers by powers of 10 000 ("man")? Now a 1000-man (10 million yen, around 90k USD or 75k EUR) salary would be amazing, the average Japanese salary is 3 million yen.
Thanks for pointing this out --
> That's a ridiculously low salary here, fine for a college kid with a part time job ("arubaito") at your local konbini, but not much else.
True -- min wage is 1000 yen, not hard to work out the lowest theoretical yearly salary would be with a 5 day work week. The usual exception of waiters that are below the min wage isn't here since the service sector generally doesn't do tipping.
> Maybe you got confused because China, Japan and Korea group numbers by powers of 10 000 ("man")?
Yup this is exactly it. Can't get used to dealing with that extra order of magnitude.
> That's a ridiculously low salary here, fine for a college kid with a part time job ("arubaito") at your local konbini, but not much else.
True -- min wage is 1000 yen, not hard to work out the lowest theoretical yearly salary would be with a 5 day work week. The usual exception of waiters that are below the min wage isn't here since the service sector generally doesn't do tipping.
> Maybe you got confused because China, Japan and Korea group numbers by powers of 10 000 ("man")?
Yup this is exactly it. Can't get used to dealing with that extra order of magnitude.
You're welcome.
The worst part is trying to read out loud a number. It's fine when you see a number like 1億6432万4871 and you know exactly where the splits are, but most of the time they will just use commas as thousand separators and write numbers as 164,324,871, and then it becomes really difficult to parse numbers, even for them.
The worst part is trying to read out loud a number. It's fine when you see a number like 1億6432万4871 and you know exactly where the splits are, but most of the time they will just use commas as thousand separators and write numbers as 164,324,871, and then it becomes really difficult to parse numbers, even for them.
> The worst part is trying to read out loud a number. It's fine when you see a number like 1億6432万4871 and you know exactly where the splits are, but most of the time they will just use commas as thousand separators and write numbers as 164,324,871, and then it becomes really difficult to parse numbers, even for them.
Yep, or trying to figure this out in front of someone you're making a deal with -- normally I'm all alone writing an estimate/invoice when I'm figuring out. Sales in japan is one part of the japanese business experience that I do not do, and avoid every time I can.
Most of the time I just do everything in dollars -- Americans have a reputation for thinking of everything in American terms, so why disappoint? On a serious note though, a lot of local counterparties are fine doing things in dollars here as well.
Yep, or trying to figure this out in front of someone you're making a deal with -- normally I'm all alone writing an estimate/invoice when I'm figuring out. Sales in japan is one part of the japanese business experience that I do not do, and avoid every time I can.
Most of the time I just do everything in dollars -- Americans have a reputation for thinking of everything in American terms, so why disappoint? On a serious note though, a lot of local counterparties are fine doing things in dollars here as well.
Funny experience: being an European guy in a city with an American base means that all the Japanese assume I'm American too. They are quite surprised when they find I'm not. Heck, the guys at the city office were shocked when I went there to register my hanko :D
Anyway, you are lucky, as the dollar/yen exchange ratio is close to 100, so you can drop or add two zeroes and get a good approximation. For us the euro/yen ratio is around 130, such an approximation would introduce too much error.
Anyway, you are lucky, as the dollar/yen exchange ratio is close to 100, so you can drop or add two zeroes and get a good approximation. For us the euro/yen ratio is around 130, such an approximation would introduce too much error.
> a college kid with a part time job ("arubaito") at your local konbini
Is the japanese word for a part-time job really the german word 'Arbeit'? Amusing.
Is the japanese word for a part-time job really the german word 'Arbeit'? Amusing.
It's in keeping with the German influences on the school system, I think, since that's where the "baito" is most likely to come up.
Is Super Salaryman really a thing?
I've only ever heard of this TV series[1], about a regular salaryman who becomes a superhero.
Crossing the 1000 man (10 million) yen barrier is a thing though, I just don't know if it has a special name.
[1] https://asianwiki.com/Super_Salaryman_Mr._Saenai
I've only ever heard of this TV series[1], about a regular salaryman who becomes a superhero.
Crossing the 1000 man (10 million) yen barrier is a thing though, I just don't know if it has a special name.
[1] https://asianwiki.com/Super_Salaryman_Mr._Saenai
Yeah I really struggled to find anything about it, but it's a term I've used with people here... reaching out to ask some friends if maybe I got the term wrong.
Nitpick but you've repeated it in another comment so maybe worth correcting - 1 million yen is about $9k. 'Super salaryman' would probably be 10 million yen, I'd guess (haven't heard the term, but that doesn't mean much).
Thanks for pointing this out -- yup, 10 million yen is what I meant there, I corrected it in the original comment
>BOJ's enormous purse and very active involvement
The BOJ is very inactive. Yes, the numbers are big but that money hasn't entered the economy.
The BOJ is very inactive. Yes, the numbers are big but that money hasn't entered the economy.
Claiming that the BOJ is inactive is either an indicator that you're an insider and I have no idea what I'm talking about (as an outsider am bamboozled by the magic trick/strong jawbones of the BOJ), or that you have no idea what you're talking about (with no disrespect).
I don't mean to sound combative but this is such an extreme statement (in my view) that I'm eager to find which scenario is true. The BOJ is so active that we talk about the progression of the US in terms of "japanification" -- as in the US is going somewhere (in monetary policy) japan has already been. ZIRP, extended forever-QE, messing with whatever rates they needed to, buying JGBs, buying stocks. BOJ is not an inactive central banking institution. This doesn't even take into account the borderline conspiracy theories floating around on the way the BOJ exerts control(summed up by Princes of the Yen[0]).
Could you explain a little more about why you think the BOJ's actions in the last like... 3 decades have somehow not "entered" the economy (which I don't think is synonymous with not affecting the economy)?
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
I don't mean to sound combative but this is such an extreme statement (in my view) that I'm eager to find which scenario is true. The BOJ is so active that we talk about the progression of the US in terms of "japanification" -- as in the US is going somewhere (in monetary policy) japan has already been. ZIRP, extended forever-QE, messing with whatever rates they needed to, buying JGBs, buying stocks. BOJ is not an inactive central banking institution. This doesn't even take into account the borderline conspiracy theories floating around on the way the BOJ exerts control(summed up by Princes of the Yen[0]).
Could you explain a little more about why you think the BOJ's actions in the last like... 3 decades have somehow not "entered" the economy (which I don't think is synonymous with not affecting the economy)?
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
This is very interesting. So a person can raise a larger family on an engineer’s salary and be happy in Japan? An American expat.
One thing I have been wondering about from the outside is if part of what keeps Japanese lifestyle's relatively cheap is that the population is so homogenous (& seemingly law-abiding) that there doesn't appear to be the same emphasis on living in a "good area" as in other countries for personal security reasons.
I wonder if this acts as a somewhat hidden subsidy to life whereas for people in many Western countries it is normal to think "there is no way I am living in area X/Y/Z" due to security concerns for them or their families, in Japan you basically don't need to take that into consideration at all. Everywhere is pretty safe (relatively speaking).
This is all speculation and I don't live in Japan, don't speak Japanese, and have never even been to Japan. So it is all based on reading other's views/articles etc.
Even if I am completely wrong here, it is interesting to consider the economic costs of lack of personal security for men and especially women. All the extra costs paid, opportunities missed etc.
I wonder if this acts as a somewhat hidden subsidy to life whereas for people in many Western countries it is normal to think "there is no way I am living in area X/Y/Z" due to security concerns for them or their families, in Japan you basically don't need to take that into consideration at all. Everywhere is pretty safe (relatively speaking).
This is all speculation and I don't live in Japan, don't speak Japanese, and have never even been to Japan. So it is all based on reading other's views/articles etc.
Even if I am completely wrong here, it is interesting to consider the economic costs of lack of personal security for men and especially women. All the extra costs paid, opportunities missed etc.
> One thing I have been wondering about from the outside is if part of what keeps Japanese lifestyle's relatively cheap is that the population is so homogenous (& seemingly law-abiding) that there doesn't appear to be the same emphasis on living in a "good area" as in other countries for personal security reasons.
As a foreigner living in Japan, I can confirm this is true. Much of japanese society benefits from this homogeneity. Hard to quantify a lot of these benefits and even harder to compare Japan to somehwere as big and varied as the US, but there is certainly grease in the wheels of society as long as you are the average case in japan.
That said extremely homogeneous society is a double edged sword. Personal computing never took off in Japan as much as it did in the US, and the youth here are extremely disadvantaged because of it -- they're proficient with smart phones (roughly around 2010/2011 they gained mass adoption/cleared the popularity/acceptance hurdle) but it absolutely does not feel like there is enough proficiency being built in japan for success in the increasingly digital present and future.
[EDIT] - the proficiency I mean in the last bit is "real" computing -- i.e. using computers to create content, programs, and other useful things, rather than simply consuming it. I'm likely blinded by my own biases, but I see the ability to use photoshop/gimp, after effects, IDEs, terminals as abilities that award more leverage than being really good at using tiktok (which can indeed make engaging content) or drawing apps on iphone/etc.
As a foreigner living in Japan, I can confirm this is true. Much of japanese society benefits from this homogeneity. Hard to quantify a lot of these benefits and even harder to compare Japan to somehwere as big and varied as the US, but there is certainly grease in the wheels of society as long as you are the average case in japan.
That said extremely homogeneous society is a double edged sword. Personal computing never took off in Japan as much as it did in the US, and the youth here are extremely disadvantaged because of it -- they're proficient with smart phones (roughly around 2010/2011 they gained mass adoption/cleared the popularity/acceptance hurdle) but it absolutely does not feel like there is enough proficiency being built in japan for success in the increasingly digital present and future.
[EDIT] - the proficiency I mean in the last bit is "real" computing -- i.e. using computers to create content, programs, and other useful things, rather than simply consuming it. I'm likely blinded by my own biases, but I see the ability to use photoshop/gimp, after effects, IDEs, terminals as abilities that award more leverage than being really good at using tiktok (which can indeed make engaging content) or drawing apps on iphone/etc.
This is an interesting dynamic I noticed when living in China, too.
There are no "good" or "bad" areas, only "rich" and "poor". If you're a student/minimum-wage worker who can only afford to live in certain areas, you're not forced to deal with the crime/drugs/general shitheads you usually encounter in the "bad" areas in the West.
There are no "good" or "bad" areas, only "rich" and "poor". If you're a student/minimum-wage worker who can only afford to live in certain areas, you're not forced to deal with the crime/drugs/general shitheads you usually encounter in the "bad" areas in the West.
>I wonder if this acts as a somewhat hidden subsidy to life whereas for people in many Western countries it is normal to think "there is no way I am living in area X/Y/Z" due to security concerns for them or their families, in Japan you basically don't need to take that into consideration at all. Everywhere is pretty safe (relatively speaking).
Hidden subsidy? It's not a subsidy. Americans self impose an additional burden on themselves. They want their homes to be expensive because they don't want undesirable people to live near them.
Hidden subsidy? It's not a subsidy. Americans self impose an additional burden on themselves. They want their homes to be expensive because they don't want undesirable people to live near them.
Nice linguistic trick of trying to just mix "homogenous populations" and "good areas/bad areas" as if they're interchangeable /s
There's definitely huge variation in quality of areas in Tokyo (more or less parks, more or less access to services etc). Less so now, but many areas had a good amount of crime too! Loads of people don't want to live in areas cuz of the "bad vibes". People get stuff stolen here too! And there's a "good school"/"bad school" thing for certain areas.
But there's a baseline that is still something you can survive with. So yeah maybe you have a shitty environment but it's not "the entire bottom has fallen out" like chunks of the US. The schools have (some) money, and (relatively) clean water comes out of the pipes. And if you make very little money there is some semi-public housing that can fit a family of four.
And poorer families are given cash, not food stamps with 1000 exceptions to them.
All this sociological exoticism (mainly from Americans) is really missing the forest for the trees. A lot of it is the result of giving people some means to survive, even in difficult times. The US would change a lot if it could adopt that attitude.
There's definitely huge variation in quality of areas in Tokyo (more or less parks, more or less access to services etc). Less so now, but many areas had a good amount of crime too! Loads of people don't want to live in areas cuz of the "bad vibes". People get stuff stolen here too! And there's a "good school"/"bad school" thing for certain areas.
But there's a baseline that is still something you can survive with. So yeah maybe you have a shitty environment but it's not "the entire bottom has fallen out" like chunks of the US. The schools have (some) money, and (relatively) clean water comes out of the pipes. And if you make very little money there is some semi-public housing that can fit a family of four.
And poorer families are given cash, not food stamps with 1000 exceptions to them.
All this sociological exoticism (mainly from Americans) is really missing the forest for the trees. A lot of it is the result of giving people some means to survive, even in difficult times. The US would change a lot if it could adopt that attitude.
In canada, most places are not 'bad' areas, but just lower income or higher income. The competitiveness to live a richer area to get better schools is not much of a thing, almost a foreign concept.
> The competitiveness to live a richer area to get better schools is not much of a thing, almost a foreign concept.
I assume Canada doesn't primarily use local property taxes to pay for schools. This whole better schools thing is in higher income areas is a self imposed problem in the US.
I assume Canada doesn't primarily use local property taxes to pay for schools. This whole better schools thing is in higher income areas is a self imposed problem in the US.
Would that really solve it? If the funds for schools are raised from local property tax, then wealthier areas will still have the best funded schools will they not?
My sentence was confusing. The point was that school funding shouldn't come from local property taxes. This method in the US simply makes the divide between rich and poor even greater. And my badly made point was that this problem in the US is self imposed b/c of how schools are paid for.
> The competitiveness to live a richer area to get better schools is not much of a thing, almost a foreign concept
Are you sure about that? A lot of real-estate listings I see here boast about having good schools.
Are you sure about that? A lot of real-estate listings I see here boast about having good schools.
I'm curious what you mean by "homogeneous". I've just had a quick Google and apparently the Gini coefficient in Japan is ~0.3 compared to ~0.48 in the US, which is one definition of "homogeneous". Another search turned up some suggestion that said coefficient correlates well with the percentage of people who have been victims of theft/assault or who feel unsafe walking home alone.
They likely mean culturally homogeneous rather than financially.
> One thing I have been wondering about from the outside is if part of what keeps Japanese lifestyle's relatively cheap is that the population is so homogenous (& seemingly law-abiding) that there doesn't appear to be the same emphasis on living in a "good area" as in other countries for personal security reasons.
I's recommend you try doing some back of the envelope logic/math here. I think you'll find the personal security effect negligible (unless you're comparing with south africa).
Even to someome like me who leans towards "race realism" (e.g. racism) this sounds like nonsense and dogwhistling.
I's recommend you try doing some back of the envelope logic/math here. I think you'll find the personal security effect negligible (unless you're comparing with south africa).
Even to someome like me who leans towards "race realism" (e.g. racism) this sounds like nonsense and dogwhistling.
I have to say I didn't see the the comment in this light, and now I'm wondering if I'm under attuned or if you (and others who posted similarly) are over-attuned.
There's a very real truth to japan's generally law abiding culture and it's the double edged sword of homogeneity. "good area"s didn't signify anything about race/culture difference to me (I wasn't even thinking of foreigners/non) in the negative, but more about how the basic "shared programming" of japanese culture is generally tilted away from crime/disobedience/singular action and towards law abidance/obedience/group action. If you take a look at how certain systems are set up (online security, in person security, how paperwork is done, etc), it can only exist in a country with very tight cohesion which comes from very tightly held shared values (or at least the appearance of that), whether that's a good or bad thing.
I didn't see that the commenter was implying that the heterogeneous portion was responsible for all the crime, but just that the dominant culture was on average more lawful than another might be, and that since that culture was so concentrated crime in general was lower than you might find in other places -- reducing the need to worry for everyone who lived there.
That said, Japan definitely has that kind of insidious/hard-to-demarcate racism/classism/etc. Japan as I've experienced it is just really good at 'other'-ing groups of people in some way or another and you could see it as a product of the culture, their historically generally xenophobic nature (also culture, I guess), or some other things.
There's a very real truth to japan's generally law abiding culture and it's the double edged sword of homogeneity. "good area"s didn't signify anything about race/culture difference to me (I wasn't even thinking of foreigners/non) in the negative, but more about how the basic "shared programming" of japanese culture is generally tilted away from crime/disobedience/singular action and towards law abidance/obedience/group action. If you take a look at how certain systems are set up (online security, in person security, how paperwork is done, etc), it can only exist in a country with very tight cohesion which comes from very tightly held shared values (or at least the appearance of that), whether that's a good or bad thing.
I didn't see that the commenter was implying that the heterogeneous portion was responsible for all the crime, but just that the dominant culture was on average more lawful than another might be, and that since that culture was so concentrated crime in general was lower than you might find in other places -- reducing the need to worry for everyone who lived there.
That said, Japan definitely has that kind of insidious/hard-to-demarcate racism/classism/etc. Japan as I've experienced it is just really good at 'other'-ing groups of people in some way or another and you could see it as a product of the culture, their historically generally xenophobic nature (also culture, I guess), or some other things.
> there doesn't appear to be the same emphasis on living in a "good area" as in other countries for personal security reasons
This is common mostry in the anglosphere. In many other countries there is no such difference.
This is common mostry in the anglosphere. In many other countries there is no such difference.
There's definitely 怪しい areas in Japan.
> This is all speculation and I don't live in Japan, don't speak Japanese, and have never even been to Japan.
So what did you base this speculation on?
> This is all speculation and I don't live in Japan, don't speak Japanese, and have never even been to Japan.
So what did you base this speculation on?
Crime rates are generally low so the difference between the areas is less a factor than for other countries, but there are soil and geographic positioning factors that weight a lot more.
For instance low elevation areas are usually weak to tsunami, river areas can also flood, and former swamp and artificial terrain can liquify under seisms. There are hazard maps detailing the risks, and avoiding riskier areas will usually cost a bunch.
Buildings also get more expensive depending on their level of resistance against earthquakes.
Sizeable seisms are not that rare (way more than “once in a lifetime” kind of event), so you might still be spending a decent amount of money to try to have a better chance at surviving them.
For instance low elevation areas are usually weak to tsunami, river areas can also flood, and former swamp and artificial terrain can liquify under seisms. There are hazard maps detailing the risks, and avoiding riskier areas will usually cost a bunch.
Buildings also get more expensive depending on their level of resistance against earthquakes.
Sizeable seisms are not that rare (way more than “once in a lifetime” kind of event), so you might still be spending a decent amount of money to try to have a better chance at surviving them.
At many Japanese colleges, graduating with ~$40k/year at an office job is considered success after undergoing "seishoku katsudou" which the junior year college hunting process, as long as the company is of good repute. As japan is very homogenous culture wise relative to other countries, it's very common for people to generally start families before ~25/by the end of their 30s. $40k is a salary under which doing this is tight, but not impossible.
Japanese companies also give pay bumps eventually of course, and are very loathe to fire (worker rights are strong in japan), with an engineer's salary of "only" 100k (which honestly was being paid to interns at FAANG 10 years ago) you could raise multiple families here.
There is something called a "super salaryman" which is for salarymen who make ~$100k (1 million yen IIRC). Achieving this status is recognizable and makes a lot of things (getting loans, etc) easier -- that should say something about the mindset.
It's still unclear if engineers in American are ridiculously overpaid, or if engineers in Japan and the EU are ridiculously underpaid. I lean towards the latter.
[EDIT] - forgot something, it used to be common practice in Japan to pay people according to life circumstances (getting married, children, etc) or other things (lots of info here[0] though it doesn't directly cover this was something I learned studying in Japan in some undergrad Japanese management course). It would be naive to think people aren't paid slightly differently because of their life situation here though -- it's very easy to rationalize paying someone more because they have more "responsibility" at home/in society, and maybe arguably even morally correct.
[0]: https://www.ilo.org/ifpdial/information-resources/national-l...
Japanese companies also give pay bumps eventually of course, and are very loathe to fire (worker rights are strong in japan), with an engineer's salary of "only" 100k (which honestly was being paid to interns at FAANG 10 years ago) you could raise multiple families here.
There is something called a "super salaryman" which is for salarymen who make ~$100k (1 million yen IIRC). Achieving this status is recognizable and makes a lot of things (getting loans, etc) easier -- that should say something about the mindset.
It's still unclear if engineers in American are ridiculously overpaid, or if engineers in Japan and the EU are ridiculously underpaid. I lean towards the latter.
[EDIT] - forgot something, it used to be common practice in Japan to pay people according to life circumstances (getting married, children, etc) or other things (lots of info here[0] though it doesn't directly cover this was something I learned studying in Japan in some undergrad Japanese management course). It would be naive to think people aren't paid slightly differently because of their life situation here though -- it's very easy to rationalize paying someone more because they have more "responsibility" at home/in society, and maybe arguably even morally correct.
[0]: https://www.ilo.org/ifpdial/information-resources/national-l...
> if engineers in America are ridiculously overpaid, or
why do you only compare to Japan and EU? American engineers get paid more than anyone else (except for EU outliers). I make slightly above 100k in Australia, it's a bit tight with the housing situation and cost of living but it's liveable. Cost of living in the US is lower except for maybe healthcare but engineers get companies pay for them anyway.
I don't have insights into other engineering, but I think software engineers are overpaid. Would I enjoy being overpaid? Of course, but it's hard to say it's fair pay considering what people in other professions are making.
why do you only compare to Japan and EU? American engineers get paid more than anyone else (except for EU outliers). I make slightly above 100k in Australia, it's a bit tight with the housing situation and cost of living but it's liveable. Cost of living in the US is lower except for maybe healthcare but engineers get companies pay for them anyway.
I don't have insights into other engineering, but I think software engineers are overpaid. Would I enjoy being overpaid? Of course, but it's hard to say it's fair pay considering what people in other professions are making.
> why do you only compare to Japan and EU? American engineers get paid more than anyone else (except for EU outliers). I make slightly above 100k in Australia, it's a bit tight with the housing situation and cost of living but it's liveable. Cost of living in the US is lower except for maybe healthcare but engineers get companies pay for them anyway.
Well those are just the biggest/most relevant tech labor markets I could think of, roughly by GDP. I don't know much about Australia but couldn't comment there, thanks for the insight.
> I don't have insights into other engineering, but I think software engineers are overpaid. Would I enjoy being overpaid? Of course, but it's hard to say it's fair pay considering what people in other professions are making.
I don't think comparing pay across professions makes sense -- why compare a plumber or doctor to what a software engineer does? the outcomes are completely different, the risks are completely different, the upside/profit potential is completely different.
I lean towards considering software engineers as underpaid because the power of automation (whether software or hardware -- because you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane. If software engineers were ever paid a percentage of the revenue impact they generate (which is not how markets work, but I digress), software engineers would be paid much much more. I think it might be possible to compare across professions if you think of % of value creation captured let's say but it gets tenuous.
In the end the only "fair" determination is what supply and demand based markets dictate. They're not perfect, but they approximate other forces/influences decently enough. When those aren't enough, governments may need to step in to enact policy.
Well those are just the biggest/most relevant tech labor markets I could think of, roughly by GDP. I don't know much about Australia but couldn't comment there, thanks for the insight.
> I don't have insights into other engineering, but I think software engineers are overpaid. Would I enjoy being overpaid? Of course, but it's hard to say it's fair pay considering what people in other professions are making.
I don't think comparing pay across professions makes sense -- why compare a plumber or doctor to what a software engineer does? the outcomes are completely different, the risks are completely different, the upside/profit potential is completely different.
I lean towards considering software engineers as underpaid because the power of automation (whether software or hardware -- because you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane. If software engineers were ever paid a percentage of the revenue impact they generate (which is not how markets work, but I digress), software engineers would be paid much much more. I think it might be possible to compare across professions if you think of % of value creation captured let's say but it gets tenuous.
In the end the only "fair" determination is what supply and demand based markets dictate. They're not perfect, but they approximate other forces/influences decently enough. When those aren't enough, governments may need to step in to enact policy.
fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems.
> you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane
The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware.
It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.
> you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane
The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware.
It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.
> fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems.
Hmnn but doing it that way feels like it would devalue doing things smarter which seems to be more beneficial to society. Single-mindedly incentivizing labor seems like it would skewer efficiency -- I guess like most things the right answer is in the middle.
I'm not sure what you mean by "viral" things but I'm trying to discuss only about work output. If the work output is virality (let's say a social media manager), then it makes sense to measure that way, but usually businesses don't deal in that currency -- they deal in product shipped out or contracts landed, etc. That said, I'm well aware that systems that think themselves to be closest to the capitalist ideal are pretty brutal on the cogs in the machine.
As a side note, it's a red flag for me when I see github projects that are too concerned with stars/going viral, or even when I see presentations about projects that mention stars. Everyone thinks it's silly but everyone keeps doing it -- if only we'd stop then people would start judging projects on things other than adoption. Then again, adoption is the biggest metric for most people, because it generally is a proxy for "availability of free support/feature development", and in that sense I'm guilty of the same.
> The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware.
> It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.
Agreed! There is more than enough value to go around to be shared between all those kinds of engineering -- just because I didn't mention lithography engineers or materials science engineers or people who smelt silicon doesn't mean they don't exist and don't deserve to be paid.
Hmnn but doing it that way feels like it would devalue doing things smarter which seems to be more beneficial to society. Single-mindedly incentivizing labor seems like it would skewer efficiency -- I guess like most things the right answer is in the middle.
I'm not sure what you mean by "viral" things but I'm trying to discuss only about work output. If the work output is virality (let's say a social media manager), then it makes sense to measure that way, but usually businesses don't deal in that currency -- they deal in product shipped out or contracts landed, etc. That said, I'm well aware that systems that think themselves to be closest to the capitalist ideal are pretty brutal on the cogs in the machine.
As a side note, it's a red flag for me when I see github projects that are too concerned with stars/going viral, or even when I see presentations about projects that mention stars. Everyone thinks it's silly but everyone keeps doing it -- if only we'd stop then people would start judging projects on things other than adoption. Then again, adoption is the biggest metric for most people, because it generally is a proxy for "availability of free support/feature development", and in that sense I'm guilty of the same.
> The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware.
> It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.
Agreed! There is more than enough value to go around to be shared between all those kinds of engineering -- just because I didn't mention lithography engineers or materials science engineers or people who smelt silicon doesn't mean they don't exist and don't deserve to be paid.
Viral or scalable in business/tech terms, means things that can be sold multiple times. Often times the value is already created and rewarded. In our economy we're not only incentivizing value creation but also building walls around innovations and gatekeeping the fruits of them, so that the innovators, the software developers like you wish, or whoever can earn royalty while no longer innovating.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from but I can't really agree that incentivizing raw labor is the way to get there (to a more equitable outcome for labor). The capital/labor struggle is a deep deep topic, but I think we can say at this point that with automation becoming increasingly common, labor is losing it's leg to stand on. We're going to get a lot farther by reining in capitalism than trying to return to piece work payment.
> I can't really agree that incentivizing raw labor
I read history books, I'm not that stupid.
The reason I bring this up is a couple of comments up you said software creates tremendous value, I guess this is true for many other types of innovations too. You proceeded to say software developers need to be paid proportionate to that value and I disagree there.
If we look at salary as incentive I would say that software engineers get enough incentive to do our job. As long as we get paid better than most other professions, society/the economy don't need to pay us more.
While pay should not be based on labour, it should be capped, probably based on the labour. Otherwise every cog in the machine earns some royalty (infinitely, if the machine scales infinitely) and there is no money left for "non-machine".
The bad thing in this industry is work/life balance, we just need to fix that. Although the pay in some countries are atrocious, I'd say that software engineers in most western countries are fine.
I read history books, I'm not that stupid.
The reason I bring this up is a couple of comments up you said software creates tremendous value, I guess this is true for many other types of innovations too. You proceeded to say software developers need to be paid proportionate to that value and I disagree there.
If we look at salary as incentive I would say that software engineers get enough incentive to do our job. As long as we get paid better than most other professions, society/the economy don't need to pay us more.
While pay should not be based on labour, it should be capped, probably based on the labour. Otherwise every cog in the machine earns some royalty (infinitely, if the machine scales infinitely) and there is no money left for "non-machine".
The bad thing in this industry is work/life balance, we just need to fix that. Although the pay in some countries are atrocious, I'd say that software engineers in most western countries are fine.
> If we look at salary as incentive I would say that software engineers get enough incentive to do our job. As long as we get paid better than most other professions, society/the economy don't need to pay us more.
I disagree. The value created is going to be accreted somewhere, and I would prefer that somewhere be the labor that created it rather than the capital funded the creation.
I disagree. The value created is going to be accreted somewhere, and I would prefer that somewhere be the labor that created it rather than the capital funded the creation.
Should you be accredited for the Internet, PC and other things, would that be fair? I think it's a delusion. You write some code that do a specific thing. It's the whole infrastructure and economic structure combined with that piece of code and creates such a massive value, it can't be acreditted to just you.
> software creates tremendous value
According to what metric? I suspect most of the stellar SV salaries come from the economic model.
According to what metric? I suspect most of the stellar SV salaries come from the economic model.
> I read history books, I'm not that stupid.
Didn't imply you were! I am assuming the best as people do here on HN.
> The reason I bring this up is a couple of comments up you said software creates tremendous value, I guess this is true for many other types of innovations too. You proceeded to say software developers need to be paid proportionate to that value and I disagree there.
> If we look at salary as incentive I would say that software engineers get enough incentive to do our job. As long as we get paid better than most other professions, society/the economy don't need to pay us more.
> While pay should not be based on labour, it should be capped, probably based on the labour. Otherwise every cog in the machine earns some royalty (infinitely, if the machine scales infinitely) and there is no money left for "non-machine".
So I still disagree with this point, but I want to point out that I am in favor of the idea that every cog in the machine earns a royalty on every piece of the process. I believe both machine and non-machine could win in that situation. If you have a new idea (and the funding to go after it, etc) then you get to decide the cap table essentially -- so it's up to you to set rates on the royalties and up to labor to agree/deny. How you'd work out royalties in relation to work done/etc is difficult, but it's something that feels like it can be worked out. Pensions used to be a thing, and they're kind of like that.
> The bad thing in this industry is work/life balance, we just need to fix that. Although the pay in some countries are atrocious, I'd say that software engineers in most western countries are fine.
Weird, I think that work/life balance for software is actually really good -- you're not going to find much work/life balance (or companies that even pretend to care about that) in the blue collar job market. The ability to up and move with transferable skills is really remarkable in tech as well... In short I agree with you that tech has it good, but I don't think it makes sense to restrict that "good" based on the "bad" of other fields -- we don't need to be equal. If workers are getting exploited outside of tech, let's make them less exploited and get them what they're worth -- if tech workers are exploited let's get them what they're worth.
The question of how to determine that worth is the big difference we're at loggerheads about I think, and I don't think it makes sense to judge by amount of "work" done. That very idea is rooted in some sort of moralistic argument that work/expenditure is good/virtuous/worth being paid for, and I don't think that's a shared value. Labor is given meaning by the fruit it produces, and that's how I'm trying to judge the value of labor -- the value it produces (whether immediately or down the line) -- royalties do that rather well compared to our current system.
Didn't imply you were! I am assuming the best as people do here on HN.
> The reason I bring this up is a couple of comments up you said software creates tremendous value, I guess this is true for many other types of innovations too. You proceeded to say software developers need to be paid proportionate to that value and I disagree there.
> If we look at salary as incentive I would say that software engineers get enough incentive to do our job. As long as we get paid better than most other professions, society/the economy don't need to pay us more.
> While pay should not be based on labour, it should be capped, probably based on the labour. Otherwise every cog in the machine earns some royalty (infinitely, if the machine scales infinitely) and there is no money left for "non-machine".
So I still disagree with this point, but I want to point out that I am in favor of the idea that every cog in the machine earns a royalty on every piece of the process. I believe both machine and non-machine could win in that situation. If you have a new idea (and the funding to go after it, etc) then you get to decide the cap table essentially -- so it's up to you to set rates on the royalties and up to labor to agree/deny. How you'd work out royalties in relation to work done/etc is difficult, but it's something that feels like it can be worked out. Pensions used to be a thing, and they're kind of like that.
> The bad thing in this industry is work/life balance, we just need to fix that. Although the pay in some countries are atrocious, I'd say that software engineers in most western countries are fine.
Weird, I think that work/life balance for software is actually really good -- you're not going to find much work/life balance (or companies that even pretend to care about that) in the blue collar job market. The ability to up and move with transferable skills is really remarkable in tech as well... In short I agree with you that tech has it good, but I don't think it makes sense to restrict that "good" based on the "bad" of other fields -- we don't need to be equal. If workers are getting exploited outside of tech, let's make them less exploited and get them what they're worth -- if tech workers are exploited let's get them what they're worth.
The question of how to determine that worth is the big difference we're at loggerheads about I think, and I don't think it makes sense to judge by amount of "work" done. That very idea is rooted in some sort of moralistic argument that work/expenditure is good/virtuous/worth being paid for, and I don't think that's a shared value. Labor is given meaning by the fruit it produces, and that's how I'm trying to judge the value of labor -- the value it produces (whether immediately or down the line) -- royalties do that rather well compared to our current system.
I think what is happening is that people in general, not only software engineers, are getting paid much more and sometimes less because of increasing impact due to tech/globalization scaling and winner takes all network effects.
Look at how much some YouTubers make. Due to the Internet, they can reach far more people than before and make far more money. Also, their popularity begat more popularity without commensurate additional work on their part.
The same is happening to tech companies. You have that same power law with a few at the top making a lot of the money. It applies to YouTubers, tech companies, software engineers at those tech companies, etc... The rise of tech billionaires is another manifestation of this.
Of course this is creating a lot of pushback from other parts of society that are sometimes actually losing influence, money, etc... since there is a negative feedback loop on the other side.
Look at how much some YouTubers make. Due to the Internet, they can reach far more people than before and make far more money. Also, their popularity begat more popularity without commensurate additional work on their part.
The same is happening to tech companies. You have that same power law with a few at the top making a lot of the money. It applies to YouTubers, tech companies, software engineers at those tech companies, etc... The rise of tech billionaires is another manifestation of this.
Of course this is creating a lot of pushback from other parts of society that are sometimes actually losing influence, money, etc... since there is a negative feedback loop on the other side.
> fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result.
You can work very hard (dig useless ditches with shovels) or on very tricky things (write about things nobody cares about, nobody understands and do not matter) and not make things of much value. A society that does that in aggregate is a society that either dies or falls behind.
You can work very hard (dig useless ditches with shovels) or on very tricky things (write about things nobody cares about, nobody understands and do not matter) and not make things of much value. A society that does that in aggregate is a society that either dies or falls behind.
Simply looking at the number value might be too surface level for this. The bay area has high wages because of the cost of living - due to the housing crisis and overall pay required to live in the area, FAANG and non-FAANG alike pay more simply in order to have employees that can actually afford living somewhere within an hour of the city - and with remote work, companies are docking employee pay to more competitive rates if they move out of SF[0] (although, with Covid, every metropolitan area has began gravitating towards this issue[1]). While this might mean an overall higher standard of living and nicer cars, it isn't crazy and, after the mortgage, chances are it's closer to the SoL in other cities and possibly Australia.
0: https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-companies-cutting-salar...
1: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/ (12% YoY for two years is scary).
0: https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-companies-cutting-salar...
1: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/ (12% YoY for two years is scary).
This is backwards, the high cost of living in the bay area is a result of the high salaries (and the barriers to expanding the housing supply).
It's not really backwards, it's a cycle that reinforces itself.
House expensive -> salaries jump -> people have more money to pay for house -> house becomes more expensive.
This is like arguing about the chicken or the egg. More housing supply would help to a point but it would take an order of magnitude change to make a dent in the current self-reinforcing cycle, and probably would need that level of increased production for a period of time.
House expensive -> salaries jump -> people have more money to pay for house -> house becomes more expensive.
This is like arguing about the chicken or the egg. More housing supply would help to a point but it would take an order of magnitude change to make a dent in the current self-reinforcing cycle, and probably would need that level of increased production for a period of time.
You got it completely backwards.
The maximum possible salary doesn't change because of more expensive housing, only your ability to negotiate for a salary rise does. Therefore expensive housing will let you get the maximum possible salary at most.
There is a self reinforcing cycle but it has nothing to do with housing. You're saying that expensive housing is the only factor in salaries which is completely wrong.
The self reinforcing cycle is that developer salaries rise in Silicon Valley, people start moving there, which kicks out existing residents. You can enact rent control and rent prices will stay the same but you still end up kicking people out because nobody is building anything. The reason why it is self reinforcing is that developers living in close proximity results in agglomeration effects, each additional developer makes every other developer more productive.
The maximum possible salary doesn't change because of more expensive housing, only your ability to negotiate for a salary rise does. Therefore expensive housing will let you get the maximum possible salary at most.
There is a self reinforcing cycle but it has nothing to do with housing. You're saying that expensive housing is the only factor in salaries which is completely wrong.
The self reinforcing cycle is that developer salaries rise in Silicon Valley, people start moving there, which kicks out existing residents. You can enact rent control and rent prices will stay the same but you still end up kicking people out because nobody is building anything. The reason why it is self reinforcing is that developers living in close proximity results in agglomeration effects, each additional developer makes every other developer more productive.
It doesn't really matters that all salaries don't jump the same way. It matters that someone whose salary jumped can still pay more for a house.
I've never claimed that rent control works. But house prices would not keep rising if no one had the salary to afford the mortgage. People still do, they're just all concentrated in the one profession, and due to bumper results they can demand more.
You probably couldn't negotiate SV level salaries in, say, Tulsa, and pretty much every large company I have heard of expanding remote work is doing so with geographically adjusted pay downwards from SV. (I never really got the angle of people who thought they would get to have their cake and eat it too with SV-level salary and dirt-cheap COL; employers aren't blind.)
I've never claimed that rent control works. But house prices would not keep rising if no one had the salary to afford the mortgage. People still do, they're just all concentrated in the one profession, and due to bumper results they can demand more.
You probably couldn't negotiate SV level salaries in, say, Tulsa, and pretty much every large company I have heard of expanding remote work is doing so with geographically adjusted pay downwards from SV. (I never really got the angle of people who thought they would get to have their cake and eat it too with SV-level salary and dirt-cheap COL; employers aren't blind.)
I'm no expert on the history of SV or your housing (I've never lived there, probably never will), but I thought the general story was something like this:
0. California existed
1. Government investment comes to the valley during the cold war in early SV companies
2. Innovation happens in leaps and bounds thanks to the government checkbook
3. Profit is made hand over fist by some people/groups/entities
4. People/groups/entities from (3) buy more of everything
5. More People & entities come in search of interesting ideas/cutting edge technology/profit/fame/etc
6. return to (3)
0. California existed
1. Government investment comes to the valley during the cold war in early SV companies
2. Innovation happens in leaps and bounds thanks to the government checkbook
3. Profit is made hand over fist by some people/groups/entities
4. People/groups/entities from (3) buy more of everything
5. More People & entities come in search of interesting ideas/cutting edge technology/profit/fame/etc
6. return to (3)
Depending on how far back you want to go 1 isn't even really the start of it.
Stanford was founded by Leland Stanford, the robber baron who owned the Central Pacific, which built the transcontinental railroad. This has more or less been the cycle since the Gold Rush.
Stanford was founded by Leland Stanford, the robber baron who owned the Central Pacific, which built the transcontinental railroad. This has more or less been the cycle since the Gold Rush.
It is true that higher housing costs lead to labor scarcity which leads to higher salaries, and also that employers do cost of living adjustments, but these effects are small compared to the core "companies offer higher salaries to attract the best talent -> housing becomes more expensive" driver.
And housing factors in offering the higher salaries to attract the best talent. It takes a lot of money to eventually buy property in the Bay Area and if you manage to apply to companies there unaware of that fact you probably literally live under a rock.
If pay is increased solely to compensate for house prices, then working in a higher cost of living area is still better because the job buys you a more valuable house. Imagine if house prices were a non-issue because companies just give you a free house when you start. Would you consider still the job in a cheap housing area equal?
Anyway at the senior levels the pay is even more stupid high in SV, way more than anything you'd need to live on. How high do salaries go in Australia?
Anyway at the senior levels the pay is even more stupid high in SV, way more than anything you'd need to live on. How high do salaries go in Australia?
individual contributors top at around 140k (AUD180k package), but the 90% tops at 128k which is a "tech lead salary". I don't have the experience to tell how high tech leads go, but I'm guessing 200k.
Some outliers are Optiver (a prop trading firm) paying 160k (half of which is bonus) and Google paying (up to I heard) 125k to grads. However the number of companies like that in Australia you could count on one hand (Amazon, Atlassian, Canva), so there is nothing to drive average salary up like in SV.
RSU is way less common. There are also cases of double standards such as companies founded in Australia expanding to the US offers way better perks and RSU to US staff but stop offering RSU to new Australian hires.
Some outliers are Optiver (a prop trading firm) paying 160k (half of which is bonus) and Google paying (up to I heard) 125k to grads. However the number of companies like that in Australia you could count on one hand (Amazon, Atlassian, Canva), so there is nothing to drive average salary up like in SV.
RSU is way less common. There are also cases of double standards such as companies founded in Australia expanding to the US offers way better perks and RSU to US staff but stop offering RSU to new Australian hires.
> I make slightly above 100k in Australia, it's a bit tight with the housing situation and cost of living but it's liveable
100k USD (So ~130k AUD)? Even if that's 100k AUD, it's a bit odd to hear that it's "tight" when you're on 100k. I didn't think Aussie's COL was that high.
100k USD (So ~130k AUD)? Even if that's 100k AUD, it's a bit odd to hear that it's "tight" when you're on 100k. I didn't think Aussie's COL was that high.
it's USD, with mortgage and the need to save and invest, not tight in the literal sense.
COL is higher than most countries in the world. It being a remote continent, that should not come as a surprise. Average house price in Melbourne is now AUD 1m or USD 775k
COL is higher than most countries in the world. It being a remote continent, that should not come as a surprise. Average house price in Melbourne is now AUD 1m or USD 775k
> but I think software engineers are overpaid.
I'm curious why you would think this. In some ways software is a trade, but what makes it unique to nearly any other profession is its multiplicative effect. One software engineer can write a program that improves the productivity of thousands or more people.
What would you pay the person who invented the lever? Now, what you would the pay the person who invents the lever every couple weeks?
If anything, many software engineers are still underpaid.
I'm curious why you would think this. In some ways software is a trade, but what makes it unique to nearly any other profession is its multiplicative effect. One software engineer can write a program that improves the productivity of thousands or more people.
What would you pay the person who invented the lever? Now, what you would the pay the person who invents the lever every couple weeks?
If anything, many software engineers are still underpaid.
I'm sorry a typical software developer doesn't do anything innovative. At the current stage, the majority of the industry does works like porting things from lang X to lang Y or mapping between convoluted systems that they themselves created (for "DX"), making skins around databases, again and again. Another hughe chunk of developers works in the attention economy: ads, game, streaming, whatever, the things that I doubt have a net positive contribution to society. They give people nonsense to do and watch and take away their time, sounds like mutiplier of negative productivity if anything.
There are indeed developers working on useful things to society, but they usually work on top of amazing intercom and hardware infrastructures that drive more innovation and deserve more credit than their crappy software.
Speaking as a web developer.
There are indeed developers working on useful things to society, but they usually work on top of amazing intercom and hardware infrastructures that drive more innovation and deserve more credit than their crappy software.
Speaking as a web developer.
I think the issue there, to continue your analogy, is that some carpenters are busy creating new levers, while others are busy repeating the same carpentry over and over again. Same trade, different aims.
The "multiplicative effect" is easy to translate to economic factors: it's what allows software-based companies to have very high marginal profit. The average net profit margin of a small business in the US is less than 10%, but in scaled, software-centered businesses it's not unusual to be above 30% or 50% due to the zero marginal cost of production.
But for every company like Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Google etc which understand this and plays to it to shoot for sky-high unit margins, there are N companies like Tata Consultancy, Accenture, Capgemini (or in-house IT departments) which effectively employ software engineers to do non-reusable "glue" tasks where the margin expectation is topping out somewhere between around 10%. These folks cannot pay as much for talent, in part because their stock isn't valued nearly as much, whereas it is a relatively cheap source of compensation for tech companies.
A key to understanding the difference between US and other markets is the 1:N ratio. Software engineers in the Bay Area are gifted with very low ratios, and places where the ratio is higher in my experience have much more depressed software engineering compensation because there are not enough high margin software businesses to drive them.
The "multiplicative effect" is easy to translate to economic factors: it's what allows software-based companies to have very high marginal profit. The average net profit margin of a small business in the US is less than 10%, but in scaled, software-centered businesses it's not unusual to be above 30% or 50% due to the zero marginal cost of production.
But for every company like Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Google etc which understand this and plays to it to shoot for sky-high unit margins, there are N companies like Tata Consultancy, Accenture, Capgemini (or in-house IT departments) which effectively employ software engineers to do non-reusable "glue" tasks where the margin expectation is topping out somewhere between around 10%. These folks cannot pay as much for talent, in part because their stock isn't valued nearly as much, whereas it is a relatively cheap source of compensation for tech companies.
A key to understanding the difference between US and other markets is the 1:N ratio. Software engineers in the Bay Area are gifted with very low ratios, and places where the ratio is higher in my experience have much more depressed software engineering compensation because there are not enough high margin software businesses to drive them.
Software engineers in Europe aren't "underpaid," there just aren't enough highly successful European tech companies to make the job market there as tight as in the US. So they're paid less than what they'd be paid in the US, but that's just because that's what the market pays there IMO. There isn't a "fair" price other than the market's to judge whether someone is overpaid or underpaid, just offer and demand...
Without any analysis 'market decides what's fair' is deeply unhelpfull.
The market is subject to market failure, manipulation, boom and bust cycles, depressions, can be undervalued, overvalued, etc.
The market is subject to market failure, manipulation, boom and bust cycles, depressions, can be undervalued, overvalued, etc.
Minor correction, it's 就職活動 (shuushoku katsudou) not seishoku. And the age of starting families here is older than you mention at close to 30 [1], especially in recent years. That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that Japanese couples don't, on average, get married much younger than in the west.
You're right about paying people differently based on life circumstances - but this generally happens in the form of substantial tax cuts for couples with a non/part time working wife (e.g. [2]), rather than by paying them more (although there are some government benefits like a child allowance).
Mostly nitpicking here! Appreciate your contributions to this thread, you're right on the money for the most part
[1]: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00759/ [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-JRTB-17152
You're right about paying people differently based on life circumstances - but this generally happens in the form of substantial tax cuts for couples with a non/part time working wife (e.g. [2]), rather than by paying them more (although there are some government benefits like a child allowance).
Mostly nitpicking here! Appreciate your contributions to this thread, you're right on the money for the most part
[1]: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00759/ [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-JRTB-17152
Outline didn't work for me: https://i.imgur.com/ydYsy4q.jpg
I've generally always had good luck with archive.is https://archive.is/T28ui
what works for me is just disabling JS.
That actually fools a lot of websites - like NYTimes and I think WaPost.
That actually fools a lot of websites - like NYTimes and I think WaPost.
Usually I just interrupt a reload, but sometimes it keeps loading the popup after a while. uBlock's disable JS button helps, but I never remind myself to use it. I found out that I could only recently.
Your browser almost certainly lets you block JS on a per-site setting by clicking the lock in the URL bar -> site settings -> disable javascript
Bypassing Bloomberg paywall is the sole reason I keep Microsoft Edge.
Just clear everything upon exit. Works like a charm so far.
Just clear everything upon exit. Works like a charm so far.
o-__-o(1)
Competitors: "Why is the stock in that company going up?"
CEO hiding real reason: "I raised all the salaries in my company!"
Other CEOs: "Even if that's the real reason, we aren't going to try that."
Why would that be a good cover story? It would make all the companies have to pay more.
I'd like to question the premise. How confidently can you associate cause and effect here?
Based on what can he guarantee that raises in salary caused the company to grow?
If the formula is so simple couldn't other companies copy that and grow 5500%?
Based on what can he guarantee that raises in salary caused the company to grow?
If the formula is so simple couldn't other companies copy that and grow 5500%?
The article left me with the impression that he was acquiring companies in order to acquire qualified engineers (and, likely, clients) while finding efficiencies by reducing the number of managers. Presumably there will be room for growth as long as there are companies to acquire, but it will suffer from diminishing returns.
Replicating his approach would be difficult since it is based upon the premise that engineers are actually creating value for the company and acknowledges that management is a cost centre. That seems to be diametrically opposed to the culture of many businesses. (That's not to dismiss the value of managers since they are necessary for the operation of a business. It's simply a recognition that clients pay for the engineer's product, rather than the management's labour.)
Replicating his approach would be difficult since it is based upon the premise that engineers are actually creating value for the company and acknowledges that management is a cost centre. That seems to be diametrically opposed to the culture of many businesses. (That's not to dismiss the value of managers since they are necessary for the operation of a business. It's simply a recognition that clients pay for the engineer's product, rather than the management's labour.)
He didn’t just raise salaries... he cut out management too. It makes sense to me the bottom feeder testing companies might not be running very profitably and this strategy could work... pay better people marginally more and have fewer managers.
I guess it would depend on how underpaid the groups where profits are created are. Absent any other catalyst a random event of paying people more followed by a marked increase in productivity would be enough correlation to say "hey, I think this is probably the cause"
>How confidently can you associate cause and effect here?
You cannot. It depends if you’re buying commodified labor and selling commodity products. Walmart and McDonalds franchisees are not going to see much difference other than higher labor expenses and reduced sales due to higher prices at competitors.
You cannot. It depends if you’re buying commodified labor and selling commodity products. Walmart and McDonalds franchisees are not going to see much difference other than higher labor expenses and reduced sales due to higher prices at competitors.
Is this true?
When I worked as an assistant manager at Burger King, you could see employees that were more productive by a large factor. If paying them more led them to stay longer it would have been a big win.
The best could do the work of 2-3 people, if paying them 1.5x more means they stay, you more profits on lower labor costs.
What is hard to do is create a repeatable process for this. And trusting local management.
When I worked as an assistant manager at Burger King, you could see employees that were more productive by a large factor. If paying them more led them to stay longer it would have been a big win.
The best could do the work of 2-3 people, if paying them 1.5x more means they stay, you more profits on lower labor costs.
What is hard to do is create a repeatable process for this. And trusting local management.
Equally important, when I work at Arby's the quality of some of the workers was questionable at best, but because of the pay rate the better workers soon found work elsewhere and most who were left clearly did not as good or fast of a job as they could.
I only stayed since I only had to work in the early morning and the work was less than a block from my house. Also the other worker "Dave" was studying robotics at the local college, it was amazing how much the other worker tried to put him down because he did not spend the night after work going out for drinks with them (neither did I).
Looking back, if the store had more workers like myself and Dave, I bet we could have increased the sales 20-50%.
I only stayed since I only had to work in the early morning and the work was less than a block from my house. Also the other worker "Dave" was studying robotics at the local college, it was amazing how much the other worker tried to put him down because he did not spend the night after work going out for drinks with them (neither did I).
Looking back, if the store had more workers like myself and Dave, I bet we could have increased the sales 20-50%.
> Looking back, if the store had more workers like myself and Dave, I bet we could have increased the sales 20-50%.
The fact that there are tens of thousands of restaurants not hiring workers like yourself or Dave to increase sales 20% to 50% means there must be something preventing that. Such as insufficient number of workers like yourself or Dave at the wages they can pay and also sell at a low enough price, or the inevitability of workers like yourself to leave for greener pastures, or maybe sales would not go up 20% to 50%.
Either way, the market data is very clear for some businesses that they aren’t able to necessarily differentiate themselves at scale to earn enough profit to offset the costs.
The fact that there are tens of thousands of restaurants not hiring workers like yourself or Dave to increase sales 20% to 50% means there must be something preventing that. Such as insufficient number of workers like yourself or Dave at the wages they can pay and also sell at a low enough price, or the inevitability of workers like yourself to leave for greener pastures, or maybe sales would not go up 20% to 50%.
Either way, the market data is very clear for some businesses that they aren’t able to necessarily differentiate themselves at scale to earn enough profit to offset the costs.
The better workers move on to better restaurants where pay-for-performance is somewhat implicit, like tips in restaurants. You want your highly tipped waiters because they are the salespeople of your restaurant, and their commissions are a measurement of that.
Right, but what if people cannot afford or do not want to pay the amount required for better restaurants with better staff 80% of the time?
That’s what the current business landscape looks like to me when I see the various restaurant options.
That’s what the current business landscape looks like to me when I see the various restaurant options.
There were clear differences in drive-tru with up selling that makes a huge difference too.
There's something to be said for a food or retail establishment that is able to staff up with a cohort of smart local kids. Not saying the service is better or that they'll work harder, but it's nice to hear witty banter from national merit semifinalists enjoying (and especially not enjoying) their after-school jobs.
> you could see employees that were more productive by a large factor.
And you would never be able to pay enough to keep them and still sell at the low prices. They will move on to bigger and better things as soon as they can, and the proof is the astronomical turnover in almost the entire mid and low tier restaurant market. There’s a reason it has the widespread reputation of being the least desirable, dead end jobs.
The proof of my statement being true is reality. All the management at retail stores and restaurants and hotels are not stupid, they just know that the market for buyers willing to pay the extra marginal cost required for buying upper tier labor is too small, and that even with the high turnover, most customers are satisfied and unwilling to pay extra to reduce turnover.
It’s similar to how 80% of people’s needs are solved by tools from Harbor Freight rather than festool or snap on or other fancy tool brand.
And you would never be able to pay enough to keep them and still sell at the low prices. They will move on to bigger and better things as soon as they can, and the proof is the astronomical turnover in almost the entire mid and low tier restaurant market. There’s a reason it has the widespread reputation of being the least desirable, dead end jobs.
The proof of my statement being true is reality. All the management at retail stores and restaurants and hotels are not stupid, they just know that the market for buyers willing to pay the extra marginal cost required for buying upper tier labor is too small, and that even with the high turnover, most customers are satisfied and unwilling to pay extra to reduce turnover.
It’s similar to how 80% of people’s needs are solved by tools from Harbor Freight rather than festool or snap on or other fancy tool brand.
Sorry, I think some of them are stupid.
For example: One reason I said we could increase sales is that repeatedly we suggested putting a menu list further from the order window so people could see and decide what to order before we asked for their order. Management refused to even listen. Often someone would drive up and then spend time reading the menu before deciding what to order.
Compare this to my local Dairy Queen, they have two menu displays. One right beside the order intercom and another two car lengths earlier, I often see people when they drive to the order area give their order right away because they know what they want, they already had time to make up their minds.
The fact is, in most places management sucks at their job.
For example: One reason I said we could increase sales is that repeatedly we suggested putting a menu list further from the order window so people could see and decide what to order before we asked for their order. Management refused to even listen. Often someone would drive up and then spend time reading the menu before deciding what to order.
Compare this to my local Dairy Queen, they have two menu displays. One right beside the order intercom and another two car lengths earlier, I often see people when they drive to the order area give their order right away because they know what they want, they already had time to make up their minds.
The fact is, in most places management sucks at their job.
There may be instances of lack of oversight at certain places, but specifically regarding the simple hypothesis of increasing pay for retail/hospitality/restaurant workers will result in more profit due to retaining better workers is shown not to work by the entire world not doing it.
The other aspects to consider are, are the customers willing to pay the extra marginal cost for the marginal increase in utility, and will objectively, will the cream of the crop stick around for these jobs?
It’s pretty well opined that customer service/retail/restaurant type jobs have the worst quality of life for those working in them. The amount of money needed to offset the quality of life issues at work is simply not possible for most restaurants.
The other aspects to consider are, are the customers willing to pay the extra marginal cost for the marginal increase in utility, and will objectively, will the cream of the crop stick around for these jobs?
It’s pretty well opined that customer service/retail/restaurant type jobs have the worst quality of life for those working in them. The amount of money needed to offset the quality of life issues at work is simply not possible for most restaurants.
[deleted]
Walmart and McDonalds think they are buying commoditized labor, but as In-N-Out, Costco, Dick's, Burgerville and many others have shown, paying above average wages and focusing on worker retention produces a better quality product as those employees gain experience and are emotionally invested in performing their job well.
Boeing is a great example where management has spent the past couple decades getting rid of their competent employees to move production to cheaper areas that produce planes which have all kinds of quality control issues (metal shavings left throught the plane, copious wiring faults, numerous structural issues, etc). The new Boeing workforce has minimal experience in aerospace and is not paid enough to stick around long term.
Boeing is a great example where management has spent the past couple decades getting rid of their competent employees to move production to cheaper areas that produce planes which have all kinds of quality control issues (metal shavings left throught the plane, copious wiring faults, numerous structural issues, etc). The new Boeing workforce has minimal experience in aerospace and is not paid enough to stick around long term.
> Walmart and McDonalds think they are buying commoditized labor, but as In-N-Out, Costco, Dick's, Burgerville and many others have shown, paying above average wages and focusing on worker retention produces a better quality product as those employees gain experience and are emotionally invested in performing their job well.
In n Out, Costco, Dick’s, and Burgerville exist in the richer parts of town/country. You can figure out which side of town has more money based on which stores are there.
In n Out, Costco, Dick’s, and Burgerville exist in the richer parts of town/country. You can figure out which side of town has more money based on which stores are there.
In N Out has opened new locations in poorer southern Oregon communities over the last few years. Dick's made a similar move opening their south end location.
[deleted]
It is the way to go if one were to build software that can last ... 3 to 4x pay to get 10-100x output and quality ...
It would be interesting to see how the company would have performed had he raised employees equity instead of salary?
I think having equity incentivizes employees to focus more on the welfare of the company than a fixed salary. I may be wrong though
I think having equity incentivizes employees to focus more on the welfare of the company than a fixed salary. I may be wrong though
I think this is true, but all things being equal employees will value $1 in salary much more than $1 in equity. So to get the same impact of higher salary, you have to give a large amount of equity. There are pros and cons.
yes, agreed.
But increasing salary = increasing worker satisfaction at current position, not necessarily a push for future growth and subsequent stock growth
Increased equity = Push employees to work for company stock growth.
But yes, $1 equity is not same as $1 salary to the employees
Increased equity = Push employees to work for company stock growth.
But yes, $1 equity is not same as $1 salary to the employees
I’m thinking it would be a rare CEO who both knew what they did to cause the stock price to go up, and not be involved in gaming the financials to make the stock go up.
Sounds good but does this scale in the long term? Looks like a resource placing firm.
Not sure about japan, but in India it is expected that on average as an employee you get a 10 to 15% hike year on year primarily due to inflation pressures.
How would this company be able to afford this if they are both reducing prices for customers while simultaneously increasing base salaries. Wouldn't the employees leave after 2 or 3 years as the hikes would not be possible after sometime?
Not sure about japan, but in India it is expected that on average as an employee you get a 10 to 15% hike year on year primarily due to inflation pressures.
How would this company be able to afford this if they are both reducing prices for customers while simultaneously increasing base salaries. Wouldn't the employees leave after 2 or 3 years as the hikes would not be possible after sometime?
Leave and go where else in software testing in Japan? Based on the article they are paying a lot more than other software testing companies. Also, if they are paying people well and treating them well, a sizable chunk would like to continue even if the salary increases dwindle as long as they are not underpaid compared to the market. I also think that Japanese culture would inspire more loyalty to well paying, well treating companies compared to SV.
Japan has had much lower inflation rates than India over the past few decades. Famously Japan has had close to 0 inflation.
It seems like the real reason for this firm's success though, is removing multiple layers of contractors. Just hiring skilled engineers and paying them fair rates seems sufficient to shake up the industry. That seems sustainable to me - provided they keep salaries competitive - presuming some of their competitors try a similar approach.
It seems like the real reason for this firm's success though, is removing multiple layers of contractors. Just hiring skilled engineers and paying them fair rates seems sufficient to shake up the industry. That seems sustainable to me - provided they keep salaries competitive - presuming some of their competitors try a similar approach.
He could scale beyond just software testing, maybe make a product or two leveraging his investment in a better-than-normal engineering base by copying more best practices from silicon valley while leveraging the language barrier that prevents these engineers from moving onto FANG in the first place.
Surely it's a good thing to have employees leave who think $X is less than (X/2)*1.15
I think the point would be you are already earning above average for the industry. No guarantee the next job will match that salary for the same type of work. Sure you can go the promotion route but the. You don't need to leave the company to pursue that.
[deleted]
What is turnover like in Japan? Do people turnover? It seems like a place where people stay at one company for a career.
Historically that was extremely true. A salaryman would not be hired by a company that would let him retain his social status if he were fired or left. Poaching was uncommon practice. It's becoming much less true today, but it's not over yet.
Historically it was true in the US too. When I first graduated, some big companies still had pension plans they'd try to entice you with.
I'm sure there's a direct link between increasing salaries and the prevalence of job-hopping.
I'm sure there's a direct link between increasing salaries and the prevalence of job-hopping.
Looking around the internet, it seems Shift Inc. is paying around 4.5-5.0 (full range: 3.8-7.8) million JPY / year total comp.
This is about 40k-45k USD/year. It's somewhat better than what engineers would get on a black companies and local consulting companies and perhaps on par with some of the traditional blue chip companies.
But this doesn't come anywhere close to what a software engineer can earn on the highest paying companies here, like Google or Indeed (levels.fyi pegs Google L4 as earning 14-23 million JPY per year, though the dataset is a little bit small).
Even the large local IT-focused companies are competing for talent: Yahoo, Line, Rakuten, Works Applications, Mercari etc. will all pay up to 11m-13m for non-manager software engineers (even though they won't necessarily pay much higher for entry-level engineers). Many well-funded startups are also paying 7m-10m salaries to their engineers.
The pay gaps between different companies in the very same city (Tokyo) for the same position can be quite high. You can read more about it here: https://japan-dev.com/blog/software-developer-salaries-in-ja...
In short, if Shift Inc. is paying around 5m for their engineers, it might help them fight high turnover, but it won't be enough to bring the best engineers. There are companies which are both more well-known and stable and are still paying higher salaries.
But this doesn't come anywhere close to what a software engineer can earn on the highest paying companies here, like Google or Indeed (levels.fyi pegs Google L4 as earning 14-23 million JPY per year, though the dataset is a little bit small).
Even the large local IT-focused companies are competing for talent: Yahoo, Line, Rakuten, Works Applications, Mercari etc. will all pay up to 11m-13m for non-manager software engineers (even though they won't necessarily pay much higher for entry-level engineers). Many well-funded startups are also paying 7m-10m salaries to their engineers.
The pay gaps between different companies in the very same city (Tokyo) for the same position can be quite high. You can read more about it here: https://japan-dev.com/blog/software-developer-salaries-in-ja...
In short, if Shift Inc. is paying around 5m for their engineers, it might help them fight high turnover, but it won't be enough to bring the best engineers. There are companies which are both more well-known and stable and are still paying higher salaries.
Checking again, their official recruitment page[1] is actually listing "example salaries":
These are higher, although probably not representative: Security Engineer (in their 40s): 13 million yen Automation Architect (in their 40s): 10 million yen Q.A. Engineer (in their 30s): 9 million yen.
These salaries are on par with the top paying local companies, but it's quite suspect none of them are registered on a third party site. They might be rather new.
[1] https://recruit.shiftinc.jp/entry/mid_career/job/
These are higher, although probably not representative: Security Engineer (in their 40s): 13 million yen Automation Architect (in their 40s): 10 million yen Q.A. Engineer (in their 30s): 9 million yen.
These salaries are on par with the top paying local companies, but it's quite suspect none of them are registered on a third party site. They might be rather new.
[1] https://recruit.shiftinc.jp/entry/mid_career/job/
But will it scale? Sounds great as an employee. What explanation exists to convince an employer?
You can pay 3-4x more for an employee that is 10x more productive (This is what I think about Netflix). It's a great deal for everyone.
I don't think you can really convince most employers of this though.
I don't think you can really convince most employers of this though.
I don’t know - the wfh revolution is changing this equation. The more productive employees (10x etc) can just scale down their output commensurate to compensation and expectations based on the median employee and enjoy a better work life balance now.
A bunch of work is coordination, and it requires everyone to be available simultaneously to coordinate. The fully async engineer with a round trip latency of 3-4 days is frankly the unproductive one in aggregate in their organization. Software is one of the biggest teams sports out there.
If your software business relies on last minute availability all the time, no engineer worth their salt will work there.
https://sahillavingia.com/work
https://sahillavingia.com/work
And sahil runs a company that in the world of software doesn't really pay well or is wildly successful. Plenty of engineers 'worth their salt' work in those kind of environments, get paid significantly more and start getting annoyed a 1 day round trip latencies when they are in north america and the other engineers are in europe, india or china.
Not mention meetings are very painful to schedule, because nobody really wants to take meetings at 7am, 9pm, etc.
Not mention meetings are very painful to schedule, because nobody really wants to take meetings at 7am, 9pm, etc.
I'm not sure you what you mean. If you're working somewhere like Netflix I'm assuming the median employee is quite good, so "scaling down" your output to match that doesn't really make sense to me.
I'm guessing he means if you work somewhere that isn't "we only hire the best, and we'll fire you if you're not" like Netflix, the better employees realize they can work half as much for the same pay and just enjoy life more.
These employees are optimizing for free time, not salary. As someone who thinks big tech pays ridiculously more than is necessary for a comfortable lifestyle, if I could work 1 day a week for 1/5 the pay I would (I understand why working so little would likely not make sense, I am just fantasizing).
These employees are optimizing for free time, not salary. As someone who thinks big tech pays ridiculously more than is necessary for a comfortable lifestyle, if I could work 1 day a week for 1/5 the pay I would (I understand why working so little would likely not make sense, I am just fantasizing).
Even if you do work at a place like that, you can just get a job elsewhere (with similar pay, if you're outside of the US).
I used to work full time (50 hour week including commute) for a company with a really high-performing software culture full time, and quit to do my own thing just before COVID.
I now work about 20 hours a week and pull in a slightly higher wage compared to before. Better yet, any productivity improvements go directly to the bottom line, so I experience more wage growth in a month now than I did in a year back in industry.
I used to work full time (50 hour week including commute) for a company with a really high-performing software culture full time, and quit to do my own thing just before COVID.
I now work about 20 hours a week and pull in a slightly higher wage compared to before. Better yet, any productivity improvements go directly to the bottom line, so I experience more wage growth in a month now than I did in a year back in industry.
Ok that makes sense. But like you say, I'm not sure working so little makes sense.
10x more productive is probably a poor way to phrase what I really mean. 10x more impactful probably captures what I mean better.
10x more productive is probably a poor way to phrase what I really mean. 10x more impactful probably captures what I mean better.
Instead of working one day a week, just accumulate enough capital and then quit and do whatever you want?
The implication is a 10x employee could work half a day a week at a "normal" (not netflix) job and from the outside it's the same amount of output as a 1x.
If they can continue to eliminate middlemen who do nothing but skim their rates off of the layer below them then sure, it will keep scaling.
"Will it scale" is an odd question to ask about a $2.3 billion company.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
I don't think raising engineers' salaries is particularly controversial. Google, Microsoft, etc have been paying more for top talent for ages.
The main controversy in the political discussion is around paying low wage workers more.
The main controversy in the political discussion is around paying low wage workers more.
[deleted]
>"Masaru Tange
says the strategy that turned his company into one of Japan’s best-performing stocks may be surprising: He buys smaller firms and boosts their workers’ pay.
Tange’s
Shift Inc., a software tester
, acquires other businesses
near the bottom of the industry supply chain
and
raises their engineers’ salaries.
He says he’s able to do this and still charge competitive prices by
cutting out layers of companies that serve as middlemen in the outsourcing process.
And having more workers leads to higher sales."
says the strategy that turned his company into one of Japan’s best-performing stocks may be surprising: He buys smaller firms and boosts their workers’ pay.
Tange’s
Shift Inc., a software tester
, acquires other businesses
near the bottom of the industry supply chain
and
raises their engineers’ salaries.
He says he’s able to do this and still charge competitive prices by
cutting out layers of companies that serve as middlemen in the outsourcing process.
And having more workers leads to higher sales."
"pay peanuts get monkeys"
Please play some AAA games from Japanese studios.
What an annoying headline. It's plausibly deniable, and yet implied, that the secret to stock gains is high salaries. It's not what's meant, of course.
Headline is contradictes by the article. The company replaces layers of contractors with direct employees.
Layers of middlemen
The company itself is contracting, they just cut out a huge value-skimping set of middlemen, and the savings involved mean they can simultaneously undercut their competitors while pocketing more money, which is fed into employees' salaries.
The company itself is contracting, they just cut out a huge value-skimping set of middlemen, and the savings involved mean they can simultaneously undercut their competitors while pocketing more money, which is fed into employees' salaries.
Does middlemen here mean middle managers, or layers of contractor agencies?
Layers of contractor agencies
But he also gets good direct employees by raising the wages he is willing to pay for the same work.
The higher pay means he has the pick of the good employees.
The higher pay means he has the pick of the good employees.
Sssshhhhhhhh.
Everyone's a genius in a bull market.
The bull market of Japan that hasn't seen significant gains for 30 years?
Surely the raging bull market of the past decade played no part in these gains.
There was no bull market in Japan.
As always you need to understand the context. It is typical for HN to bring an article, take some specific point devoid of context and raise conclusions on a different place and context.
Japan is not the US, Japan is a very small country that is basically overpopulated. Not just because it is a small country, but because most of Japan is highly mountainous and building space is just in the valleys.
That makes life extremely artificial there. Engineers are overworked and it is normal for them to live in the city isolated from their wife and children, in an apartment that your employer puts for you and that you just can't get on your own, something similar to health insurance in the US.
The pressure is so high on just one person to sustain the family in a life that is just work and work, and social relationship with work colleagues usually imply drinking a lot, that is extremely easy to burnout.
Burnout means when they try to work harder to sustain their families, they get less productivity, no more. And they risk the total collapse into anxiety crisis, depression or suicide.
It looks what this man is doing is releasing pressure, and productivity increases. Japanese teams are incredible. In Japan they raise you always thinking on the team, not the individual, like in the US, and when it works, it works really well.
The US, or even Europe has nothing to do with Japan environment. The freedom you have in the US is orders of magnitude higher. You don't like an employer, you just change jobs, without social stigma. Engineers could become millionaires. You can work not only in the US, but anywhere in the world speaking English for an American company, the Education system supports you instead of punishing you like in Japan. Taxes are small and population and economy grows instead of population shrinking and getting older and economy stagnating like in Japan.
Japan is not the US, Japan is a very small country that is basically overpopulated. Not just because it is a small country, but because most of Japan is highly mountainous and building space is just in the valleys.
That makes life extremely artificial there. Engineers are overworked and it is normal for them to live in the city isolated from their wife and children, in an apartment that your employer puts for you and that you just can't get on your own, something similar to health insurance in the US.
The pressure is so high on just one person to sustain the family in a life that is just work and work, and social relationship with work colleagues usually imply drinking a lot, that is extremely easy to burnout.
Burnout means when they try to work harder to sustain their families, they get less productivity, no more. And they risk the total collapse into anxiety crisis, depression or suicide.
It looks what this man is doing is releasing pressure, and productivity increases. Japanese teams are incredible. In Japan they raise you always thinking on the team, not the individual, like in the US, and when it works, it works really well.
The US, or even Europe has nothing to do with Japan environment. The freedom you have in the US is orders of magnitude higher. You don't like an employer, you just change jobs, without social stigma. Engineers could become millionaires. You can work not only in the US, but anywhere in the world speaking English for an American company, the Education system supports you instead of punishing you like in Japan. Taxes are small and population and economy grows instead of population shrinking and getting older and economy stagnating like in Japan.
I like how you talk about taking things out of context, but then construct a caricature of Japan as an explanation instead.
Yes, those things happen in Japan, but they’re not the norm. At least not in my experience.
Yes, those things happen in Japan, but they’re not the norm. At least not in my experience.
Japan is very very behind in IT/digitalization compared to most western countries. This doesn't just mean it's behind in product portfolio and quality, but that perception of software engineer & managers and still quite behind. The respect that a lot of software engineers enjoys in US/EU is not quite there yet in Japan(and salary often reflect this).
The C-suite usually doesn't have a firm understanding of software/IT world, and instead ends-up hiring a lot of "Scrum-experts/Agile coaches" and hires software engineers from consultancy or recruitment companies for cheap. There's ofc companies that doesn't fall in this category, but for middle-sized companies in Japan (which is the bulk of the economy), this is the true state of things. Middle-men in Japan have therefore been way more encroaching on this, and they have the incentive to not improve the respect/social standing the software engineers have.
"Removing managers" in this article does not mean the same thing as it would in US/EU, conditions are different.