Comment by abenga
9 hours ago
> Why should I have a junior developer who is going to do negative work instead of poaching a mid developer who is probably underpaid since salary compression and inversion are real?
The tragedy of the commons in a nutshell. Maybe everyone should invest in junior developers so that everyone has mid-level developers to poach later?
Not only that but teaching is a fantastic way to learn. Its easy to miss the learning though because you get the most when you care. If you care you take time to think and you're forced to contend with things you've taken for granted. You're forced to revisit the things you've tabled because you didn't have the time or expertise to deal with it at the time.
There's no doubt about it, there's selfish reasons to teach, mentor, and have a junior under you. We're social creatures. It should be no surprise that what's good for the group is usually good for yourself too. It's kinda as if we were evolutionarily designed to be this way or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Everyone says they don't have time, but you get a lot of time by doing things right instead of doing things twice. And honestly, we're doing it a lot more than twice.
I just don't understand why we're so ready and willing to toss away a skill that allowed us to become the most successful creature on the planet: forethought. It's not just in coding but we're doing it everywhere. Maybe we're just overloaded but you need forethought to fix that, not progressively going fast for the sake of going fast
I’m not a manager by the way, my previous comment was more of a devil’s advocate/hypothetical question.
I leveled up because I practice mentoring others. But it still doesn’t make sense for the organization to hire juniors. Yes I realize someone has to. It’s especially true for managers who have an open req to fill because they need work done now.
On the other hand, my one, only and hopefully last role in BigTech where I worked previously, they could afford to have an intern program and when they came back after college have a 6 month early career/career transition program to get them up to speed. They could afford the dead weight loss.
Can I suggest you not do this? It's not a good way to communicate and more often than not causes arguing. I think it is the first sentence which does the framing, making it less clear that the second is a legitimate question and not a rhetorical one. (It very much reads as rhetorical)
I'm not saying "don't ask questions." We should all be asking questions! If anything, we should be asking more! But we're in a thread that's contextualized about a division of people. It is only natural for people to interpret as a continuation of what came before.
But to address your point more directly, my answer is that the scenario you presented would be a surefire way to kill a company. Yes, there are big companies that do this, but you'll recognize that they're also monopolies or close it. A company with competition (big or small) is unable to pull off such shortsightedness. What you do for the company is the same thing you do for society: invest in the future. Sure, you wanna be lean and cost efficient but that has to be balanced with security. You don't want your company to go under just because an employee got hit by a truck. You don't want your company to go under just because an employee decides to retire. You're not doing a good job if you have these vulnerabilities. These are things only small startups should be doing and only because they have no choice.
This isn't "dead weight" and I think it is really bad to frame things this way. Most of the time my firewall isn't doing anything, is it "dead weight"? I often buy stocks while markets are low or falling, are these "dead weight"? I went to school to get an education, was this "dead weight"? It would be silly to call any of those things "dead weight", yet they're identical. A "dead weight" employee is one who has the ability to do but does not. It is the person who gets promoted by being performative, by being close to the manager, by looking like they are doing work more than they are. There's a lot of dead weight in companies, and they stick around because they look like they're useful. And conversely, some of your best workers often look like your worst[0].
It is literally Goodhart's Law in action and what I'm pissed about is we as a society have identified this issue and decided "it is a feature, not a bug" despite all the evidence to the contrary. We've dropped so many sayings and cliques that were common and were warnings of enshitification. When was the last time you heard someone say "you get what you pay for"? Or "if you're gonna do something, do it right"? We normalized the work environment of a fucking Dilbert Comic. And here we are, in this thread, defending our Dilbert world. We could have a lot of nice things, but the inescapable truth is that nice things require work. Worse, I'm tired of living in an environment where all the little issues I face in daily life that can easily be fixed are causally brushed away because "it doesn't create value" while we dump billions into the next vaporware. It is deadly irony and I cannot stand this double speak. I just want to make things that work... You'll say "I'm not stopping you" but every person that frames things like above creates a system that does prevent me (and many others). While it isn't a zero sum game, we sure have limited resources and we're all too happy to light them on fire when promised some magic beans. I don't understand why no matter how many times we watch it happen we still do not learn.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43452649
5 replies →