I worked 80 hour weeks to deliver a platform for a hedge fund,then they fired me(efinancialcareers.com)
efinancialcareers.com
I worked 80 hour weeks to deliver a platform for a hedge fund,then they fired me
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/i-worked-80-hour-weeks-to-deliver-a-platform-for-a-hedge-fund-then-they-fired-me
190 comments
I worked for a storage startup in the South Bay in the late 00s which did something like this. After staff crunched to deliver the base operating system and kernel controllers, management gave across-the-board poor reviews to all IC staff to justify no raise. Those with the ability quickly left for greener pastures; Google hired some of the best. Only those who had to (work visas, lack of experience, etc.) remained.
The product, being a v0.1 release implemented in C, was of course plagued with data corruption and poor performance. It read /etc/password from disk on every file access. An uninitialized int caused indirect inode corruption every ~millionth write. And so on.
Because of the poor product quality, they lost multiple opportunities, including a bid for early Facebook photo storage. The company never had more than 250 customers and ended up being sold to a Valley stalwart. The CEO and VP Eng were paid out handsomely, of course; preferred converted stock tranches or whatever. My options from 4 years of employment ended up worth $500.
The product, being a v0.1 release implemented in C, was of course plagued with data corruption and poor performance. It read /etc/password from disk on every file access. An uninitialized int caused indirect inode corruption every ~millionth write. And so on.
Because of the poor product quality, they lost multiple opportunities, including a bid for early Facebook photo storage. The company never had more than 250 customers and ended up being sold to a Valley stalwart. The CEO and VP Eng were paid out handsomely, of course; preferred converted stock tranches or whatever. My options from 4 years of employment ended up worth $500.
Sounds like the Igneous playbook, from what I've heard. Immediately after launch they laid off a majority of the dev team, as they'd outlived their usefulness after completing the crunch. I interviewed there but fortunately declined the offer - I felt like I dodged a bullet when my friend (who survived the layoffs, only to be conscripted as a sales grunt) told me about it. I also gather that the CEO had pulled similar shenanigans with Isilon in the past.
If it's any consolation, Igneous died and the execs didn't make out like bandits this time.
If it's any consolation, Igneous died and the execs didn't make out like bandits this time.
Smells like Igneous or TinTri.
Story shows too much competence for Springpath or Whiptail.
Storage is particularly rife with stuff like this for some reason.
Story shows too much competence for Springpath or Whiptail.
Storage is particularly rife with stuff like this for some reason.
Was a long time ago, way before them. I agree though, glad to have changed fields.
You would be pleased to know that Whiptail exceeded whatever low bar you might have had. I like to see people achieve the things they set out to do, and I am assuming that was their goal.
Rare to see a product completely canceled and removed from the market as soon as customers started reporting minor things like total data loss due to corruption..
Rare to see a product completely canceled and removed from the market as soon as customers started reporting minor things like total data loss due to corruption..
> The CEO and VP Eng were paid out handsomely, of course
It's the prevalence of scenarios like this that makes me hate the MBA caste with a pasison
It's the prevalence of scenarios like this that makes me hate the MBA caste with a pasison
This makes me even more incredulous than the GP commenter.
How did people who "read /etc/password from disk on every file access." get hired by Google?
Or perhaps the right question is for which roles, because with that level of DS&A they shouldn't have passed Google's DS&A whiteboard interview.
How did people who "read /etc/password from disk on every file access." get hired by Google?
Or perhaps the right question is for which roles, because with that level of DS&A they shouldn't have passed Google's DS&A whiteboard interview.
I think you give the whiteboard far too much credit. In the succeeding two decades I have worked at many companies filled with past, present, and future FAANG engineers, and I can definitely say knowledge of algorithms isn’t a defense against writing silly bugs when implementing a complex, novel project from scratch. Just a dumb oversight that would have been caught quickly by user reports—had all the engineers who cared not quit from misanthropic management. There were many such issues, and I only remember these two because I found them myself.
I was in support and only had two good resources for tracking this kind of stuff down, a burnt out but kind SCSI specialist and a brilliant, massively overworked Russian kernel dev on visa. They both lasted an extra year. Bless them both for answering my pestering questions, I learned a lot.
Good times, but all this was about a year too late to make a difference, then the Great Recession hit and it was done.
I was in support and only had two good resources for tracking this kind of stuff down, a burnt out but kind SCSI specialist and a brilliant, massively overworked Russian kernel dev on visa. They both lasted an extra year. Bless them both for answering my pestering questions, I learned a lot.
Good times, but all this was about a year too late to make a difference, then the Great Recession hit and it was done.
google hires 27k devs (as per google search)
Do you honestly think all 27k devs are 10x certified geniuses?
Do you honestly think all 27k devs are 10x certified geniuses?
”The product, being a v0.1 release implemented in C, was of course plagued with data corruption and poor performance. It read /etc/password from disk on every file access. An uninitialized int caused indirect inode corruption every ~millionth write. And so on. Because of the poor product quality, they lost multiple opportunities, …”
It sounds like the poor reviews for the ICs was warranted, wouldn’t you say?
It sounds like the poor reviews for the ICs was warranted, wouldn’t you say?
Not necessarily. Big codebase in something like C, written in a rush, pretty much is guaranteed to have such things. We still are finding high-grade security issues in glibc (if you want some library to be clean, it's the one practically everybody is using), and it has been around for 37 years. v0.1 prototype is often plagued with various issues and often doesn't have best performance. You either spend years on polishing it and never release, of you start with v0.1 and fix the issues. Or, having fired all the dev team, don't fix the issues.
> It sounds like the poor reviews for the ICs was warranted, wouldn’t you say
How many crunches have you survived that resulted in a high-quality initial product? If there is enough time to get things right, it wouldn't be a crunch, by definition.
How many crunches have you survived that resulted in a high-quality initial product? If there is enough time to get things right, it wouldn't be a crunch, by definition.
If you really want to fire someone, you're willing to bleed a little (or a lot) to do it. I've seen key personnel be let go, followed by a scramble to figure out what only they know.
In this case it sounds like a "junior quant" who built an application in "months of hard work" while working 12hrs x 7days, and using technologies they learned on the fly. Sounds like me in my 20s, but I wasn't as indispensable as I thought I was. In any case, that's not as hard to replace as the sysadmin who's been there for 10 years.
From a different perspective, it's kind of like paying a contractor or offshore. You don't usually keep them on board after the deliverable, you hand it over to the in-house team to maintain it.
In this case it sounds like a "junior quant" who built an application in "months of hard work" while working 12hrs x 7days, and using technologies they learned on the fly. Sounds like me in my 20s, but I wasn't as indispensable as I thought I was. In any case, that's not as hard to replace as the sysadmin who's been there for 10 years.
From a different perspective, it's kind of like paying a contractor or offshore. You don't usually keep them on board after the deliverable, you hand it over to the in-house team to maintain it.
There are many possibilities (and I can't really tell from skimming this writeup), but the possibilities absolutely include someone thinking "We got what we needed, now let's drop this person, and free the salary and bonus obligations".
Or they might've decided they didn't want that employee for some reason, maybe even dudebro culture fit mismatch when he showed up looking fatigued, and were "sux2bu" about how they got rid of the person, firing fast. Or that project got scrapped. Or some other person had a look at the code and decided they didn't like it (or didn't like the partner whose pet project it was). Etc.
A factor to keep in mind is that many, many shops nowadays really don't know how to build software that works sufficiently well, or they have low standards for what "sufficiently" means. For example, a few years ago, if your experience was only when the top priority was the appearance of growth, and then the next funding rounds and then exit, and there were all sorts of memes about moving fast and breaking things, etc., and you have no idea how to build systems that work, even if you wanted to... you might well think that developers are disposable and interchangeable commodities. (Someone else here noted the practice of a startup using offshoring contractors for key tech early on, which I think is strong evidence of this kind of thinking.)
Or they might've decided they didn't want that employee for some reason, maybe even dudebro culture fit mismatch when he showed up looking fatigued, and were "sux2bu" about how they got rid of the person, firing fast. Or that project got scrapped. Or some other person had a look at the code and decided they didn't like it (or didn't like the partner whose pet project it was). Etc.
A factor to keep in mind is that many, many shops nowadays really don't know how to build software that works sufficiently well, or they have low standards for what "sufficiently" means. For example, a few years ago, if your experience was only when the top priority was the appearance of growth, and then the next funding rounds and then exit, and there were all sorts of memes about moving fast and breaking things, etc., and you have no idea how to build systems that work, even if you wanted to... you might well think that developers are disposable and interchangeable commodities. (Someone else here noted the practice of a startup using offshoring contractors for key tech early on, which I think is strong evidence of this kind of thinking.)
Never seen all engineers able to maintain legacy systems in a profitable business fired because the new half baked system is for sure gonna pan out?
Many CEOs are just playing a video game and don't care if they lose because they have extra lives.
Many CEOs are just playing a video game and don't care if they lose because they have extra lives.
Well, Netflix was famous for firing when the business need had passed. You have a seat in company for what you will do, not what you have done.
These high speed trading platforms do a ton of transactions in 48 hours. They assume nothing material will change in 6 months vs 48 hours; and anyways if it breaks why keep paying the dude who built it so flimsy?
Not my way of doing things of all, to be clear, just my interpretation of the “we are a team not a family” implementation. https://www.fastcompany.com/3056662/she-created-netflixs-cul...
These high speed trading platforms do a ton of transactions in 48 hours. They assume nothing material will change in 6 months vs 48 hours; and anyways if it breaks why keep paying the dude who built it so flimsy?
Not my way of doing things of all, to be clear, just my interpretation of the “we are a team not a family” implementation. https://www.fastcompany.com/3056662/she-created-netflixs-cul...
> You have a seat in company for what you will do, not what you have done.
that's fine, but netflix pays for this privilege by high salary from the get go.
If you worked for a startup, i assume the salary isn't going to be as high. Instead, you'd expect to be paid in equity.
So by firing someone as soon as they're done (meaning their future equity vesting is lost now), they lose a lot of what would've been theirs had the company's long term potential been great as a result of their work.
that's fine, but netflix pays for this privilege by high salary from the get go.
If you worked for a startup, i assume the salary isn't going to be as high. Instead, you'd expect to be paid in equity.
So by firing someone as soon as they're done (meaning their future equity vesting is lost now), they lose a lot of what would've been theirs had the company's long term potential been great as a result of their work.
>Nobody in the right mind will fire key software engineer 48 hours after system goes live.
Thats the thing. Hedge funds are not managed by people in their right minds
Thats the thing. Hedge funds are not managed by people in their right minds
Is this cope or are you basing it on something? Because it's actually somewhat of a problem that high finance sucks in so many extremely bright and intelligent people.
I'm sure there are chuds in the HF industry just like any other sector but by and large most people working in those firms are some of the most capable society has to offer.
I'm sure there are chuds in the HF industry just like any other sector but by and large most people working in those firms are some of the most capable society has to offer.
To be fair you can be a 'chud' and be very capable still. Especially in finance. Based on my (very short) experience in the field, "competent yet apathetic/morally blank" was the norm.
I would agree: while not impossible, it seems like some key information is missing.
On the one hand I would definitely expect zero empathy from a hedge fund. They should pay big bucks (pounds in this case), but if they consider an employee no longer useful it is an instant goodbye.
But firing a key engineer of a successful production system that they plan to operate -- no way!! Neither 48 hours after going live, nor 6 (or 12, 18 or 24) months later. Trading strategies always get refined, changed and tuned and an oops in that process can be very expensive. A hedge fund would fight to keep the key engineer who built the system.
One case where this is possible is if a bigger fund wants to snuff out a new entrant (for example because the smaller fund is messing up the larger fund's strategy). Then the owners get $$ and everyone else gets the boot. My 2c.
On the one hand I would definitely expect zero empathy from a hedge fund. They should pay big bucks (pounds in this case), but if they consider an employee no longer useful it is an instant goodbye.
But firing a key engineer of a successful production system that they plan to operate -- no way!! Neither 48 hours after going live, nor 6 (or 12, 18 or 24) months later. Trading strategies always get refined, changed and tuned and an oops in that process can be very expensive. A hedge fund would fight to keep the key engineer who built the system.
One case where this is possible is if a bigger fund wants to snuff out a new entrant (for example because the smaller fund is messing up the larger fund's strategy). Then the owners get $$ and everyone else gets the boot. My 2c.
> Nobody in the right mind will fire key software engineer 48 hours after system goes live.
Lots of companies and people treat software as physical goods (where it's done it's done) and that everyone is easily replaceable. I've seen many managers not consider uniqueness or the situation but simply we have an engineer with x years of experience so a similar 1 will work just the same.
Lots of companies and people treat software as physical goods (where it's done it's done) and that everyone is easily replaceable. I've seen many managers not consider uniqueness or the situation but simply we have an engineer with x years of experience so a similar 1 will work just the same.
Nobody in the right mind will fire key software engineer 48 hours after system goes live.
Perhaps there was a backstory of sorts we're not aware of. But there is absolutely nothing surprising about companies firing people right after handing over huge and/or critical projects. They do it all the time, for both good reasons and bad. Managers in finance are known to be especially "bold" in making decisions like these.
Perhaps there was a backstory of sorts we're not aware of. But there is absolutely nothing surprising about companies firing people right after handing over huge and/or critical projects. They do it all the time, for both good reasons and bad. Managers in finance are known to be especially "bold" in making decisions like these.
It’s plausible it got to a point where it was done well enough to not allow too much dependency on one person.
The answer seems pretty obvious from the author. They had promised him a cut of the profits and now they don’t have to.
After relying on someone to use their talents to get things done quicker.
Internal politics could also be at play, now that a foundation is built other self interested parties or departments could be angling in to maintain whatever they’re after
The answer seems pretty obvious from the author. They had promised him a cut of the profits and now they don’t have to.
After relying on someone to use their talents to get things done quicker.
Internal politics could also be at play, now that a foundation is built other self interested parties or departments could be angling in to maintain whatever they’re after
Yeah something doesn't add up.
It sounds like they are in the UK. You can't just fire someone out of the blue like that in the UK (assuming they are a FTE), unless they have done something obviously "bad" (proper misconduct etc). If they don't need you anymore there is a defined redundancy process.
If they were not a FTE and were in fact on a temporary contract, then this is totally normal and expected, and the author should have known that as a contractor. Contractors are easy-come-easy-go - that's the whole point of them, and why the pay is higher than FTEs.
It sounds like they are in the UK. You can't just fire someone out of the blue like that in the UK (assuming they are a FTE), unless they have done something obviously "bad" (proper misconduct etc). If they don't need you anymore there is a defined redundancy process.
If they were not a FTE and were in fact on a temporary contract, then this is totally normal and expected, and the author should have known that as a contractor. Contractors are easy-come-easy-go - that's the whole point of them, and why the pay is higher than FTEs.
That’s not true. There’s basically no employment protections in the UK for your first two years of employment. There are pretty good norms in the UK including finance about this, but your statutory protections are pretty weak even after the two years are up.
I agree, the story doesn't make sense as this person's perspective alone. It's probably only half the story.
We definitely don't know enough to make informed opinions. The manager may be new and had not anticipated how many bugs there would be on a version 1.0, the system may not have worked, or many other possibilities.
FWIW I tracked down the company, it's ExodusPoint Capital Management. I think the story is true given by what I found with some basic googling.
How did you figure this out? I used to work at ExodusPoint (left about 3 years ago).
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was ExodusPoint, but I’m not sure how one could make that connection from the article.
ExodusPoint had an OMS 3 years ago, so the part in the story about starting trading makes me suspect it’s either an OMS for a new asset class, or a replacement of an earlier system.
Unless the OP joined a portfolio team, and the OMS he’s talking about was to connect that teams strategy to the internal firm wide OMS. I did that for my pod, and I can see a Portfolio Manager making a decision like this.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was ExodusPoint, but I’m not sure how one could make that connection from the article.
ExodusPoint had an OMS 3 years ago, so the part in the story about starting trading makes me suspect it’s either an OMS for a new asset class, or a replacement of an earlier system.
Unless the OP joined a portfolio team, and the OMS he’s talking about was to connect that teams strategy to the internal firm wide OMS. I did that for my pod, and I can see a Portfolio Manager making a decision like this.
If you worked at EP then you should also know that they [I've heard] are very litigious. If I were the anonymous writer or op I wouldn't site any sources.
Most likely it was a quant in a pod. OMS could be loosely defined here as well or obscured to not dox themself too much. However EVE trade sounds very specific, I don't know what this means, EVE online trading?
Most likely it was a quant in a pod. OMS could be loosely defined here as well or obscured to not dox themself too much. However EVE trade sounds very specific, I don't know what this means, EVE online trading?
I found the person who wrote the article on LinkedIn
Reading between the lines I just figured it was a crypto quant firm.
Do people continue paying plumbers and contractors after the job is done? Of course not…
I think it is too easy for an outsider to treat software the same.
I think it is too easy for an outsider to treat software the same.
Plumbers get paid for their work though. Some eager youngster gets exploited, at least once in their lifetime.
I think you significantly underestimate the lack of empathy and (lack of) concern for workers that this kind of management has
That's not the empathy issue.
It's the system maintenance issues.
You need one or two more release to iron out the bugs, right?
...and this is a trading platform. The market changes, you need program changes for unforseen market changes.
You need one or two more release to iron out the bugs, right?
...and this is a trading platform. The market changes, you need program changes for unforseen market changes.
Lack of empathy is what causes the hubris (stupidity?) that would lead one to believe the person who built the system is expendable.
I have also been in a job where once the project reached a certian point I was fired. They gave me a song and dance about building a tech culture and sustainable development.
It was all lies. They knew when they were going to fire me the day they hired me. Once their demo worked, everything went off the rails. There was no real business plan just hype and bullshit. No wonder they had no idea what to do next.
Sometimes it's a blessing in disguise when you get shit canned at these jobs but you can't pay the bills with moral victories
I have also been in a job where once the project reached a certian point I was fired. They gave me a song and dance about building a tech culture and sustainable development.
It was all lies. They knew when they were going to fire me the day they hired me. Once their demo worked, everything went off the rails. There was no real business plan just hype and bullshit. No wonder they had no idea what to do next.
Sometimes it's a blessing in disguise when you get shit canned at these jobs but you can't pay the bills with moral victories
And lack of concern for the end product.
In large enough company, outside of engineering department end product quality or even business long term sustainability is often no one's concern.
In large enough company, outside of engineering department end product quality or even business long term sustainability is often no one's concern.
You assume that they are in their right minds…
This is the U.K. - technology is seen by businesspeople as dirty and bad, as are the people who work with it. Maintenance is unheard of, sustainability is a dirty word.
For instance, I know of a large U.K. medical data processor who wanted ISO270001 compliance, so they got in a contractor to write an ISMS, had it audited, and then immediately fired the contractor upon successful pass of the audit.
What happens next year? Who cares! I’ll be in Marbella with my bag of swag by then. Someone else can figure it out.
This is the U.K. - technology is seen by businesspeople as dirty and bad, as are the people who work with it. Maintenance is unheard of, sustainability is a dirty word.
For instance, I know of a large U.K. medical data processor who wanted ISO270001 compliance, so they got in a contractor to write an ISMS, had it audited, and then immediately fired the contractor upon successful pass of the audit.
What happens next year? Who cares! I’ll be in Marbella with my bag of swag by then. Someone else can figure it out.
You have no idea of what companies are capable of doing. They probably wanted to do it much earlier but had to wait until the work was "complete".
Good sir / madam - I was in the middle of fixing a production bug on what was at the time one of the busiest sites on the net when the layoffs came. Like literally was typing out a fix when I got called to the conference room, computer locked when I returned to my desk. Corporate American don’t care.
That's a bold assumption that those involved in firing this person were in their right mind.
[deleted]
I agree that it sounds unlikely. Although if you really invested in someone to develop a platform, you might not want to fire them. Compared to the price of any other software maintenance cost, this is very likely the most bang for the buck you could ever get. Firing someone after 48h seems stupid if they in any way want to use the product that was delivered. Maybe they don't.
While I don't know the specifics about financial software, the job market also is pretty good internationally, so finding something new, as a freelancer or not, shouldn't be too hard.
While I don't know the specifics about financial software, the job market also is pretty good internationally, so finding something new, as a freelancer or not, shouldn't be too hard.
I’ve seen it happen so many times that I envy your disbelief.
A friend of mine recently related cleaning up a mess at work where the devops staff was let go 48 hours before the new site deployment - not a tech company - but another case of the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
If it saves them a lot of money on paper, yes, they will just hire someone else
I built a system at an old job that as far as I know has been in operation for over 10 years, completely untouched. I left the company that long ago, interviewed about three years ago for another position in the same department, where someone disclosed it was still up and running, without modification. I’m sure someone had to read the code at some point, but they could have fired me right after it was built and suffered no great loss because of it. I guess I should’ve spent some more time overengineering the whole thing or introducing subtle bugs if I wanted job security, as I have seen others do.
And how long would it take for the person to get up to speed on the code for such software that in production and may have critical bugs that need fixing now?
> And how long would it take for the person to get up to speed on the code for such software
If only this is more understood. I've been on both ends and as the newcomer you rarely get any ramp up time and management assume you'd know what you're doing in 5 minutes.
If only this is more understood. I've been on both ends and as the newcomer you rarely get any ramp up time and management assume you'd know what you're doing in 5 minutes.
Business managers don't like to think that way because they know they're already screwed if business continuity relies heavily on "bus factor 1" individuals
Or maybe they fired him precisely because of the type of bugs that showed up. You wouldn't want a "move fast and break things" guy to manage billions in cash flow ;)
Could happen if they could find someone cheaper to do the job with the same skill set
You haven’t been around enough middle mgmt who consider “rockstar” engs disposable like capital budget line items.
This is just standard profit over people capitalism.
This is just standard profit over people capitalism.
> Nobody in the right mind will fire key software engineer 48 hours after system goes live.
Ah yes, the absolute preposterous idea that nobody, especially not companies, would ever make an irrational choice.
Ah yes, the absolute preposterous idea that nobody, especially not companies, would ever make an irrational choice.
Just keep in mind that a business's role in society is to deliver something and bring in a profit. So if you don't bring revenue directly to the bottom line you are in line for layoffs. Don't fall in love with your job. The business is not in love with you.
I suspect the fund's trading strategy was less than great so they had to cut expenses ASAP. I can't imagine why they would get rid of the person who would have to maintain the code, if they didn't need to do it. There is no such thing as a no need for maintenance code. If I was the CEO, I would have been terrified if the code was running without someone to make sure it was running correctly.
I suspect the fund's trading strategy was less than great so they had to cut expenses ASAP. I can't imagine why they would get rid of the person who would have to maintain the code, if they didn't need to do it. There is no such thing as a no need for maintenance code. If I was the CEO, I would have been terrified if the code was running without someone to make sure it was running correctly.
You overstate their role when you say it includes 'delivering something'.
The people who run most businesses would be perfectly happy delivering nothing at all and bringing in a profit. That's why businesses in the western economic system all end up turning purely into investment funds if left unchecked.
All profit, no product.
The people who run most businesses would be perfectly happy delivering nothing at all and bringing in a profit. That's why businesses in the western economic system all end up turning purely into investment funds if left unchecked.
All profit, no product.
> The people who run most businesses would be perfectly happy delivering nothing at all and bringing in a profit.
To be fair, to the degree that your statement is true, then I think most people who are employed by businesses would be perfectly happy delivering nothing at all and bringing home a paycheck.
To be fair, to the degree that your statement is true, then I think most people who are employed by businesses would be perfectly happy delivering nothing at all and bringing home a paycheck.
As someone who worked in pricing for a SAAS company I often explained what I called the “greed-charity” scale with 0 being “full greed, take in money but provide nothing” and 10 being “full charity, provide everything for free” and ask “what does a 5 look like for this product/feature”?
[deleted]
Today business are more focused in making profit, delivering something to society is just a side effect.
That's always been true. It's also why free markets work so well - they make money by providing to society what society wants.
> Just keep in mind that a business's role in society is to deliver something and bring in a profit.
No, that’s just another lie you’ve been made to believe. Corporations exist to serve the public good. The freedom they have been granted by the laws passed by nations is to facilitate that end. All it takes to change the rights of corporations is a change in law (not a Constitutional change as it would to change the rights of people).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1322201?seq=3
No, that’s just another lie you’ve been made to believe. Corporations exist to serve the public good. The freedom they have been granted by the laws passed by nations is to facilitate that end. All it takes to change the rights of corporations is a change in law (not a Constitutional change as it would to change the rights of people).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1322201?seq=3
[deleted]
That is the role as envisioned by a particular, relatively modern theory. It was invented to destroy many existing institutions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value
And it's been profoundly destructive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value
And it's been profoundly destructive.
"Don't fall in love with your job. The business is not in love with you."
Hallelujah brother - well said.
Hallelujah brother - well said.
We need to teach this as the type of relationship early but frankly society starts off very young teaching people to be “rockstars” and work 80hrs to be better than the “lazy” and the “poors” and in some circles “the immigrants.”
This is by (capitalist) design.
This is by (capitalist) design.
> I worked 80 hour weeks
I don't know how the work culture is there but that seems completely insane.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. The first thing I tell anyone that enters the work force: Do not play the hero. You don't have to save the world. You will only be rewarded with more work. Put that passion and energy into something you created and own and control.
I don't know how the work culture is there but that seems completely insane.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. The first thing I tell anyone that enters the work force: Do not play the hero. You don't have to save the world. You will only be rewarded with more work. Put that passion and energy into something you created and own and control.
A few years ago I clocked like a 110 hour week. I was the director but also hands on so I was doing a ton of work but also responsible for delivery. Work was at a job site away from home. Worked straight through two weekends. I felt like I was doing this because I owned it. It culminated in a big demo for the client executive team that went flawlessly. At the end nobody said a word to me. I thought I did something really valuable for the company with direct visibility to leadership and they still didn't seem to care. I poured so much energy into that job and it just went nowhere. I wasn't fired on the spot but I ended up being laid off less than year later.
If they ignored heroics like that, I would have been searching for new employment immediately.
Hopefully you learned to better identify when you should/shouldn't do that kind of thing in future?
If it's your own startup then sure, otherwise "hell no". ;)
If it's your own startup then sure, otherwise "hell no". ;)
It’s fun being the hero, till it isn’t. Balancing one’s natural behavior with burnout is definitely a skill.
[deleted]
I've worked for software company which sold products to hedge funds. And I've also done consulting work for big private equity firm. Both experiences taught me never to actually be employed by such companies. You will be disrespected.
There are people out there who see the entire world as "fuck you, I'll get mine". They are socialized into such circumstances and so tolerate or even seek them out as some kind of validation of their social-Darwinist ideology.
To play devils advocate, what we don't know from the story is how effective the playform was. 48 hours after release he was fired, possibly because it was terrible.
We also don't know how big the dev team is. It's heavily implied that it was one, but not actually stated.
What age is the 80 hour slogger? The younger you are then the likelihood is that you're willing to work to burn out either because you don't know any better or you don't have a life outside work. Older folk who have been there, done that, know that $CORP is there to suck the life out of you before tossing you aside. That's why $CORP love new college grads and hate more experienced folk who call them out.
Also just energy levels. I could recover from an 80 hour pretty quickly at 22, in my late 30s it takes longer.
OP will take that experience with them forever (technical, tactical, emotional perhaps). It’s a huge learning experience, many would suffer for.
OTOH, the hedge fund will probably fail to profit from the project soon enough: A. they fired their most productive engineer in a changing competitive business B. they run a v0.9 with many bugs without the author-maintainer C. hate the saying but they seem penny-wise pound-foolish.
OTOH, it smells like there was also a quiet conflict between OP and their manager, and OP was unaware of that.
OTOH, the hedge fund will probably fail to profit from the project soon enough: A. they fired their most productive engineer in a changing competitive business B. they run a v0.9 with many bugs without the author-maintainer C. hate the saying but they seem penny-wise pound-foolish.
OTOH, it smells like there was also a quiet conflict between OP and their manager, and OP was unaware of that.
The hedge fund will make plenty - all they have to do is write up an R&D tax credit claim, and the government will write them a substantial cheque.
Nobody actually pays for software development in the U.K. - just the taxpayer.
Nobody actually pays for software development in the U.K. - just the taxpayer.
I’ll give a very simple job security lesson.
A small resort I worked for had a guy that had been there from the very beginning. He knew where every single water line was on the entire resort. A map was never made of those water lines.
When a new general manager was hired years later, he wanted to fire the guy who always showed up late for work, and was considered lazy. The owner of the of the resort said, “you can’t fire him, he’s the only one that knows where all the water lines are”.
Job security boys,job security.
A small resort I worked for had a guy that had been there from the very beginning. He knew where every single water line was on the entire resort. A map was never made of those water lines.
When a new general manager was hired years later, he wanted to fire the guy who always showed up late for work, and was considered lazy. The owner of the of the resort said, “you can’t fire him, he’s the only one that knows where all the water lines are”.
Job security boys,job security.
This is the strategy that failed when the TFA's author was fired 48 hours after the system was rolled out.
Nobody deserves to be treated like this, but unless it’s in a contract in actual cash terms, treat all compensatory promises from your employer as Monopoly money. This goes for bonuses as well as equity payouts.
It's not about what you deserve. It's about your contract with the employer.
For example, when you hire a plumber to fix something, do you pay him what he deserves, or do you pay him the amount agreed upon in advance?
For example, when you hire a plumber to fix something, do you pay him what he deserves, or do you pay him the amount agreed upon in advance?
This story sounds fairly made-up. I have worked in quant hedge funds before, and being let go 2 days after algos start trading just doesn't sound right, unless there was absolute cause that had nothing related to performance.
It sounds like they were never given written confirmation for the bonuses. How likely are you to face penalties if you put a "time bomb" in a codebase like this? Something with plausible deniability like let's say like an authentication script that you have to run every 30 days or the program stops working for "security reasons". Also you're the only one who knows where the script is and how to run it.
This won't get you the bonus, it'll just get you possibly sued and/or prison time.
I think a better fix is to just not give to a company what you would regret giving. Don't put in 80 hours a week for months unless you have good reason to think it's going to be worth it and do it with the full knowledge that you might be gambling on the company's generosity.
I think a better fix is to just not give to a company what you would regret giving. Don't put in 80 hours a week for months unless you have good reason to think it's going to be worth it and do it with the full knowledge that you might be gambling on the company's generosity.
I mean, you could come back as a contractor and have them pay your rate to show them how to get the authentication script authenticating again. Obviously this isn't ethical.
> Don't put in 80 hours a week for months unless you have good reason to think it's going to be worth it and do it with the full knowledge that you might be gambling on the company's generosity.
I agree. I'm also not 100% convinced the original story is even true.
> Don't put in 80 hours a week for months unless you have good reason to think it's going to be worth it and do it with the full knowledge that you might be gambling on the company's generosity.
I agree. I'm also not 100% convinced the original story is even true.
Are you serious? Answer your own question: if it were legal, then you certainly wouldn't need "plausible deniability."
Why do companies need plausible deniability to fire someone fulfilling their role?
Its the same idea from the opposite direction.
Its the same idea from the opposite direction.
Sorry, replace "is it legal?" with "how likely are you to get caught and face penalties?".
It’s not worth the risk nor the guilt.
No.
I don’t believe this. Either the traders are too stupid to understand they need someone to maintain the system and iterate on it or they found and alternative in the time the original system was being developed.
The specifics seem off (firing OMS dev right after launch) but I’ve seen my share of crazy fires in this space.
People fired day before launch after 2 year build out etc.
It’s always more of a clash of personalities than anything else.
People fired day before launch after 2 year build out etc.
It’s always more of a clash of personalities than anything else.
>A typical week for me included working between 70 and 80 hours a week. I worked almost every weekend, and almost every day for the entire time, without a single day of holiday.
>I could have simply worked 40 hours a week. Had I done so, it is likely I would still be employed, still building the platform today.
>but have I snookered myself and made myself unemployable for working too effectively during my last role?
Was this really effective working.
Overtime, working weekends and no vacation isn't effective working just squeezing work time into a tight schedule.
That's the road to burn out.
>I could have simply worked 40 hours a week. Had I done so, it is likely I would still be employed, still building the platform today.
>but have I snookered myself and made myself unemployable for working too effectively during my last role?
Was this really effective working.
Overtime, working weekends and no vacation isn't effective working just squeezing work time into a tight schedule.
That's the road to burn out.
> So is that it? I know the job market is tough right now, but have I snookered myself and made myself unemployable for working too effectively during my last role?
No? maybe youre looking in the wrong places though, and possibly tho unlikely they blackballed you but that would only apply within the finance world
> I think I have applied to every hedge fund and investment bank in London
I fear the future where i MUST work for a bank/hedge fund to make enough money to satisfy myself and my family.
No? maybe youre looking in the wrong places though, and possibly tho unlikely they blackballed you but that would only apply within the finance world
> I think I have applied to every hedge fund and investment bank in London
I fear the future where i MUST work for a bank/hedge fund to make enough money to satisfy myself and my family.
I can sympathize with you. The same thing happened to me at https://getskip.com. That company exists because of me and shortly after I finished all the backend Elixir work, they reneged on most of our agreements and then fired me shortly after that. Then, five years later, they sold the company and stole the equity I had earned during my time there.
[deleted]
"the “substantial bonus” which would be paid to me was “thanks” for the critical role I played in starting the company."
Based on situations I've seen before, I'm guessing this "bonus" was probably actually attached to some legalese that required signing that exempted the company from any wrongful termination legal action, etc. etc.
Based on situations I've seen before, I'm guessing this "bonus" was probably actually attached to some legalese that required signing that exempted the company from any wrongful termination legal action, etc. etc.
Why are you pitching yourself as a junior in the job market after you delivered so much? You should only be considering senior roles or, better, contract/consulting. Just imagine if you'd value-priced what you created. Second thoughts, don't or you'll never get a decent night's sleep again.
Looks like OP did get a lot of fun though. Now it's time to gather everything and apply for the next hedge fund job -- as a contractor.
Oh and I hope OP didn't get the time to pick all bugs for the ex company so maybe that's on his contracting list too.
Oh and I hope OP didn't get the time to pick all bugs for the ex company so maybe that's on his contracting list too.
Oh, but that's the problem: because their tenure at this "hedge fund" was so short, and the job market is so lousy, they've effectively been blackballed from finance.
Definitely sounds like bogus story, news and sites are full of imaginary stories... you will not believe what happened...
On the other hand. I had places that people didn't like me because I did things too well and they looked bad because of that.
On the other hand. I had places that people didn't like me because I did things too well and they looked bad because of that.
i keep saying it to people at work who work extra hard or spit some positive corporate propagada --- as an employee you are just a fucking number,,,and nobody gives two fucks about u
I hope they were paid by the hour or at least learned this lesson.
Nah, it will have been fixed costs, and I guarantee the hourly rate came out as less than £4/hr.
Please stop working more than 40 hours a week. It’s your choice, and you don’t need to choose to.
When it goes badly, you also don’t need to use it as a point of honor. It’s not. It just means you let your employer exploit you.
Doing it because you want to is a little different. I often do. But you have to understand that the only thing you’ll get out of it is mild intellectual gratification, and sometimes not even that.
When it goes badly, you also don’t need to use it as a point of honor. It’s not. It just means you let your employer exploit you.
Doing it because you want to is a little different. I often do. But you have to understand that the only thing you’ll get out of it is mild intellectual gratification, and sometimes not even that.
I can understand that sometimes the technology at work might provide a platform to try some things you're interested in, but if you're honest about what your long term goals and dreams are, those probably have very little to do with work.
I used to get frustrated at work, thought I could recreate one of our systems in a better way, maybe I could have, but ultimately it was just a CRUD app, and making slight improvements to CRUD apps is not my dream. Running my own CRUD app, maybe, but not for someone else. (Nor were they asking me to recreate that system.)
My real dream is something more like "figure out how to bring strong AI to the gaming industry to create more interesting single-player strategy games", but that's hard, much easier to chase some tangent on someone else's CRUD app.
I used to get frustrated at work, thought I could recreate one of our systems in a better way, maybe I could have, but ultimately it was just a CRUD app, and making slight improvements to CRUD apps is not my dream. Running my own CRUD app, maybe, but not for someone else. (Nor were they asking me to recreate that system.)
My real dream is something more like "figure out how to bring strong AI to the gaming industry to create more interesting single-player strategy games", but that's hard, much easier to chase some tangent on someone else's CRUD app.
> It’s your choice, and you don’t need to choose to.
And if I don't choose it, I can just choose to not pay bills/rent when I'm fired. What a simple solution.
And if I don't choose it, I can just choose to not pay bills/rent when I'm fired. What a simple solution.
Ultimately, it's just one more point of negotiation.
In a market where labor is scarce, clocking out at <= 40 hours might be no problem, because you're not readily replaced.
But when the balance shifts and your skills are in less demand, the screws are turned, and management is going to start asking questions about who is providing the best value. To a corporation, employees are just fungible cogs, ready to be replaced if they aren't delivering.
Unless you really are a 10x developer (and by definition we all sure aren't) your head could be on the chopping block. If you're a 1x developer, an easy way to get more done than another 1x developer is to put in 1.5x the hours that they do.
In a market where labor is scarce, clocking out at <= 40 hours might be no problem, because you're not readily replaced.
But when the balance shifts and your skills are in less demand, the screws are turned, and management is going to start asking questions about who is providing the best value. To a corporation, employees are just fungible cogs, ready to be replaced if they aren't delivering.
Unless you really are a 10x developer (and by definition we all sure aren't) your head could be on the chopping block. If you're a 1x developer, an easy way to get more done than another 1x developer is to put in 1.5x the hours that they do.
What led me to self-employment was that the 1.2x developer who works reasonable hours is often perceived as less productive as the 0.7x developer who is ass in chair more often. Maybe things have gotten better since covid but I doubt it.
I think employers exaggerate their willingness to fire you. It’s risky for them. For example, they can’t fire everybody, so after they fire one person, the next one should be proportionally less afraid of working less.
You’re also not limited to one job. Even people in economically disadvantaged positions can usually get another one if needed.
In other words, it’s precisely this fear that employers are counting on. Speaking from experience, once you face it, it tends to evaporate.
You’re also not limited to one job. Even people in economically disadvantaged positions can usually get another one if needed.
In other words, it’s precisely this fear that employers are counting on. Speaking from experience, once you face it, it tends to evaporate.
As you can see from the article you're commenting on, it does not protect you from being fired, so I don't see your point.
The point is that some people just don't have a choice.
You are right, as described in the article, it will not protect you from being fired. But choosing not to work overtime may directly cause the firing.
You are right, as described in the article, it will not protect you from being fired. But choosing not to work overtime may directly cause the firing.
I think the implied solution is to find another position if possible. You can always work for a bad company while attempting to be hired by a better one.
I think thats a noble position to take but I don't think it matches up with real world expectations esp if you have plans to move upwards in an organization (org culture dependent).
I hear what you are saying but it’s a tough line to hold down in some companies.
I hear what you are saying but it’s a tough line to hold down in some companies.
>It just means you let your employer exploit you.
By definition, all labor on which another profits is a case of exploitation, regardless of length in time.
By definition, all labor on which another profits is a case of exploitation, regardless of length in time.
"all labor on which another profits" is not the definition of exploit.
https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition
https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition
That’s not what OP said. They said it was a case of exploitation and they are correct. People just don’t like to hear it phrased that way because it brings up negative connotations.
Now, while the agreement may be exploitive that doesn’t mean it isn’t mutually beneficial or that the situation be zero sum, at least viewed at a small scale. It’s perfectly possible to be exploited by someone and still end up in a better situation regardless. The level and terms of exploitation are what matters.
As a member of the labor force you ideally want to minimize that exploitation and be charging as close to your value add as the market will bear. In an idealized situation, you pull more than the market rate in some way shape or form (higher pay, less work, etc.) because in a capitalistic system you should be doing your due diligence to help the labor market optimize the way the employer market is optimizing.
Now, while the agreement may be exploitive that doesn’t mean it isn’t mutually beneficial or that the situation be zero sum, at least viewed at a small scale. It’s perfectly possible to be exploited by someone and still end up in a better situation regardless. The level and terms of exploitation are what matters.
As a member of the labor force you ideally want to minimize that exploitation and be charging as close to your value add as the market will bear. In an idealized situation, you pull more than the market rate in some way shape or form (higher pay, less work, etc.) because in a capitalistic system you should be doing your due diligence to help the labor market optimize the way the employer market is optimizing.
The ideal compensation is:
compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk)
> compensation = (value produced
Only in a non-capitalist society. You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk: capitalism 101.
In an imaginary world you have built a business that brings in $x. You now employ $people to run the business and you leave the business in their capable hands. The amount of value produced by $people is $x. No capitalist owner would then share the total of $x out to the $people according to the value each person is producing in the business. Whether $x is profits or revenue, most capitalist businesses won't be kept alive for $0 profit.
Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. When someone (a new employee) joins an existing business like Apple, should they be paid around 2.4 million less costs? https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...
Only in a non-capitalist society. You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk: capitalism 101.
In an imaginary world you have built a business that brings in $x. You now employ $people to run the business and you leave the business in their capable hands. The amount of value produced by $people is $x. No capitalist owner would then share the total of $x out to the $people according to the value each person is producing in the business. Whether $x is profits or revenue, most capitalist businesses won't be kept alive for $0 profit.
Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. When someone (a new employee) joins an existing business like Apple, should they be paid around 2.4 million less costs? https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...
> You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk
I wrote:
> Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee.
Revenue is not profit. And did you factor in the value of stock options as compensation? Total employee compensation is a lot more than salary.
> When someone
The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees.
I wrote:
compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk)
> Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee.
Revenue is not profit. And did you factor in the value of stock options as compensation? Total employee compensation is a lot more than salary.
> When someone
The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees.
> Note the word "risk" in there.
0: I took risk to mean the risk of employing someone - your definition is totally unclear (I admit I'm an engineer not an economist). Please point me to a good reference that defines your equation.
1: Risk is not profit.
2: Profit is only related to risk in some perfect (edit) economist model of markets. Or if you use a tautological definition between the risk and the profit. In the practical world, risk and profits often diverge. Businesses cannot have perfect knowledge so opportunities always exist.
3: you are also ignoring the bigger issue: why would a capitalist company pay more for an employee than they have to? An employee usually can't even know how much their work is worth - they don't have access to the financial records - (edit) a company uses that information asymmetry to their advantage. If two fungible employees bid their required salary for a job, the company will pay as little as possible and choose the cheaper person. Where does that fit into your equation?
> The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees.
Obviously. This margin is too small to write a detailed example to fit your needs! Argue the point.
Edit: at least say whether you think "value produced" is revenue produced or profit produced. Kind of an important difference between the two and it isn't clear what you mean at all. When you do that, I'll try and construct a marginal employee argument edit2: I was trying to point the Apple example towards an argument based on marginal value - I should have been clearer, sorry.
0: I took risk to mean the risk of employing someone - your definition is totally unclear (I admit I'm an engineer not an economist). Please point me to a good reference that defines your equation.
1: Risk is not profit.
2: Profit is only related to risk in some perfect (edit) economist model of markets. Or if you use a tautological definition between the risk and the profit. In the practical world, risk and profits often diverge. Businesses cannot have perfect knowledge so opportunities always exist.
3: you are also ignoring the bigger issue: why would a capitalist company pay more for an employee than they have to? An employee usually can't even know how much their work is worth - they don't have access to the financial records - (edit) a company uses that information asymmetry to their advantage. If two fungible employees bid their required salary for a job, the company will pay as little as possible and choose the cheaper person. Where does that fit into your equation?
> The value produced by a particular "someone" surely varies wildly among Apple employees.
Obviously. This margin is too small to write a detailed example to fit your needs! Argue the point.
Edit: at least say whether you think "value produced" is revenue produced or profit produced. Kind of an important difference between the two and it isn't clear what you mean at all. When you do that, I'll try and construct a marginal employee argument edit2: I was trying to point the Apple example towards an argument based on marginal value - I should have been clearer, sorry.
0. risk is the risk all businesses take when they invest. It's why low-risk bonds pay low interest, and high risk stocks (potentially) give high returns. No savvy business is going to invest in a high risk endeavor with poor expected returns. You don't need a book to tell you that.
1+2. the higher the risk a business takes, the more profit it needs to justify the risk
3. Note how I said if the business underpaid the employee, the employee can leave and get a better offer elsewhere. That's how markets work. That's what drives compensation up to fit the equation. Or the employees can quit and start a competitor. Unusually profitable businesses draw competitors like flies to honey. Every businessman is looking for a high margin business to get in to.
Let's put it another way. If you started a business that made $100 per widget, and the employee that made the widget cost you $10, that would be a great business. Until your competitors caught wind of it and enticed away your employee for $20. You entice him back for $30. Until it reaches equilibrium that matches the equation.
1+2. the higher the risk a business takes, the more profit it needs to justify the risk
3. Note how I said if the business underpaid the employee, the employee can leave and get a better offer elsewhere. That's how markets work. That's what drives compensation up to fit the equation. Or the employees can quit and start a competitor. Unusually profitable businesses draw competitors like flies to honey. Every businessman is looking for a high margin business to get in to.
Let's put it another way. If you started a business that made $100 per widget, and the employee that made the widget cost you $10, that would be a great business. Until your competitors caught wind of it and enticed away your employee for $20. You entice him back for $30. Until it reaches equilibrium that matches the equation.
Your argument is based on a perfectly spherical economy. Edit: is that the Austrian or Chicago economics?
In the real world, there are asymmetries, and that shows because in the real world we have businesses making profits in excess of their risks.
If I have a business that makes $100 per widget but it depends on a secret that only I know, how does the competitor learn my secret? Where does that secret knowledge fit into your equation?
And clearly your argument is flawed since most employees are not paid anywhere near the value they produce. Your examples are based on an idealistic perfect market - which we clearly don't have a perfect equilibrium.
Also I added marked (edits) to previous comment before I realised you had already answered
In the real world, there are asymmetries, and that shows because in the real world we have businesses making profits in excess of their risks.
If I have a business that makes $100 per widget but it depends on a secret that only I know, how does the competitor learn my secret? Where does that secret knowledge fit into your equation?
And clearly your argument is flawed since most employees are not paid anywhere near the value they produce. Your examples are based on an idealistic perfect market - which we clearly don't have a perfect equilibrium.
Also I added marked (edits) to previous comment before I realised you had already answered
The equation I gave is the equilibrium point. Market forces are always pushing things towards that equilibrium. If a business is operating far away from it, competitors will inevitably emulate it and drive it back to the equilibrium.
> how does the competitor learn my secret?
The more valuable the secret is, the more effort competitors will expend to learn it. The reason we have a patent system is competitors are pretty good at finding out secrets.
The only trade secret I know of that has lasted a long time is Coca-Cola's formula. And yet Pepsi competes successfully with them anyway.
Do you have an example of a trade secret that is enabling unusually high profit margins with poorly paid employees?
> in the real world we have businesses making profits in excess of their risks
A lot of risks do not seem so risky in hindsight. Like Musk's creation of Tesla and SpaceX. I bet risk will look very different to you if you're faced with risking your own money on a venture.
> clearly your argument is flawed since most employees are not paid anywhere near the value they produce
No evidence presented for that.
> how does the competitor learn my secret?
The more valuable the secret is, the more effort competitors will expend to learn it. The reason we have a patent system is competitors are pretty good at finding out secrets.
The only trade secret I know of that has lasted a long time is Coca-Cola's formula. And yet Pepsi competes successfully with them anyway.
Do you have an example of a trade secret that is enabling unusually high profit margins with poorly paid employees?
> in the real world we have businesses making profits in excess of their risks
A lot of risks do not seem so risky in hindsight. Like Musk's creation of Tesla and SpaceX. I bet risk will look very different to you if you're faced with risking your own money on a venture.
> clearly your argument is flawed since most employees are not paid anywhere near the value they produce
No evidence presented for that.
Okay we've gone off track here. I just find your "equation" makes no sense.
Firstly, the types of your variables don't match. Risk and $/year can't be added together. And adding per employee variables to a per company variable (risk) is yet another typing/dimension issue.
Secondly, adding "opportunity cost" is meaningless. Adding a dependency on the next best employment choice makes no sense. Also an opportunity cost only exists in a non-equilibrium market - I can't see why you argue for equilibrium while having opportunity cost. Why would an employer care what the opportunity cost was - and you can't argue that it is an equilibrium due to employees demand - because there isn't an equilibrium (see your previous wage example).
Finally, if there is a marginal change in revenue, your equation says that is reflected in employee wages. Imagine a low-risk company where profits are fairly static (say close to risk-free rate of return). If revenues go up, your assumption is that employees are perfectly fungible between businesses and that employees will demand higher wages to capture the revenues (assuming transaction costs are zero so no spread). But employees don't know their value, so there is a distribution of bids. If employees are perfectly fungible then a business will buy the employee that underbids, and the business will make an "excess" profit.
> No evidence presented for that.
That's a diversion. Anecdotally I've experienced it many times as an employee and as a business owner.
The real world has too many counter-examples of disequilibrium - and you are trying to make micro-economic arguments that depend on perfect market equilibrium.
Firstly, the types of your variables don't match. Risk and $/year can't be added together. And adding per employee variables to a per company variable (risk) is yet another typing/dimension issue.
Secondly, adding "opportunity cost" is meaningless. Adding a dependency on the next best employment choice makes no sense. Also an opportunity cost only exists in a non-equilibrium market - I can't see why you argue for equilibrium while having opportunity cost. Why would an employer care what the opportunity cost was - and you can't argue that it is an equilibrium due to employees demand - because there isn't an equilibrium (see your previous wage example).
Finally, if there is a marginal change in revenue, your equation says that is reflected in employee wages. Imagine a low-risk company where profits are fairly static (say close to risk-free rate of return). If revenues go up, your assumption is that employees are perfectly fungible between businesses and that employees will demand higher wages to capture the revenues (assuming transaction costs are zero so no spread). But employees don't know their value, so there is a distribution of bids. If employees are perfectly fungible then a business will buy the employee that underbids, and the business will make an "excess" profit.
> No evidence presented for that.
That's a diversion. Anecdotally I've experienced it many times as an employee and as a business owner.
The real world has too many counter-examples of disequilibrium - and you are trying to make micro-economic arguments that depend on perfect market equilibrium.
The key word in the definition of exploit is "full" use. To simply use something and derive a profit from it is not necessarily exploitative, as the noted comment suggests.
In the context of this thread, the original claim put forth is that being "used" for 80 hours is in fact exploitative; by one calculation, this amounts to 100% of your waking time in a standard 5 day work week, assuming a typical 8 hour daily sleep period. On the other hand, being used for a 40 hour work week is not exploitative; you still have 50% of your time remaining for non-work life. The math here is used for illustrative purposes, but a reasonable interpretation of "full" would tend towards 100%, not 50%.
Workers are truly exploited in some cases. To label a 40 hour work week as exploitation, in most cases, is simply hyperbole that diminishes the real suffering and ethical issues of actual worker exploitation.
In the context of this thread, the original claim put forth is that being "used" for 80 hours is in fact exploitative; by one calculation, this amounts to 100% of your waking time in a standard 5 day work week, assuming a typical 8 hour daily sleep period. On the other hand, being used for a 40 hour work week is not exploitative; you still have 50% of your time remaining for non-work life. The math here is used for illustrative purposes, but a reasonable interpretation of "full" would tend towards 100%, not 50%.
Workers are truly exploited in some cases. To label a 40 hour work week as exploitation, in most cases, is simply hyperbole that diminishes the real suffering and ethical issues of actual worker exploitation.
The usual counterargument is that the worker agreed to exchange their labor for a price so it's "fair" and therefore not exploitation, which is obviously juvenile. I appreciate that you at least go beyond that simplistic platitude, but it seems equally shortsighted if not ridiculous to get caught up about what qualifies as "full use" of a human being, which is probably why most people just stop before going there. You didn't even mention the wage! I have to ask: would a slave that never works beyond 40 hours/week be considered exploited?
And yet people understand the sentiment. Having footnotes pointing out the inherent unfairness of capitalism when criticizing the employers that go further than societal norms to exploit their employers seems like an excessive level of formality (to expect) for HN.
[deleted]
Most likely, the company is just afraid of getting tanked by a bug, so they replaced him with someone with more experience.
"Every day, I got to build really cool stuff, all while learning a new language which was unfamiliar to me"
Someone who tries to compensate for a lack of skill / experience by working extra hard, like 80 hour weeks, might be a bad fit for a startup and especially for high-risk software like in finance.
"Every day, I got to build really cool stuff, all while learning a new language which was unfamiliar to me"
Someone who tries to compensate for a lack of skill / experience by working extra hard, like 80 hour weeks, might be a bad fit for a startup and especially for high-risk software like in finance.
As someone near to this space, why in the world would you develop a custom order management system (OMS) as opposed to buying something off the shelf?
Because they paid less than they would’ve paid for an off the shelf solution? They ripped off a bloke instead
[deleted]
This absolutely blows, but this:
> Firstly, I was told repeatedly that the faster the firm was able to start trading, the faster I would start earning bonuses from the firm's PnL, assuming that the strategies indeed were profitable. (It is my understanding that they are highly profitable.)
Is why I never plan my finances around bonuses. Way too easy to get screwed this way.
> Firstly, I was told repeatedly that the faster the firm was able to start trading, the faster I would start earning bonuses from the firm's PnL, assuming that the strategies indeed were profitable. (It is my understanding that they are highly profitable.)
Is why I never plan my finances around bonuses. Way too easy to get screwed this way.
When the system has a bug and they call this person back -- I hope they require a basis point of every trade for ongoing maintenance.
They won’t call them back. They’ll get their lawyers to threaten them into fixing it for free.
Only time I work that much is for myself. The employer has no obligation besides whatever your contract says. They can and will screw you over to meet their bottom line. Depending on his non-compete, why not just build a new platform again and sell it to other hedge funds, seems like it would be quite lucrative.
Been there done that. It’s better to get out, they will only ruin your algorithm with their lack of understanding.
Suits with an algorithm will eventually drive it into the ground in the long run.
Suits with an algorithm will eventually drive it into the ground in the long run.
I'll never understand why people would work for free like this. I learned very early on (like during my minimum wage job years - 16-21). I am not working more or less and I only work when clocked in (or in the case of most corp jobs, 9-5). If I don't get paid a sizable diff for "non-regular working hours", your call/email/text is going to be ignored until next business day. Idc if it's G or some low rent dogshit company.
"fuck you, pay me" [1]
Only time I would put in those marathons is for myself (from idea to hacking together an mvp over the weekend), or maybe I am learning something new.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48
"fuck you, pay me" [1]
Only time I would put in those marathons is for myself (from idea to hacking together an mvp over the weekend), or maybe I am learning something new.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48
Only an idiot works 80 hours and especially for someone else’s s company and especially if it’s a startup.
Nobody is born with all of life's wisdom in place.
I suspect a very large percentage of HN readers are probably idiots, by that measure. (Me included, for at least 4 or 5 different "someone else's companies" over the last 30 odd years.)
The exceptions prove the rule.
It’s like skipping life because all one does is work. Thats basically 12 hour workdays with sat and sunday 10 hour each.
Lets pray you were exaggerating a bit. :)
It’s like skipping life because all one does is work. Thats basically 12 hour workdays with sat and sunday 10 hour each.
Lets pray you were exaggerating a bit. :)
It would be interesting to publicly hear from the company about this. He (or she) should name them.
> I was told it was “with regret” that my contract would be terminated that day, and that the “substantial bonus” which would be paid to me was “thanks” for the critical role I played in starting the company.
Always put what you want in the contract, because that's what you're going to get. Don't feel bad, everybody learns that the hard way.
Always put what you want in the contract, because that's what you're going to get. Don't feel bad, everybody learns that the hard way.
This really sucks for this human, capital markets do what they do... ruthlessly find alpha.
Not to slight the author, but Rust seems like quite a hard language to learn on the job.
Starting with knowledge of another statically typed language, Rust really isn't that hard. Borrow checker gymnastics take a few days to get over after which one can get relatively productive. There's plenty of code samples on GitHub and mature crates to get going on the db and web layers.
As a primarily Python programmer, I did not feel over-burdened by learning Rust. Sure, I never learned how to deal with lifetimes, never wrote a macro, and probably used clone a few places where I did not have the need. I was almost certainly leaving performance on the table. Yet the language gives you so many guardrails that I always felt like my code was doing the correct thing.
I thought the same thing. Either he means that he learned the very finer parts of Rust on the job but knew it well to begin with. OR. He was really doing 40 hours of work and 40 hours of Rust learning per week. Which is fine too, as he delivered.
Have you tried it? I don't see any rust code in your github profile.
Personally, I don't think it's that bad. I did it in 2020, and thought it was (mostly) easy. A few weeks of wrestling with the borrow checker until I finally "got it". I now work in Rust full-time.
Personally, I don't think it's that bad. I did it in 2020, and thought it was (mostly) easy. A few weeks of wrestling with the borrow checker until I finally "got it". I now work in Rust full-time.
As someone else struggling to find a job, I understand. I would still have my last job if I was a little less transparent and made infosec a blackbox. I gave this company almost 5 years of my time, only to be told "Your services are no longer needed" and given 6 weeks of severance, then forced to sell my private RSU's for 2 cents a piece.
Most companies I've applied at don't respond, the < 5% that do respond with a rejection, they send the rejection email during the weekends which makes me wonder if they have people in other countries reviewing resumes.
I'm not a spring chicken either, I've been doing tech since 1999. Started as a linux / unix admin which became devops between then and 2016. I was doing security work but didn't have a security title until 2016. A lot of DevOps includes security, just it's never called out. I've been in dedicated security roles since 2016, making it all the way to lead security engineer and leading a team of 2 other people. Still I can barely get an interview and when I do get an interview, it ends with "We like you but we're going with another candidate or we don't feel your senior enough. Let me briefly highlight some of the gold nuggets I remember from my recent interviews.
* I did a 30 minute interview for a security architect position at a media company. It was me and another guy talking over a network diagram and the questions that need to be asked. I got all but one, which was about the hardware (Network DVR) becoming sentient and threatening physical damage.
* Did 5 hrs of interviewing for a Senior Security Engineer (detection) only to be put paired with a python developer in the end and asked to write code well beyond what the position called for. I can script and I never claimed to be a developer. But let me show you this thing called Copilot and ChatGPT, or if I need something advanced, I'll ask someone who knows more than me to help out.
* Another interview for a security architect at the local water company. They asked why I want to be a security architect, I respond with, "I'm into making sure security is baked into platforms as it's being designed, it's more optimal that way over shoeing in security as an after thought.". Hiring manager replies with "We've been around for over 100 years, we don't design anything new."
* I interviewed at a major password management company (the biggest) and was talking about their recent breach. In the aftermath they claimed to be encrypting all fields going forward, interview confirmed they lied and are not doing it now. I complained about vendors lying as they lied to me during a vendor review at my previous job. HR let me know later that they "liked me but decided to go with another candidate", probably one that doesn't care.
* I've had two jobs basically ghost me, say they wanted to create a new job position that fits all of my skills then go radio silent.
* A place that rhymes with dox had me interview with someone who thought a WAF can stop malware / ransomware from spreading on a internal network. I didn't know if this was a test to see if I corrected him or not, and if I corrected him will that blow my chances. The recruiter brushed me off and didn't respond for over a month after the interview.
* A few other interviews have turned into dick measuring contests on who knows the most irrelevant crap.
I've applied at jobs that I check every single box on their job posting and they don't even give me the time of day for a conversation before receiving a rejection. I'm getting tired and frustrated with the screwed up practices we've allowed to grow in our industry.
Most companies I've applied at don't respond, the < 5% that do respond with a rejection, they send the rejection email during the weekends which makes me wonder if they have people in other countries reviewing resumes.
I'm not a spring chicken either, I've been doing tech since 1999. Started as a linux / unix admin which became devops between then and 2016. I was doing security work but didn't have a security title until 2016. A lot of DevOps includes security, just it's never called out. I've been in dedicated security roles since 2016, making it all the way to lead security engineer and leading a team of 2 other people. Still I can barely get an interview and when I do get an interview, it ends with "We like you but we're going with another candidate or we don't feel your senior enough. Let me briefly highlight some of the gold nuggets I remember from my recent interviews.
* I did a 30 minute interview for a security architect position at a media company. It was me and another guy talking over a network diagram and the questions that need to be asked. I got all but one, which was about the hardware (Network DVR) becoming sentient and threatening physical damage.
* Did 5 hrs of interviewing for a Senior Security Engineer (detection) only to be put paired with a python developer in the end and asked to write code well beyond what the position called for. I can script and I never claimed to be a developer. But let me show you this thing called Copilot and ChatGPT, or if I need something advanced, I'll ask someone who knows more than me to help out.
* Another interview for a security architect at the local water company. They asked why I want to be a security architect, I respond with, "I'm into making sure security is baked into platforms as it's being designed, it's more optimal that way over shoeing in security as an after thought.". Hiring manager replies with "We've been around for over 100 years, we don't design anything new."
* I interviewed at a major password management company (the biggest) and was talking about their recent breach. In the aftermath they claimed to be encrypting all fields going forward, interview confirmed they lied and are not doing it now. I complained about vendors lying as they lied to me during a vendor review at my previous job. HR let me know later that they "liked me but decided to go with another candidate", probably one that doesn't care.
* I've had two jobs basically ghost me, say they wanted to create a new job position that fits all of my skills then go radio silent.
* A place that rhymes with dox had me interview with someone who thought a WAF can stop malware / ransomware from spreading on a internal network. I didn't know if this was a test to see if I corrected him or not, and if I corrected him will that blow my chances. The recruiter brushed me off and didn't respond for over a month after the interview.
* A few other interviews have turned into dick measuring contests on who knows the most irrelevant crap.
I've applied at jobs that I check every single box on their job posting and they don't even give me the time of day for a conversation before receiving a rejection. I'm getting tired and frustrated with the screwed up practices we've allowed to grow in our industry.
lest we forget.
The word "Employ" means "to Use"
to expect anything more is just fantasy
Fool you once
The word "Employ" means "to Use"
to expect anything more is just fantasy
Fool you once
Never trust any promise not in a signed contract and with said contract reviewed by a lawyer in a high stakes situation like that.
Never trust finance people, they are the scum of this planet. They only respect leverage.
Anyway, I have no much of sympathy for quants. So, poetic justice maybe.
Never trust finance people, they are the scum of this planet. They only respect leverage.
Anyway, I have no much of sympathy for quants. So, poetic justice maybe.
Half the story?
[deleted]
Welcome to capitalism! Enjoy your stay!
Hate to break it to you, but people are going to be greedy and selfish with or without capitalism.
> ...people are going to be greedy and selfish with or without capitalism.
True.
But in capitalism greed is a fetish
True.
But in capitalism greed is a fetish
It's a double-edged sword. On one edge there's the risk of greed, but it's also unparalleled in incentivizing and rewarding ambition.
not a fetish, but rewarding.
Survival of the fittest and the most powerful.
Survival of the fittest and the most powerful.
Count yourself lucky that you got out with your liberty. It's not unheard of for quants that try to leave to be criminally prosecuted and placed in isolated incarceration.
Getting fired sounds pretty good, no?
Getting fired sounds pretty good, no?
Got some stories for that?
The Goldman guy?
UBS had similar? Perhaps.
Try searching for these.
UBS had similar? Perhaps.
Try searching for these.
Flash boys by Micheal Lewis.
I think the coder was arrested but it didn’t go much further than that… I don’t think it has happened again since the early 2010.
I think the coder was arrested but it didn’t go much further than that… I don’t think it has happened again since the early 2010.
Sources?
Six months after launch when all problems are solved - absolutely, you can fire engineer. 48 hours after launch? absolutely not.