I can't imagine quitting because the code I work on sucks. It's not like I'm getting paid by the feature I ship. If it takes 20 hours to ship an 8-hour feature, it doesn't matter, I still get the same paycheque every two weeks. My job is to show up, and work with the situation that exists.
I can, however, imagine quitting if my manager is a shitty person.
I think this is a fine attitude in the short term, and an absolutely terrible one in the long. It's certainly bad for the business; companies that (by your numbers) are happy paying 150% extra in costs will have a hard time competing over time with companies that keep their costs low.
But I think it's also bad for the developer. Giving up and accepting bad code and low productivity means we develop habits and attitudes appropriate to that environment. It keeps us from getting better at our jobs, from keeping up with new technologies and new approaches. And given how our industry keeps changing, I think that's a recipe for disaster.
> It's certainly bad for the business; companies that (by your numbers) are happy paying 150% extra in costs will have a hard time competing over time with companies that keep their costs low.
If most of my income derived from being an owner of a company, I would care deeply about this problem.
Since it doesn't, its really no sweat off my back, either way.
> It keeps us from getting better at our jobs, from keeping up with new technologies and new approaches.
In my experience, tech churn is one of the top reasons for why code has gone to shit. "It's been three years since the last re-write, let's rebuild the product again, in a framework that nobody here knows how to use!"
On the bright side, both the re-write, and the cleanup of the resulting mess means steady employment.
> Since it doesn't, its really no sweat off my back, either way.
Again, only in the short term. A failing company is not a fun place to be, and a failed one even worse. And if you end up with a resume that has a long string of losers as your employers, it's going to get harder to get good jobs.
Do you think so? If you do, and you hire people, you should seriously consider not thinking in that way.
Any manager who can put two and two together should be well aware that the impact that an average IC has on the success of a failing company that's bigger than 100 people is near-zero.
It's just pedigree snobbery, to look at a resume, and go: "Oh, well, he worked for losers, he must be a loser, reject."
So would you work the rest of your life before retirement to dig a hole and then fill it up again, over and over. Let’s say you get to make 10x whatever you are earning now. Oh, and, the manager is a nice guy, he gives you lemonade and stuff on breaks.
Most people do exactly that for a living. I don't let my 9-5 define my life. It means I'll retire in two years, and be able to work for a cause that I deeply care about - or, better yet, for myself.
A better thought experiment is to ask yourself how many of your co-workers will come in tomorrow, if all your code became the most beautiful code ever written, with rainbows, and unicorns... but on the flipside, that they stopped receiving paycheques.
