This, like most pieces on Medium, is just an extended platitude. Having complete flexibility and ample free time is great. You know what else is great? Stable employment with a benefits. There's a reason that most people continue to operate within the established hierarchy instead of becoming self-employed: companies afford certain things to their employees that freelances do not receive.
Working for yousef can be difficult and fruitless. Working for a company can be more lucrative, more secure, and easier. The latter are worth being bored with your job to many people.
I see this argument often, and this is how I generally respond.
Benefits can almost always be compensated for with more money. 401(k), heath, dental, paid time off -- all of these things are just another form of compensation. If you make enough money to make up for what you would otherwise lose, then these are no longer a reason to stay with a company.
Security, on the other hand, is a bit different, but in a way can still be compensated for with money. For example, think about how long it would take you to get a job after your own company goes under. 6 months? A year? If you're able to stash enough of a buffer to cover you during that period, then you have just established security.
Of course, I realize it's easier said than done to earn enough of an income on the side to make up for the monetary value of all of these benefits/security. But my point is, comparing benefits, security, and compensation as separate things overcomplicates weighing working for a company vs. working for yourself -- it all (for the most part) boils down to money.
In my experience it's very rare to get any sort of real job security these days.
Whilst working in the financial industry throughout 2008-2010 I saw many of my colleagues let go for no reason other than that they were told to reduce head count. Many of them had worked there for 10 years.
Unless you're working for a government organisation or similar there is every chance that you will be let go at any time with your minimum notice period.
There are plenty of companies that focus on ROWE (results oriented work environment). You can have a stable job and not have to pretend to work. And if you have to do busy work in the office when you're unproductive as a show, leave and find a place that values results.
There is some value in having employees and colleagues available in the same physical space within the same general timespan. I understand why entities don't want you to just "pack up and go home" whenever you get bored. Part of the reason they pay you is so that you'll be there when you're needed, within the pre-agreed timeframes. "ROWE" is all well and good, but it's not mutually exclusive with a work environment that expects, in general, to be able to swing by your desk during the day and talk to you.
>Benefits can almost always be compensated for with more money. 401(k), heath, dental, paid time off -- all of these things are just another form of compensation.
The thing is that some of these are worth much more than their transformation into a raw dollar value. As someone who has just recently transitioned from primarily self-employed to primarily corporately employed, the ability to take a day of PTO at basically any time has been amazing and no amount of raw dollars can compensate for that ability (except as these dollars are deployed to arrange affairs such that others can assume your responsiblities at the drop of a hat, but this takes more than raw dollars). I can also say that health insurance is worth more than its face value -- health insurance is an admission ticket into the doctor; if you have an insurance policy, they'll give you everything you want and treat you well, and if you don't, they'll demand large sums of cash on an almost-daily basis to continue to provide for your medical needs. If you have an astronomical amount of money maybe this isn't a concern, but most people not making double-digit millions per annum are going to find it difficult to cope with self-pay rules for any significant medical work.
>If you're able to stash enough of a buffer to cover you during that period, then you have just established security.
Security doesn't really work this way either. As an employee, you have an implicit sense of perpetual security. As long as you continue to provide the base value you were hired to provide, you will, in general, continue to collect your paycheck indefinitely. Getting paid in perpetuity is MUCH more secure and less stressful than watching your six months' worth of saved money tick down, especially if major or unexpected expenses occur.
Though I did well consulting full-time for the last five years or so, my wife and I were always worried when it came time to make big purchases and would often opt not to do so, since we'd never know for certain when our next chunk of money would come in. Since I've switched to employment by a corporate entity, we've felt much more comfortable making these necessary purchases and have been trying to clear our backlog of major stuff needed (appliances, vehicles, etc.).
It's more than just money. There's a peace of mind and freedom from stress that comes with corporate employment that can't necessarily be mapped onto an [attainable] dollar value.
Everyone wants to cross the chasm to independent wealth, but they don't understand that the process of doing so can be extremely onerous and stressful. As for me, I haven't given up yet, but it's not a pleasant experience.
No, because there are ramifications outside of just losing 8 hours of billable time. You don't have colleagues who can take over your responsibilities or who can maintain without your involvement at a moment's notice like you have in a robust corporate environment. It takes a lot of work, notice, and involvement to schedule a day off, you worry about the way it will affect the perception of the clientele, and you lose the 8 hours of billable time. There is much more stress and much different potential long-term consequences of taking a day off as a self-employed individual than as an externally-employed individual.
It seems to be a psychological thing. If you get a higher hourly/daily rate to make up for the lack of traditional PTO, you feel even worse about taking unpaid time off because you're "losing" even more money.
I agree, but I think that means the comparison should be about the things that really are different. Like having to pester people to pay for work that you completed honestly and on-time.
Self-employment certainly isn't for everybody, but your "companies afford certain things to their employees that freelances do not receive" deserves a response.
When you are self-employed, you employ yourself. Most if not all of the benefits that a company can provide to its employees, you can provide to yourself. Many of these benefits qualify as business deductions, and while some of them (such as medical insurance) might cost more when not purchased as part a group (company), that's not always the case. For instance, if you're young, in relatively good health and have reasonable earnings, a high-deductible health plan coupled with a health savings account might actually be more attractive than what you receive from the average employer.
In other areas, such as retirement, self-employment can be a boon. If you're a sole proprietor, for instance, you can set up a self-directed 401(k). Each year, you can contribute up to $17,500 as an elective deferral and up to 20% of your net self-employment income up to a total of $51,000 (at 2013 limits). So if you're doing brisk business as a freelancer, it can be very easy to save more than you ever likely would if you worked at a company and just took the 3-5% 401(k) match (assuming this is even offered).
Can working for a company be more lucrative, more secure, and easier for some people? Absolutely. But for others, working for yourself can be even more lucrative, even more secure and far more enjoyable.
The main problem is health insurance. Contra your claims, I have never seen insurance on the private market cost less than employer provided group health insurance. Usually, individual insurance is anywhere from 25% to 50% more expensive (at least as far as I've seen), and that's if you're in good health. If you have pre-existing conditions, all bets are off. Even if insurance providers have to provide coverage (thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), they're still free to charge you an arm and a leg.
If you're young, in relatively good health and have reasonable earnings, a high deductible health plan coupled with a health savings account might actually be more attractive than what you receive from the average employer.
In my experience, a high-deductible health care plan coupled with a health savings account is what you get from the average employer. All of my employers have at least offered the option of a high-deductible health care plan, and for a couple, it was the only option for new employees. At that point, the usual group vs. individual dynamics apply. A high-deductible group health care plan through a corporate employer will be cheaper than an individual high-deductible health care plan.
I work for myself. I'm 36, with a wife and three kids. Health insurance for of us (in Oregon) runs about $600/month. Assuming an employer would pay 100% of my premium, that means to come out equal I have to earn $7200 more each year than I'd make from a salary. For a freelance software developer, that's no problem at all.
I agree that if you have a pre-existing condition then the numbers might look a lot different. But if you are healthy, working for yourself is a great opportunity, and you needn't be deterred by the cost of private health insurance.
> Contra your claims, I have never seen insurance on the private market cost less than employer provided group health insurance.
I pay under $275/month for a HDHP and the maximum I contribute to the HSA each year exceeds the deductible.
I don't know what a similar plan would cost through an employer, but all things being considered, including the fact the premiums are a deductible business expense and the HSA contribution is pre-tax (post SE tax), I have never once considered that an employer could offer me a significantly better package.
>>This, like most pieces on Medium, is just an extended platitude.
I agree that this is most of what I find on Medium. I'm always surprised that things like this end up on the front page, although I guess people debate their value and that drives it up. However, I think this is a feature of Medium, not a bug. I use Medium. I don't promote anything I write on it, or really even revisit it that much. I use it mostly as a pretty, easy to use, journaling tool. I often find that writing out my thoughts leads me to interesting conclusions (really what PG talks about in The Age of the Essay [1]). Medium lets me do that easily, for free, and in a way that looks very good (kind of like a free PostHaven). Also, although it's not something I have been good about yet, I like the idea of revisiting posts and making notes with their system and reengaging with my thoughts. Maybe some day I will use it as a drafting tool, or use it to share my thoughts with people I respect and let them interact with it in an interesting way.
Doing nothing is the most draining task there is. Not only it is really boring and mind numbing, but you pretty much have to pretend like you are doing something, which is way harder than actually doing it.
But since corporations pay by the hours you sit at your desk, and require you to sit at your desk, there arent too many options.
I've done 80% work weeks for about 6 years now, so I actually can afford to leave right after lunch if I feel like it since I don't have to pull some crazy 14 hour day next day.
I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence. When I think back to jobs I left, it's not because I was overworked, it's because I was bored out of my mind. I could routinely come in late, take a long lunch, and then leave early, and nobody cared because anything I tried to do was blocked by bureaucracy anyway.
Some people might consider that a luxury but I considered it a first-class ticket to depression. There's no paycheck large enough for me to sit in a seat all day and do nothing of value.
I've had both jobs where I could mostly work when I wanted to and also where I had to be in the office basically the entire day. I found that at the job where I had flexibility, I produced better output, and I didn't have a lot of time where I would surf the net to overcome boredom.
In the inflexible environment, surfing net locations that were somewhat work related was the only thing I could do to pass by time when I knew I wasn't going to write quality code or when I was too mentally tired to accomplish the task that was at hand. I had many times where going home and returning in the morning was the best thing for trying to solve a difficult problem.
Unfortunately, many employers don't care and want to fit development staff into the typical 9-5 mold even if it means reduced productivity.
It is commonly held around here that the best programmers are 10x more productive than the typical programmer. Assuming that is true, how are the rest of your employees going to react when a handful of developers only have to put in 1/10th of the time?
Managing people is more about trying to make things appear fair to everyone. Disgruntled employees are a great way to bring down the entire organization.
> Managing people is more about trying to make things appear fair to everyone. Disgruntled employees are a great way to bring down the entire organization.
I agree with your second statement, but your first statement sounds too cynical. If this is what you're learning from the person managing you, I would encourage you to do what you can to move to a different manager.
I think the 10x productivity thing might be true in unrestricted settings, where everyone is their own boss, but I doubt it holds up in heavy corporate environments. The reason is because you often have to justify your actions to other engineers, wait for feedback, etc. And commit procedures can be long and painstaking. So while some are certainly more productive than others, I doubt it's 10x.
It really can be. The least productive people are not only producing less work in more time, they are also producing work that needs to be reviewed more thoroughly, needs to be redone, or causes bugs whose fixes take more time than the original implementation took. Add all these up and you can easily exceed 10x productivity compared to a developer who gets it right the first time, producing code that's clean, easy to maintain, and easy to adapt to changing requirements. Not only have I seen it first hand, I've seen it over and over, and I expect to continue to see it throughout my career.
The problem is that it's self-reinforcing pattern. People are being monitored, which puts more stress on them, which leads to inferior results. So bosses think "the poor results show that these people are lazy, we need to keep better tabs on them".
This is SO true. It is incredibly boring to do nothing, and like you say, it can be harder work to do nothing!!
I wish corporations would wise up to it, and allow their employees more responsibility and flexibility but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
It's actually kind of funny, because you have to make it look like you are working, but not working too hard. I once had a job that was seasonally busy. In the offseason there was almost nothing to do. I'd often use the opportunity to do some learning, whether a new language or new technique or just play around. But I had to be careful not to get into it, and type quietly as everyone knows there's not that much to do.
The one positive thing about "doing nothing" is that it gives you the opportunity to do whatever you want. Provided your employer is fine with you working on side projects (or you are just sneaky enough), it's incredible what you can accomplish when you have little "day job" work to do.
Forget about the "sneaky" part unless you have your own office.
If you do something you are not supposed to do (and which might endanger your employment) your concentration will suffer.
Definitely, but they usually won't have a problem with you working on an open source project. Just don't work on a startup, obviously don't want ownership concerns there.
> Doing nothing is the most draining task there is. Not only it is really boring and mind numbing, but you pretty much have to pretend like you are doing something, which is way harder than actually doing it
Also, if you actually do something, even if it's for example some mundane programming, at the end of the day you gain a sense of accomplishing something. Even though the job performed is to the benefit of your employer and you'd be theoretically "better off" (less effort) doing nothing, getting the job done instills some sense of purpose and accomplishment, which are good for emotional well-being.
It depends on the nature of your job. Very early in my career, I had a job manning the tech support line for an ISP. That's the sort of role where you have to be in your seat in case the phone rings.
Even if you're not in a reactive role like sales or support, it may be important to be around and available to interact with or be consulted by your colleagues. In large organisations, it's rare for people to work entirely in isolation. They're usually part of a team or wider group that collaborate. If some members of the team/group keep strange hours, that can lead to delays (e.g. a quick question could end up not being answered until the following day). This is one of the downsides of offshoring work to different timezones.
It's very easy and glib to say "If you're not being productive, just go home!" - and that may well be the right thing to do if you work for yourself - but keeping regular hours greases the wheels of large organisations.
Besides, there are alternative methods of clearing your head. Early in my career, I found that the solution to a tough technical problem would often come to me while I was having a cigarette. I realised that the act of stepping back from the problem was what allowed me to solve it. I don't smoke anymore but I frequently get up from my desk to go for a walk around the block, pick up a coffee or just go do a bit of window-shopping for half an hour. Then I come back to my desk, refreshed, productive and still available if my clients/colleagues need to speak with me.
Sometimes, I don't even need to leave my desk - I just do a bit of web-browsing and read some discussions on HN. :-)
The problem with surfing sites like HN, S.O. is that it is engaging. On one hand, if you can use the creative side of your brain, supposedly this will help you with other problems, but on the much worse side of things, you get pulled into another activity for a long time, and you never gave your mind a break.
Taking a short walk is great because it doesn't take much of your brain to walk, so you can collect your thoughts. As one person on HN said some months ago, he used to have to take longer walks but now even a 5 minute walk is enough to clear his head.
The worst part about this for me is that it is a small office of non-developers with a serious work ethic, so any time I step out during the day, I feel like they are looking at me like I think I'm an elitist doing whatever I want. So, I try to limit walks to times where I'm really frustrated.
> The problem with surfing sites like HN, S.O. is that it is engaging. ... Taking a short walk is great because it doesn't take much of your brain to walk, so you can collect your thoughts.
Very good point.
> The worst part about this for me is that it is a small office of non-developers with a serious work ethic, so any time I step out during the day, I feel like they are looking at me like I think I'm an elitist doing whatever I want.
This is a tough one. Essentially, if you adopt working practises that maximise your productivity/output, you risk creating the impression that you are lazy. In an ideal world, either they would recognise that you need to work differently to them or their opinion wouldn't matter because the boss understands what you're doing.
It might be worth thinking about raising the subject in conversation. Sometimes getting things out in the open and discussing them is the best way of clearing the air.
I would also suggest thinking about what you can do to avoid giving them the impression that you're slacking off. For example, say you had a whiteboard next to your desk. Whenever you felt the urge the go for a walk, you could draw out the problem you're trying to solve first, look at it ponderously for half a minute, then go for a walk, come back, amend the drawing and sit down to code up the solution.
Okay, so it's largely theatre, but if it allows you to go clear your mind (and, therefore, be more productive) without giving your colleagues the impression that you're slacking off... shrug
I work for a software development company and one of the new hires had never even heard of Office Space. I think it brings our entire vetting process into question.
The crazy thing is there are a lot of jobs in major corporations where you could do them over and above the expectations in 10-15 hours a week, whereas you are contracted to sit there for 40. This is a waste of resources in so many ways, and really needs to be addressed.
I no longer have to sit at my desk pretending to complete tasks, as the only person I am cheating is myself.
A job is not about individuals in the workplace. It's about people contributing to an organization to make it better: asking for work when none seems to be available; helping co-workers; coming in early and staying late.
Whether you work for a large corporation or you run your own company, you'll have to think about your whole team, not just yourself, to succeed. And when you think about procrastination from a group-oriented standpoint, workers always cheat themselves by pretending to work.
>> A job is not about individuals in the workplace. It's about people contributing to an organization to make it better: asking for work when none seems to be available; helping co-workers; coming in early and staying late.
I was with you up to that last part where you define a job as coming in early and staying late. The hours worked do not define success especially if people are doing the kinds of things the article mentions. I come in late, hit it hard until time to leave, sometimes checking work mail in the evening but do not attempt to tell me I"m not a good worker if I'm not in the office even more hours.
I had the exact same reaction there. I'm doing the best I can for the company I work for during work hours, but, once my shift is done, my time is my own. I agree with the rest, and always try to go out of my way to make things better for my employer, but asking me to donate my time when it's not necessary is a needless imposition, and I do not generally take kindly to it.
I can understand (and will happily agree to) working overtime when it's a) necessary b) compensated fairly and c) under the understanding that I'm changing my plans at the last minute. Everyone has emergencies, and I don't mind working a bit more to help out in one, but, in general, longer hours quickly means less productivity overall (at least for me).
Seconded on the hours bit. Its not about working harder (more hours), its about cooperating and coordinating with the team. We all require communication with our teams and reports etc, but that communication only needs to happen for part of the work day -- most of the day should be spent on work unless you have meetings or need to get together as a group to discuss and plan the work.
I have just the opposite problem - I come to work at noon, read livejournal, chat with colleagues, fix urgent problems and am only able to begin coding after five PM or even later. That's where I get my productive shift. But it feels like I'm wasting half a day.
Lately, my coding productivity has been related to the time of day as well. I find myself doing more work in the evening or at night. Mainly because there's less disruptions (people) around to distract me online and offline. I could force myself back to doing more during the day, but it I would have to retrain myself since my brain is still in the mode of wanting to do other things at that point. Since the days are getting shorter here, I don't mind it so much, since I rather enjoy the Sunlight while it lasts.
I think that is a great way of working, by working in your most productive hours (which of course vary from person to person) you will get more done, and enjoy it more. Makes sense to me.
I code best after 5 too, but am fairly sure it's due to lack of distractions. Have you tried coming in on a weekend? I have to do that sometimes, and with the office empty I have the same productivity as at 6 when they have all gone home.
Maybe for me, and for you? the answer is to work from home...
Could you come in a bit later? Say at 3? Eliminate some of the "waste" but leave enough time to fix problems etc before you start your real productive shift?
To have a full work day I will need to leave for home near midnight which is not something I want to do every day. Also, colleagues genuinely need me to be in the office during standard hours for the efficient communication.
Are you sure you are wasting your time? It could be that you are really productive BECAUSE of these hours, not in spite of them. It varies from person to person, but I need some time doing nothing to become nervous and really start working well. This is why mornings are an awful time for me to do some work..
That's the whole point of the writer, he is his own boss, so suddenly it matters to be productive to make money, but it no longer matters when he does it.
I completely agree with the writer (being self employed). I no longer use alarm clocks, I only work when I feel like doing so and I often leave my desk to do something else to clear my head. (I can't "go home" since my office is at home).
In the end, I am much more productive than I used to be when I was working for a boss. My work is also of much higher quality and I enjoy it a lot more.
Unfortunately, I don't think they would either, however I believe that corporations are really missing a trick in terms of getting the most out of their employees.
Being self-employed can also lead to a feast-or-famine lifestyle. I know plenty of freelancers who make money for a few months and then spend the next three trying to get deals closed. That whole time they're not getting paid and are rather stressed out. The bills don't stop coming.
While I agree that the nature of knowledge-based work is hindered by industrial-era work processes it is the nature of the beast that most organizations that can provide the safety net people need to raise families are not letting go of the past.
I have trouble believing that there's anyone this is of use to. Is there really a significant group of people who are wasting time pretending to work when they could genuinely choose to just go home? It was my understanding that sitting on Facebook at work generally indicates that one is expected to be present for X hours as part of their employment, and isn't willing or able to leave that job.
I wish companies had a policy that "unproductive time is recognized as normal and if you are not productive right now, go home".
As with "please take a nap if you need one", another policy that would benefit the bottom line, I believe the usual absence of this policy is more about managerial "control theater" than about actually getting paying work done.
I concur but there are a lot of companies that equate butts in seats with productivity. Plenty of employers still have the mentality that they have purchased 40 hours (or more) from you. What employers should think is that they are purchasing productivity, not hours.
But productivity is a harder thing to measure-far harder than just tracking hours.
It is harder to measure productivity, but surely even implementing a measuring system that was less than perfect would still be more beneficial to them.
I'm really annoyed that more companies haven't realized that this could be a good idea. I've been a student for 5 years now, and this is the exact procedure I've used throughout all my studies. For me, it's an obviously superior way to get things done. When you're in the wrong type of company, it turns into an hourly grind that's more focused on being present and less on actually getting stuff done.
Something weird I have seen with all medium pages is the images get rendered first and then after a few seconds of waiting the text shows up. The wait for the text is always a few seconds (4-5 seconds). Not sure why.
Working for yousef can be difficult and fruitless. Working for a company can be more lucrative, more secure, and easier. The latter are worth being bored with your job to many people.