Lets add some context. Amazon is the author's only job. 5yrs Software, 7yrs Senior, 4yrs Principal, now runs a YouTube self-help. Reading through there are multiple lines that collectively paint a picture of a difficult career.
"I had over 20 managers across my 18 years at Amazon", whilst this might be out of the author's hands, that's a wild manager history.
"..when I finally pushed for bigger scope at Amazon. My manager’s initial reaction wasn’t excitement. It was something closer to “But you’re doing so well where you are.”", most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
"I was a passenger for the first 10 years of my Amazon career", which doesn't really line up, unless they're referring to their horizontal move to Prime in an effort to find promotive work.
"Not because I suddenly got better at my job, but because I started being intentional about which parts of my job were ... mapped to what the next level required.", which means the author worked out how to correctly market themselves internally.
"You know where you want to be in five years, and you’re actively seeking out the work that will get you there eventually.", again, they worked out how to find promotive work. This seems to be the key take-away they're dancing around.
> "..when I finally pushed for bigger scope at Amazon. My manager’s initial reaction wasn’t excitement. It was something closer to “But you’re doing so well where you are.”", most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
From the business perspective, it may not be good to push. If they are really good at what they currently do, the manager would need to find a replacement, and there is no certainty that the old worker provides more value in the different job. When only the money is weighted, this will happen often. Seems to fit for Amazon's work culture.
The problem is bored employees find a new job elsewhere. Employees who feel they are not valued find a new job elsewhere. If you can find them a new job in the company you can have them train their replacement - years later the replacement can ask "do you remember why you did...". It also means if the old project has an emergency you have a bunch of people who can jump in much faster - to some extent this adding people to a late project won't make it latter (only some extent, it isn't perfect).
People also get old and retire (or die). By moving people around a bit you ensure that your training plan still works because you are using it. This also means there will be openings to move up the ladder, make sure you get the people on them. (There are stories from my company where after a big layout they got scared and hired almost nobody for the next 20 years, then those who made it passed the layoffs started retiring and there wasn't a mid level of engineers following to promote).
> The problem is bored employees find a new job elsewhere.
But this one didn’t. 20 years at one place, at least 10 with minimal support. Maybe all those managers were bad; but maybe they realized this individual wasn’t a flight risk, and had a reasonable strategy for maximizing what they got out of them, since they knew they didn’t have to guard against departure.
I think most managers prefer the status quo; why wouldn't they? Charitably, you can think of it as an assumption on the manager's side that you're fine with the way things are, because you haven't said anything. Similar things can be said about salary.
I don't know why people assume managers are interested in increasing salaries and distributing promotions. Every incentive and preference works against those things. If you want change, you have to ask for it.
From my experience it is futile to ask for any meaningful salary changes. Bands are usually fixed. Unless you're severely underpaid, they won't increase your salary by much. There are only two ways to increase your salary: leave for bigger salary, or threaten to leave and stay for bigger salary.
I've seen companies that do and companies that don't. I've actually had managers try to dissuade me from growing my scope of work or growing my career. "I don't know why you'd want to be promoted to manager, just stay an IC" was a common phrase to push back against my expressed desire for career growth. Definitely happens. Lots of companies erect career-ceilings over you.
Let's be honest, nobody gives a shit about you personally in any job, you either deliver what you're paid to deliver or they couldn't care less if you're gone the next day and forget about you completely the day after, even if they like you on a personal level. Employees are an unpleasent expanse that the business must incur and if AI will make it feasible to replace all emloyees to save money, nobody will even blink an eye, just count the money saved.
> they couldn't care less if you're gone the next day and forget about you completely the day after
This is a lesson I wish I learnt earlier.
I quit thinking I was irreplaceable based on the sheer urgent firefighting load they put on me. Once I quit, never heard from them again. All those urgent tasks that somehow only I got assigned "because there's nobody else", suddenly managed to get done by someone else or nobody because they weren't actually urgent.
"If you want something done, give it to a busy person" - Benjamin Franklin
I was even the “lead” at a SaaS in daily firefighting mode and pushing new features out quickly on a team of three engineers and one half-time one. I was 99% sure they’d go down the next day I left but somehow they kept on trucking. We’re all replaceable whether we like to think it or not
At every job I’ve had, across all the managers I’ve had, my immediate manager (and usually their manager as well) genuinely cared about me and my team and our well being as well as our careers. My _company_ and its executives surely didn’t give a damn if they even knew our names, but the actual humans I work face to face with definitely do.
Managers are human (at least so far). As humans they care about other people they know.
Managers will sometimes not help you because they are lazy. In a few cases culture will make them discriminate against you. However in general managers like you and want you to do well.
I’ve been part of organizational discussions. Every manager ive worked with has actively fought, and fought hard, to keep, promote, or get pay raises for their employees. They don’t just bend over and say “okay boss” if asked to cut people.
If you treat your managers like soulless entities and don’t build relationships with them, they’ll probably do the same to you. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
Well in my 30 year career across 10 jobs - everything from startups to BigTech and now working full time at a consulting company, I’ve found line level managers to be absolutely useless - not soulless.
When I was being recruited as a strategic early hire, one of my requirements was that I must report to the CTO/director and not a line level toothless engineering manager.
Also, every meaningful raise I’ve gotten has only come when I was reporting to someone above a line level manager.
It’s not “bad managers” - it’s “powerless managers”. If you are a line level manager, you don’t control budgets, company wide re-org decisions, or really anything that I care about - which is mainly “how much money do I get in exchange for my labor” and “do I need to come into an office?”. Those are all decisions above your head
I don't expect them to move the world for me. But I don't equate "powerless managers" with "useless managers". If they feel like they do what they can within their means, I'd say that's a good manager.
>really anything that I care about - which is mainly “how much money do I get in exchange for my labor”
That's fair. Though I didn't choose my domain for the reasons you work. So I cared more about managers who felt like they were empathetic and invested their time to help me succeed. Not whoever can have me climb the corporate ladder the fastest.
Kidding aside, I am quite introverted and also quite happy alone. Not all the time, but more often than not.
If I had a business idea that i was passionate about and could do it with just AI and avoid hiring people? Yeah, I might do that.
On the other hand ideas are cheap and it seems to me a key differentiator between success and failure is marketing/sales, and execution that others can’t match.
I might be suffering a lack of imagination but I don’t see public models as an execution differentiator. If one person can do it so can another. Having an excellent team of people that know how to work well together and can execute is a differentiator. Enigibeers might be a dime a dozen. But great teams are not.
Marketing/sales. That might be getting a bite taken out by ai but it’s at the spam level of marketing and sales. Solid marketing and sales are the life blood of many successful orgs.
I think for AI to be a differentiator, it would have to be your own model, or your own dataset that elevates your model above others in execution.
Did you fight for raises? If your manager told you choose 30% to cut would you have? Of course you would, your “caring” meant nothing. Your first loyalty is to the people who decide your paycheck
And as a line level manager I don’t believe you are a “bad person”. Line level managers are “powerless”. You don’t control head count, budgets, company wide decisions to reduce staff etc
I'm on a break after getting run down in my last role at the EM / Director level, but I certainly gave a shit, and some of my directs (10-15%?) gave a shit that I gave a shit, and they're now better leaders. Most of this is from their hard work, but I gave them one possible template: genuinely care about your people. My hope is that what I spent of myself was more than made up with what they added. When you're a naive pessimist, leverage is the key multiplier of effective leadership.
one who expects the worst, yet is continually surprised when they get it. Sometimes secretly an embarrassed optimist.
This is certainly the most risk averse, conventional take on the topic to keep you safe and avoid vulnerability.
That said, if you bring this opinion to your next job then you also won't really leave much room to build these connections at a personal level. My one suggestion would be to leave a BIT of room for vulnerability and caring about folks at a personal level - even if the company is secondary here. In the end, people matter and the relationships you build will be the thing that sustains you in your career.
I don't think any of my managers has ever been directly involved with having to deal with business expenses, so I don't think that's really a thing that they think about when managing me.
Also, for what it's worth, when I was let go from my previous job, my former manager actually kept checking my LinkedIn profile on a weekly basis, presumably to see if I'd landed a job. I think that might count as "giving a shit".
Well, the manager who railroaded me into a PIP at AWS also kept checking my LinkedIn profile. While my pre-PIP (“focus”) was 70% my fault. I was objectively railroaded toward my PIP. I kept meeting all of my goals and they kept adding more.
Not that I gave a shit. I was 46-50 and on my 8th job and knew what I was getting myself into from day one. I came in with a plan and had a job and multiple offers within 10 days
> Employees are an unpleasent expanse that the business must incur and if AI will make it feasible to replace all emloyees to save money, nobody will even blink an eye, just count the money saved.
This is why many companies have already "achieved AGI internally". Just ask Block, Meta (x4), Amazon, xAI, JP Morgan, Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Atlassian, Morgan Stanley and so on.
A few years from now, do you think, will anyone notice that all the customers who used to be able to afford the product have starved to death and sales are plummeting? Will they be sad or confused by this mystery?
Focus on making products/services for people that actually do have money to spend then.
A dimension people hate looking at is credit is far too easy in the US, which means too many companies are heavily optimized for extracting that money from people that didn’t really earn it in the first place. This means a lot of the smartest workers are preoccupied on the wrong things instead of helping advance society.
Careful there. You are not wrong, but you are not really correct either. Credit is a tool. Many people are using credit wrong and getting away with it because it is too easy. However that doesn't mean credit is a bad tool, just that it isn't used correctly.
Credit is a great tool if you get the value of the thing while you are paying for it. Paying for a car on credit (including insurance, taxes, fuel, maintenance...) is a great idea if you get the car payment worth of value (including what it does for your ego - if you are honest that is why you have it) from having a car every month , paying for a car on credit that you don't get the payments worth of value from is a waste. Similar for a house - I plan to live in this house for the next 10+ years, so I shouldn't pay for it all up front.
Most things though don't give value over time worth their payment. I don't get a payments worth of value from having gone on vacation a few months ago, so I should have paid for that up front (which I did but many do not). I like musical instruments, but I can't be sure to get $100/month of value out of my fumbling playing (or having them for my ego) so I won't buy them on credit.
You can't take it with you, so no sense in dieing with a mattress full of cash (unless that really is worth it to you). You should have some rainy day savings. Most things in life get value today only and should be paid for today.
That's one way to look at employment in a purely capitalist manner. Doesn't mean it's the only way. If the capitalists intend for AI to take all our jobs, perhaps we should entertain alternatives?
> I had over 20 managers across my 18 years at Amazon. They were mostly good managers, and some of them were great. But not one of them ever came to me unprompted and said, “Let’s talk about your career growth.”
Maybe not at Amazon, but surely at almost every big corporation I worked on, there were even milestones, and career matrixes.
Amazon has a career matrix (former employer). But they didn’t proactively help me with my career - not that I cared. My entire goal was to survive my 4 year initial offer and get the f** out of dodge. I was 46 when I was hired.
I'm at a different comapny and it's the same. They have some basic framework/matrix, but managers aren't going to help you get to the next level. In my experience the matrix isn't followed anyways - they promote whoever they want whether or not they meet the stuff in the matrix. It's all just opinion based anyways.
For the most part, "career matrixes", "development plans", and the like are just generic internal marketing to placate people and create the illusion that managers / the company care about their career development, and they don't have to do anything.
To a lesser extent performance reviews / ratings are the same - "you're doing great, keep it up!" - they don't really tell you what you need to do to progress. You have to figure that out and drive it for yourself.
Where I've seen them they tell you exactly what you should have been doing for the previous 5 years. People who guessed correctly what the career matrix would be 5 years ago and did that get promoted when they release it. However they change those all the time (or because budget is short kill it for a few years and then create a new one). Still there is enough in common that you can often guess right enough to get promoted.
The important part is when you do something that saves the day make sure people know. Never save the day quietly, if you write some defensive code so you don't get an emergency call at 2am you won't get promoted for saving the day at 2am! You have to make sure everyone knows you wrote that code. I've seen many people over my career who did those quiet works - they got a small senior position at best, then when they left the company quickly discovered how important those things were and suddenly they have a small department of very senior people doing that thing one person was quietly doing before. (this isn't just code - I know of a company that laid of their maintenance person because nothing ever went wrong so they must not need them - then needed 3 people to replace him in 6 months)
In my experience (mainly IT related), when one first starting a career, first 5-10 years are standardized are promotion/title change for an average employee. After that if one is known by at least 1-2 level above their managers and/or other team managers, to have any chance of further growth. IME as time go by current managers have less and less power to promote as gap between manager and employee reduces.
I work at Amazon and I’ve had almost the opposite experience. There are dedicated career check ins twice a year that managers are required to have (separate from pay change discussions). Each of the orgs I’ve worked in have also had their own career growth things - one of them required quarterly “how are you doing on your career goal?” questionnaires that you were supposed to review with your manager.
Frankly I’ve had _too many_ managers at Amazon wanting to talk about career growth. Maybe it’s just my org, but everyone is obsessed with it.
I always talked with the people I managed about their career goals, and always tried to adapt their job to be a closer fit to those goals. When I couldn't do that I would acknowledge that and even help them find a different job that did fit.
How else can we expect to get the best out of people?
What many of these articles miss is that even if you do everything they say you will still not get the promotion you want for several reasons.
My advice for Career Growth for engineers who like to do things is to be willing to take on problems that others might not want, things that aren’t “sexy”, if you find them interesting. Theres a lot of interesting problems and you can grow your career by following the direction that interests you rather than the company. And when it comes to promotions, its often easier and better compensated to get a new job rather than trying to convince a bunch of people that you should be promoted.
This is not how things work at any company where I have worked at with real leveling guidelines (including one BigTech company). It’s all about “scope”, “impact” and “dealing with ambiguity”. It’s stated in different ways depending on the company.
No one cares if you find it “interesting” when it is time for your promo doc. It’s visibility.
And when you interview at the next company and they level you, they are still going to ask behavioral questions that are concerned with scope, impact and dealing with ambiguity…
This is recipe to be track locked and miserable. It’s the exact path I have taken over my unfortunately long career as an IC. Now I’m too useful doing bullshit work, tied with a golden ball and chain, and have no hope of ever seeing a management track/easy job. I’m currently planning my exit from the field as I am becoming too interested in actual life to learn frameworks, do bullshit 8 tier 3 month coding interviews, and collect experience to write CRUD bullshit for the next 10 years.
The real advice to aspiring engineers who don’t want to have trouble sleeping from years of pagerduty and high blood pressure is to work in middle management as soon as possible. Forget IC work. The rewards are so much less than the morons who manage. Unless you are at a major dev first company (if you have VCs you aren’t) your manager will always outearn you by a large margin, have an easier life, and way more leeway. Every company I have been to only middle management converts to the VP/C level jobs where you do virtually nothing all day but waste everyone’s time. This is the ideal job. The absolute wastes of precious air in management have the life you want.
If you’re like me and followed this terrible advice decide on an amount of money that is good enough and then decide on how much competence that buys. Volunteer for nothing beyond that, game the ticketing system, use as much vacation as you possibly can without a PIP, vibe the shit out of even the most trivial amount of work, and fuck off once your house is paid off and accounts are appropriate for retirement in T+30 years. Use that time to take up goat herding, wood working, or conservationist work.
Every company is a bit different. There's IC's where I work making more than some managers.
The author suggests that nobody is going to come tap you on the shoulder and let you know it's time. Well, that's what happened to me where I am at now - hired at bottom level, regularly promoted, now at top level. Took 6 years to get to principal. Granted, my group is not SWE's, it's more like an Architect role.
What I learned having made principal is that the yearly bonuses can be lower, because expectations are so high. I got bigger bonuses at a lower title, because I was exceeding the expectations of that role by so much. Apparently principal's have such high expectations you almost never get beyond the target bonus for your role. Then there's the stress from all the layoffs across tech - a lot of Principal level people where I work got cut over the last ~2 years, presumably to save on costs. I almost wish I'd stayed at the lower level to get bigger bonuses, lower salary and higher job security. YMMV.
There is good advice here for sure, but the tone seemed focused on growing your career rather than "saving" it. Most people now want to know how to still be employed in this industry 10 years from now. Maybe this advice will be consistent with this goal, but I fear climbing the corporate ladder could make you more vulnerable to cuts and lead to burnout.
Just gonna say that while thinking through your direct reports' career progression is not the only job you have as a manager, it is definitely an important part of the work and something that is prioritized at some companies. This article paints a dire picture of what managers could be like if they worked in healthier organizations (mentally, anyway?).
There are two reasons for this.
1. Retention is good. And if you think about your direct's careers, you will retain them longer and build a better relationship because they will have more help being successful inside the company (assuming a larger org here)
2. It's actually part of the job description and something EMs are evaluated on at some companies.
#2 is probably more rare these days, but it still exists, occasionally. Until it doesn't.
To be clear, I don't disagree with the author's hypothesis in this emergent AI world - I think companies will completely forget to think about this soon - but over the last 10 years it's definitely been an important part of my career as a manager to help my employees succeed in their careers. It's very rewarding.
> Your company has figured out the perfect arrangement. You’re good at your job, and you don’t cause problems. Your manager knows they can count on you. From the company’s perspective, this is the ideal state. Why would they change anything?
Whish I had knew this earlier in my career. I worked for IBM. I was very good at delivering usable software for internal use. They kept me there forever. They would give me awards and such, but never a change as the author says. If I needed something, I had to do it myself.
I've been an engineering manager for 9 years and I've always understood that a big part of my job is career development for people on my team. An EM's role is to hire, retain, and develop talented engineers so that the team they manage can succeed. It always amazes me when I hear that managers don't do this. If they aren't developing their team, what are they doing?
I stayed away from the management track but friends who didn't tell me one of the metrics they are graded on is retention, i.e. if your reports leave at a more than average rate you will have a problem.
Every engineer in a given department knows who the good and bad managers are. If you don't care about your engineers' development, you won't be able to keep good engineers on your team as they will transfer internally. Engineers also talk to directors and make sure they know who the good managers are. There's really no upside to treating your engineers like crap.
Is a manager “good” if they’re not talking about your career growth? I disagree with the author on this point so the rest of it really doesn’t follow. Then again, he also had 20 managers in 18 years… so yeah I can see why none of his managers ever got around to asking about his career growth.
Absolutely. Good managers are invisible. They don't need to talk about career growth as they have already silently, in the background, removed any impediments that might have prevented you from growing. All you need to do is move in the direction you want to go.
It used to be that managers would take capable workers under their mentorship and prepare them to move into their old role, as their manager was helping them do the same. Everyone extended a hand down to pull someone up, because companies promoted internally and hired from within.
That's not the case anymore. Your manager won't mentor you not because they don't want to, but because they're also struggling to find footing and progression in a corporate world where nobody gives a shit about the folks beneath them, nor do they have any vested interest in long-term organizational health. It's not personal, it's just the system our predecessors put into practice so they could have an easier time keeping money and power for themselves.
If we want to care about the careers of others again, we have to build institutions where mentorship and training happen, as well as where good ideas are recognized and rewarded. That's something even the most "meritorious" of SV companies completely lack atm, and they're viewed as the companies to emulate by the rest of the investor class and industry. Until and unless other companies reject those fads in favor of strategies that grow and improve their orgs from within again, we're all kind of on our own.
Every manager I ever had has spent time working on career growth with me. This is in fortune 100 companies, and smaller late stage startups.. heck, even when I worked in retail in the 90s they would have these conversations. What is going on at amazon?
It always surprised me when people talked about their Bosses / Managers like they were some sort of gods that were going to save them and protect them from all bad things in the world.
I'm all for personal responsibility but when it comes to employer/employee relationship there is a certain duty of care (beyond paying you) from the employer side. In many countries this is even coded in law but even if not it makes sense.
If there is no protection for the employee no one would get into a dependent employment relationship in the first place, especially when the pay is universally worse than being self-employed.
> It always surprised me when people talked about their Bosses / Managers like they were some sort of gods that were going to save them and protect them from all bad things in the world.
Most of the managers that I worked with opened up our first conversation together with how they "care about people and their careers".
Now, intrinsically, the job of a manager is to serve the company by serving those they manage. They do this by enabling workers to do the work that needs to be done. A middle manager is supposed to represent his team to upper management. However, too often, middle management is more interested in schmoozing with upper management rather than standing by their team. And if he is too difficult, upper management can just replace him with a more compliant manager who will function as a faithful messenger and nothing more.
So, there's no structural way to ensure these things work. Culture and personal virtue are necessary.
I'm retired from working in the trades. My bosses only cared if I could do the job, period. Put up or shut up and go home. The only slight exception was when I went to work for an airline, for obvious reasons.
Although I once worked at a data center, I was on the facility side of things, but was always around the white shirt workers. All of us were happy to be gainfully employed and raising families, paying taxes, pursuing hobbies,etc.
I heard a radio article yesterday which said AI was very concerning for the future of data/tech workers, which was worrying to me. To paraphrase: it claimed that tens of thousands of tech workers are entering data in many different fields and in the process are doing what humans are doing as mentioned above. It claimed that the fear was that AI will replace these workers and instead of all those worker paying taxes/providing for families, perhaps ten or fifteen companies will be using AI to replace them and, as we all know, will pay a fraction of the taxes. (I don't mean to imply that paying taxes and employing people are equal, just that taxes are an important part of any economy.)
I don't have any expertise in business or economics, but it seems to me if AI isn't regulated somehow, not only will this threaten workers, it will further widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
I recently went through an internal transfer at my company, moving to a very distant organization.
My manager and my skip manager tried to persuade me out of the idea, saying they "want to make sure this is the correct decision".
I politely acknowledged their concerns and declined. (It's not like they were offering anything for me to stay.) I really wanted to say, "If it's a bad decision, it's my decision. You guys couldn't care less about my career growth, otherwise you'd have promoted me or given me bigger scope. You just care about shipping products and staff retention."
Steve makes the key point precisely: "AI is compressing the value of routine expertise... If your entire value is built on repeating what you already know how to do, that value is shrinking."
But what is the alternative? Most answers land on "learn new skills faster" — which is still repeating what you already know how to do, just in a different domain. The compression will catch up.
The capacity that doesn't compress is the one that operates before expertise: arriving at a genuinely unknown situation without a preset conclusion, staying open to what's actually there, finding the structure underneath it before you know what to look for. That's not a skill category most professional development tracks for — and it's exactly what determines whether a person directs AI or is directed by it.
Wrote about this specifically: https://medium.com/@genady_awarelife/youre-not-competing-wit...
Whether or not your manager is capable of helping you shape your career is an open question, for sure. But 20 people, over an 18-year career, and not a single one of them bring it up in a 1:1? And, oh okay, all those managers have worked at the same company? Seems like maybe a culture problem. I've had plenty of managers in sub-FAANG enterprises bring it up unprompted.
Very tragic. We need more people to guide juniors. My first job was just "do task and do more task", but my next jump clearly had people invested in training and advising me for that job and beyond. I don't know why we all collectively decided that "sink or swim" is the best way to teach new grads how to transition into enterprise software environments.
Similar with salary. If you want a raise, you need to ask for it. It's sad, but that's what it is. (I'm aware of some companies that do raise the salary annually, and there is also the performance benefit if you have it, but I don't think that's common).
That, and the "you need to change companies frequently (at most one each year)" are the two things I always say to people on a computer science career.
Really great advice. There are some managers out there like myself who do care about your career. It's one reason I got into management- to be different and better than other managers who never think about it.
its even worse than this. managers will pretend to br your career coach for one day per year at your employee reviews. theyll give you advice and even in the moment that manager will think to themselves how they want to help you. they still won't help, the post is correct about that.
It'd be pretty sick if the relevant discipline / sector / market of every single career path I embark upon, didn't summarily shit itself as soon as I begin making costly and irreversible personal investments therein.
Well at least you won't be alone in that regard when AI takes 90% of the knowledge jobs in the next few years and the world economy crashes for everyone because of any lack of political planning for this eventuality!
We're all gonna be right there with you. And 'safe' trade jobs like plumbers? Lol let's see how that works out when vastly fewer people can afford your services and millions are trying to panic retrain into anything still deemed safe.
It would force a company to come to the negotiating table when laying off workers and grading their performance. It would prevent a lot of bs layoffs; at the very least concrete reasons would be needed for RIFs.
I grew up in small town South GA that growing up has 5 or 6 factories. All but one left when they got tired of dealing with the unions. The one that is still there was never unionized
I don't know why you or your parent commenter got downvoted, but I use that as evidence that the end is very near.
With the current geopolitical climate and the arrival of AI, I'm predicting a sharp economic downturn at the end of the year the likes of which we haven't seen in a century.
I mean the Housing Bubble popping and the Dot Bomb were bad, but the US national debt was so much lower then. Income inequality was lower. Student loan debt was lower. Healthcare was more affordable. Homes were more affordable. Food was more affordable. We had (some) faith in our electoral process.
When the cheap capital runs out, when value of the dollar collapses due to unforced error, when the overseas investment dries up, when billionaires panic and yank their investment in AI (leaving us with a duopoly like always), when the employment rate peaks never to return, when companies stop hiring for the foreseeable future, when people stop visiting websites or buying software, when we abandon liberal arts for the trades in Service Economy 2.0, when hospitals and universities close, when farms go bankrupt, when interest on the US national debt consumes its social safety net, when we sell our public lands for pennies on the dollar, when nobody is held accountable..
That's when we the people will remember who we are. Somehow, like every other time before, we'll pull ourselves up by our bootstraps from nothing. Without time, money or resources, we'll come together and find a way to rebuild. We won't even tax the rich or incite violence against them, we'll simply manifest the abundant reality that's been denied to us by them for so long.
That looks like organizing. Unions. Cooperatives. Mutual aid networks. Renewable energy. Permaculture. Voluntary employment and clock-in. Credit unions and crowdfunding. Automation. Distributed means of production. Fair trade. Class action lawsuits. Boycotts. Voting against incumbents. Solarpunk.
We'll transcend competition and see the matrix for the bill of goods that it is. Rather than trying to get the money and power back in futility, we'll make them irrelevant.
It's time to start thinking about selling those stocks. Divesting from the blood money of unearned income that comes from exploitation, suffering and war (even though they don't tell us that). Steering clear of prediction markets. Dropping the crypto.
We know they won't. But that's why they'll stay insulated from knowing what stuff they're made of, holding out as long as possible, lonely and alone. And the fun part is, they'll get to find out anyway when the music stops.
Lets add some context. Amazon is the author's only job. 5yrs Software, 7yrs Senior, 4yrs Principal, now runs a YouTube self-help. Reading through there are multiple lines that collectively paint a picture of a difficult career.
"I had over 20 managers across my 18 years at Amazon", whilst this might be out of the author's hands, that's a wild manager history.
"..when I finally pushed for bigger scope at Amazon. My manager’s initial reaction wasn’t excitement. It was something closer to “But you’re doing so well where you are.”", most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
"I was a passenger for the first 10 years of my Amazon career", which doesn't really line up, unless they're referring to their horizontal move to Prime in an effort to find promotive work.
"Not because I suddenly got better at my job, but because I started being intentional about which parts of my job were ... mapped to what the next level required.", which means the author worked out how to correctly market themselves internally.
"You know where you want to be in five years, and you’re actively seeking out the work that will get you there eventually.", again, they worked out how to find promotive work. This seems to be the key take-away they're dancing around.
> "..when I finally pushed for bigger scope at Amazon. My manager’s initial reaction wasn’t excitement. It was something closer to “But you’re doing so well where you are.”", most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
From the business perspective, it may not be good to push. If they are really good at what they currently do, the manager would need to find a replacement, and there is no certainty that the old worker provides more value in the different job. When only the money is weighted, this will happen often. Seems to fit for Amazon's work culture.
The problem is bored employees find a new job elsewhere. Employees who feel they are not valued find a new job elsewhere. If you can find them a new job in the company you can have them train their replacement - years later the replacement can ask "do you remember why you did...". It also means if the old project has an emergency you have a bunch of people who can jump in much faster - to some extent this adding people to a late project won't make it latter (only some extent, it isn't perfect).
People also get old and retire (or die). By moving people around a bit you ensure that your training plan still works because you are using it. This also means there will be openings to move up the ladder, make sure you get the people on them. (There are stories from my company where after a big layout they got scared and hired almost nobody for the next 20 years, then those who made it passed the layoffs started retiring and there wasn't a mid level of engineers following to promote).
> The problem is bored employees find a new job elsewhere.
But this one didn’t. 20 years at one place, at least 10 with minimal support. Maybe all those managers were bad; but maybe they realized this individual wasn’t a flight risk, and had a reasonable strategy for maximizing what they got out of them, since they knew they didn’t have to guard against departure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
> most managers generally push their devs to always be doing larger pieces of work, if they aren't, that's weird.
Now weird at all, and maybe that's "most managers" within your career? I've seen my share of complacent managers who were fine with status quo.
I think most managers prefer the status quo; why wouldn't they? Charitably, you can think of it as an assumption on the manager's side that you're fine with the way things are, because you haven't said anything. Similar things can be said about salary.
I don't know why people assume managers are interested in increasing salaries and distributing promotions. Every incentive and preference works against those things. If you want change, you have to ask for it.
From my experience it is futile to ask for any meaningful salary changes. Bands are usually fixed. Unless you're severely underpaid, they won't increase your salary by much. There are only two ways to increase your salary: leave for bigger salary, or threaten to leave and stay for bigger salary.
That depends on the company. Many companies rate their managers on how well they do useful things for their people.
I've seen companies that do and companies that don't. I've actually had managers try to dissuade me from growing my scope of work or growing my career. "I don't know why you'd want to be promoted to manager, just stay an IC" was a common phrase to push back against my expressed desire for career growth. Definitely happens. Lots of companies erect career-ceilings over you.
Let's be honest, nobody gives a shit about you personally in any job, you either deliver what you're paid to deliver or they couldn't care less if you're gone the next day and forget about you completely the day after, even if they like you on a personal level. Employees are an unpleasent expanse that the business must incur and if AI will make it feasible to replace all emloyees to save money, nobody will even blink an eye, just count the money saved.
> they couldn't care less if you're gone the next day and forget about you completely the day after
This is a lesson I wish I learnt earlier.
I quit thinking I was irreplaceable based on the sheer urgent firefighting load they put on me. Once I quit, never heard from them again. All those urgent tasks that somehow only I got assigned "because there's nobody else", suddenly managed to get done by someone else or nobody because they weren't actually urgent.
"If you want something done, give it to a busy person" - Benjamin Franklin
I was even the “lead” at a SaaS in daily firefighting mode and pushing new features out quickly on a team of three engineers and one half-time one. I was 99% sure they’d go down the next day I left but somehow they kept on trucking. We’re all replaceable whether we like to think it or not
The cemetery is filled with irreplaceable people.
At every job I’ve had, across all the managers I’ve had, my immediate manager (and usually their manager as well) genuinely cared about me and my team and our well being as well as our careers. My _company_ and its executives surely didn’t give a damn if they even knew our names, but the actual humans I work face to face with definitely do.
Managers are human (at least so far). As humans they care about other people they know.
Managers will sometimes not help you because they are lazy. In a few cases culture will make them discriminate against you. However in general managers like you and want you to do well.
My wife cares about me and won’t say “because Bob said I had to divorce you, you have to go”.
Any manager will let me go if their manager tells them to.
I’ve been part of organizational discussions. Every manager ive worked with has actively fought, and fought hard, to keep, promote, or get pay raises for their employees. They don’t just bend over and say “okay boss” if asked to cut people.
If you treat your managers like soulless entities and don’t build relationships with them, they’ll probably do the same to you. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
Well in my 30 year career across 10 jobs - everything from startups to BigTech and now working full time at a consulting company, I’ve found line level managers to be absolutely useless - not soulless.
When I was being recruited as a strategic early hire, one of my requirements was that I must report to the CTO/director and not a line level toothless engineering manager.
Also, every meaningful raise I’ve gotten has only come when I was reporting to someone above a line level manager.
You've had bad luck. I get it. But good managers like myself exist.
It’s not “bad managers” - it’s “powerless managers”. If you are a line level manager, you don’t control budgets, company wide re-org decisions, or really anything that I care about - which is mainly “how much money do I get in exchange for my labor” and “do I need to come into an office?”. Those are all decisions above your head
I don't expect them to move the world for me. But I don't equate "powerless managers" with "useless managers". If they feel like they do what they can within their means, I'd say that's a good manager.
>really anything that I care about - which is mainly “how much money do I get in exchange for my labor”
That's fair. Though I didn't choose my domain for the reasons you work. So I cared more about managers who felt like they were empathetic and invested their time to help me succeed. Not whoever can have me climb the corporate ladder the fastest.
People! They’re the worst!
Kidding aside, I am quite introverted and also quite happy alone. Not all the time, but more often than not.
If I had a business idea that i was passionate about and could do it with just AI and avoid hiring people? Yeah, I might do that.
On the other hand ideas are cheap and it seems to me a key differentiator between success and failure is marketing/sales, and execution that others can’t match.
I might be suffering a lack of imagination but I don’t see public models as an execution differentiator. If one person can do it so can another. Having an excellent team of people that know how to work well together and can execute is a differentiator. Enigibeers might be a dime a dozen. But great teams are not.
Marketing/sales. That might be getting a bite taken out by ai but it’s at the spam level of marketing and sales. Solid marketing and sales are the life blood of many successful orgs.
I think for AI to be a differentiator, it would have to be your own model, or your own dataset that elevates your model above others in execution.
I think this is too harsh. Generally yes, but there are good people like myself who do care. Yes we are rare but we do exist and more than 'nobody'.
I gave a lot of shit about my employees the first time I was a manager. It burned me out, but it made for an amazing team.
Did you fight for raises? If your manager told you choose 30% to cut would you have? Of course you would, your “caring” meant nothing. Your first loyalty is to the people who decide your paycheck
Yes I fought for raises. I fought for better ratings and promotions too. If they asked me to cut I would fight to not doing that.
My first loyalty is to my team, and it's been clear to me why I have not rising as high.
Don't assume everyone is like the worst person in your head.
And as a line level manager I don’t believe you are a “bad person”. Line level managers are “powerless”. You don’t control head count, budgets, company wide decisions to reduce staff etc
I spent my entire life making absolutely sure that the last people I am going to be loyal to is those who decide my paycheck. it is a good life…
I'm on a break after getting run down in my last role at the EM / Director level, but I certainly gave a shit, and some of my directs (10-15%?) gave a shit that I gave a shit, and they're now better leaders. Most of this is from their hard work, but I gave them one possible template: genuinely care about your people. My hope is that what I spent of myself was more than made up with what they added. When you're a naive pessimist, leverage is the key multiplier of effective leadership.
one who expects the worst, yet is continually surprised when they get it. Sometimes secretly an embarrassed optimist.
Yeah. I think most orgs have no idea what they are missing.
Was it worth it?
I always found it was. Because I cared more what my employees thought about me than my managers. I wouldn't change that, ever.
This is certainly the most risk averse, conventional take on the topic to keep you safe and avoid vulnerability.
That said, if you bring this opinion to your next job then you also won't really leave much room to build these connections at a personal level. My one suggestion would be to leave a BIT of room for vulnerability and caring about folks at a personal level - even if the company is secondary here. In the end, people matter and the relationships you build will be the thing that sustains you in your career.
And AI is coming or has already arrived, so everybody better have a plan B.
I don't think any of my managers has ever been directly involved with having to deal with business expenses, so I don't think that's really a thing that they think about when managing me.
Also, for what it's worth, when I was let go from my previous job, my former manager actually kept checking my LinkedIn profile on a weekly basis, presumably to see if I'd landed a job. I think that might count as "giving a shit".
Well, the manager who railroaded me into a PIP at AWS also kept checking my LinkedIn profile. While my pre-PIP (“focus”) was 70% my fault. I was objectively railroaded toward my PIP. I kept meeting all of my goals and they kept adding more.
Not that I gave a shit. I was 46-50 and on my 8th job and knew what I was getting myself into from day one. I came in with a plan and had a job and multiple offers within 10 days
> Employees are an unpleasent expanse that the business must incur and if AI will make it feasible to replace all emloyees to save money, nobody will even blink an eye, just count the money saved.
This is why many companies have already "achieved AGI internally". Just ask Block, Meta (x4), Amazon, xAI, JP Morgan, Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Atlassian, Morgan Stanley and so on.
A few years from now, do you think, will anyone notice that all the customers who used to be able to afford the product have starved to death and sales are plummeting? Will they be sad or confused by this mystery?
Focus on making products/services for people that actually do have money to spend then.
A dimension people hate looking at is credit is far too easy in the US, which means too many companies are heavily optimized for extracting that money from people that didn’t really earn it in the first place. This means a lot of the smartest workers are preoccupied on the wrong things instead of helping advance society.
Careful there. You are not wrong, but you are not really correct either. Credit is a tool. Many people are using credit wrong and getting away with it because it is too easy. However that doesn't mean credit is a bad tool, just that it isn't used correctly.
Credit is a great tool if you get the value of the thing while you are paying for it. Paying for a car on credit (including insurance, taxes, fuel, maintenance...) is a great idea if you get the car payment worth of value (including what it does for your ego - if you are honest that is why you have it) from having a car every month , paying for a car on credit that you don't get the payments worth of value from is a waste. Similar for a house - I plan to live in this house for the next 10+ years, so I shouldn't pay for it all up front.
Most things though don't give value over time worth their payment. I don't get a payments worth of value from having gone on vacation a few months ago, so I should have paid for that up front (which I did but many do not). I like musical instruments, but I can't be sure to get $100/month of value out of my fumbling playing (or having them for my ego) so I won't buy them on credit.
You can't take it with you, so no sense in dieing with a mattress full of cash (unless that really is worth it to you). You should have some rainy day savings. Most things in life get value today only and should be paid for today.
I think confused.
Does anyone notice all the users who can afford the product now? No.
They'll just keep selling and profit gaining anyway possible. Give me a product where they legitimately care.
That's one way to look at employment in a purely capitalist manner. Doesn't mean it's the only way. If the capitalists intend for AI to take all our jobs, perhaps we should entertain alternatives?
> I had over 20 managers across my 18 years at Amazon. They were mostly good managers, and some of them were great. But not one of them ever came to me unprompted and said, “Let’s talk about your career growth.”
Maybe not at Amazon, but surely at almost every big corporation I worked on, there were even milestones, and career matrixes.
Amazon has a career matrix (former employer). But they didn’t proactively help me with my career - not that I cared. My entire goal was to survive my 4 year initial offer and get the f** out of dodge. I was 46 when I was hired.
I'm at a different comapny and it's the same. They have some basic framework/matrix, but managers aren't going to help you get to the next level. In my experience the matrix isn't followed anyways - they promote whoever they want whether or not they meet the stuff in the matrix. It's all just opinion based anyways.
For the most part, "career matrixes", "development plans", and the like are just generic internal marketing to placate people and create the illusion that managers / the company care about their career development, and they don't have to do anything.
To a lesser extent performance reviews / ratings are the same - "you're doing great, keep it up!" - they don't really tell you what you need to do to progress. You have to figure that out and drive it for yourself.
Where I've seen them they tell you exactly what you should have been doing for the previous 5 years. People who guessed correctly what the career matrix would be 5 years ago and did that get promoted when they release it. However they change those all the time (or because budget is short kill it for a few years and then create a new one). Still there is enough in common that you can often guess right enough to get promoted.
The important part is when you do something that saves the day make sure people know. Never save the day quietly, if you write some defensive code so you don't get an emergency call at 2am you won't get promoted for saving the day at 2am! You have to make sure everyone knows you wrote that code. I've seen many people over my career who did those quiet works - they got a small senior position at best, then when they left the company quickly discovered how important those things were and suddenly they have a small department of very senior people doing that thing one person was quietly doing before. (this isn't just code - I know of a company that laid of their maintenance person because nothing ever went wrong so they must not need them - then needed 3 people to replace him in 6 months)
In my experience (mainly IT related), when one first starting a career, first 5-10 years are standardized are promotion/title change for an average employee. After that if one is known by at least 1-2 level above their managers and/or other team managers, to have any chance of further growth. IME as time go by current managers have less and less power to promote as gap between manager and employee reduces.
Are they actual career growth plans or just internal milestones for you to chase after, including promotions towards the next "level"?
A real career advice should sound like "You are too good for this company. Find you future opportunities and growth elsewhere."
I work at Amazon and I’ve had almost the opposite experience. There are dedicated career check ins twice a year that managers are required to have (separate from pay change discussions). Each of the orgs I’ve worked in have also had their own career growth things - one of them required quarterly “how are you doing on your career goal?” questionnaires that you were supposed to review with your manager.
Frankly I’ve had _too many_ managers at Amazon wanting to talk about career growth. Maybe it’s just my org, but everyone is obsessed with it.
I always talked with the people I managed about their career goals, and always tried to adapt their job to be a closer fit to those goals. When I couldn't do that I would acknowledge that and even help them find a different job that did fit.
How else can we expect to get the best out of people?
Yeah I agree. I can get people to work harder and cheaper if I can align their career goals with mine.
Overly pessimistic article that is more absolute than reality.
> Overly pessimistic article that is more absolute than reality.
From managers perspective, maybe. As an IC this is 100% accurate to every word.
That's great. I wish there were more of us but I'm glad we still are out there doing the best for our people.
What many of these articles miss is that even if you do everything they say you will still not get the promotion you want for several reasons.
My advice for Career Growth for engineers who like to do things is to be willing to take on problems that others might not want, things that aren’t “sexy”, if you find them interesting. Theres a lot of interesting problems and you can grow your career by following the direction that interests you rather than the company. And when it comes to promotions, its often easier and better compensated to get a new job rather than trying to convince a bunch of people that you should be promoted.
This is not how things work at any company where I have worked at with real leveling guidelines (including one BigTech company). It’s all about “scope”, “impact” and “dealing with ambiguity”. It’s stated in different ways depending on the company.
No one cares if you find it “interesting” when it is time for your promo doc. It’s visibility.
What they're saying is work on stuff that interests you and then find another job that values what you did.
And when you interview at the next company and they level you, they are still going to ask behavioral questions that are concerned with scope, impact and dealing with ambiguity…
You do both.
This is recipe to be track locked and miserable. It’s the exact path I have taken over my unfortunately long career as an IC. Now I’m too useful doing bullshit work, tied with a golden ball and chain, and have no hope of ever seeing a management track/easy job. I’m currently planning my exit from the field as I am becoming too interested in actual life to learn frameworks, do bullshit 8 tier 3 month coding interviews, and collect experience to write CRUD bullshit for the next 10 years.
The real advice to aspiring engineers who don’t want to have trouble sleeping from years of pagerduty and high blood pressure is to work in middle management as soon as possible. Forget IC work. The rewards are so much less than the morons who manage. Unless you are at a major dev first company (if you have VCs you aren’t) your manager will always outearn you by a large margin, have an easier life, and way more leeway. Every company I have been to only middle management converts to the VP/C level jobs where you do virtually nothing all day but waste everyone’s time. This is the ideal job. The absolute wastes of precious air in management have the life you want.
If you’re like me and followed this terrible advice decide on an amount of money that is good enough and then decide on how much competence that buys. Volunteer for nothing beyond that, game the ticketing system, use as much vacation as you possibly can without a PIP, vibe the shit out of even the most trivial amount of work, and fuck off once your house is paid off and accounts are appropriate for retirement in T+30 years. Use that time to take up goat herding, wood working, or conservationist work.
Every company is a bit different. There's IC's where I work making more than some managers.
The author suggests that nobody is going to come tap you on the shoulder and let you know it's time. Well, that's what happened to me where I am at now - hired at bottom level, regularly promoted, now at top level. Took 6 years to get to principal. Granted, my group is not SWE's, it's more like an Architect role.
What I learned having made principal is that the yearly bonuses can be lower, because expectations are so high. I got bigger bonuses at a lower title, because I was exceeding the expectations of that role by so much. Apparently principal's have such high expectations you almost never get beyond the target bonus for your role. Then there's the stress from all the layoffs across tech - a lot of Principal level people where I work got cut over the last ~2 years, presumably to save on costs. I almost wish I'd stayed at the lower level to get bigger bonuses, lower salary and higher job security. YMMV.
There is good advice here for sure, but the tone seemed focused on growing your career rather than "saving" it. Most people now want to know how to still be employed in this industry 10 years from now. Maybe this advice will be consistent with this goal, but I fear climbing the corporate ladder could make you more vulnerable to cuts and lead to burnout.
Just gonna say that while thinking through your direct reports' career progression is not the only job you have as a manager, it is definitely an important part of the work and something that is prioritized at some companies. This article paints a dire picture of what managers could be like if they worked in healthier organizations (mentally, anyway?).
There are two reasons for this. 1. Retention is good. And if you think about your direct's careers, you will retain them longer and build a better relationship because they will have more help being successful inside the company (assuming a larger org here) 2. It's actually part of the job description and something EMs are evaluated on at some companies.
#2 is probably more rare these days, but it still exists, occasionally. Until it doesn't.
To be clear, I don't disagree with the author's hypothesis in this emergent AI world - I think companies will completely forget to think about this soon - but over the last 10 years it's definitely been an important part of my career as a manager to help my employees succeed in their careers. It's very rewarding.
> Your company has figured out the perfect arrangement. You’re good at your job, and you don’t cause problems. Your manager knows they can count on you. From the company’s perspective, this is the ideal state. Why would they change anything?
Whish I had knew this earlier in my career. I worked for IBM. I was very good at delivering usable software for internal use. They kept me there forever. They would give me awards and such, but never a change as the author says. If I needed something, I had to do it myself.
I've been an engineering manager for 9 years and I've always understood that a big part of my job is career development for people on my team. An EM's role is to hire, retain, and develop talented engineers so that the team they manage can succeed. It always amazes me when I hear that managers don't do this. If they aren't developing their team, what are they doing?
In my short-lived stint as the same, I also had the same take.
> But not one of them ever came to me unprompted and said, “Let’s talk about your career growth.”
This quote absolutely floored me. The author had a lot of bad management.
Agreed and sadly I'm not surprised. There are a lot of bad managers out there. But there are a good amount of good ones too.
I stayed away from the management track but friends who didn't tell me one of the metrics they are graded on is retention, i.e. if your reports leave at a more than average rate you will have a problem.
Every engineer in a given department knows who the good and bad managers are. If you don't care about your engineers' development, you won't be able to keep good engineers on your team as they will transfer internally. Engineers also talk to directors and make sure they know who the good managers are. There's really no upside to treating your engineers like crap.
> If they aren't developing their team, what are they doing?
Collecting paycheck, protecting status quo, creating impression of work?
Is a manager “good” if they’re not talking about your career growth? I disagree with the author on this point so the rest of it really doesn’t follow. Then again, he also had 20 managers in 18 years… so yeah I can see why none of his managers ever got around to asking about his career growth.
Even if any did, none could have done anything meaningful to push his career growth.
Exactly. They probably barely knew his name.
Absolutely. Good managers are invisible. They don't need to talk about career growth as they have already silently, in the background, removed any impediments that might have prevented you from growing. All you need to do is move in the direction you want to go.
It used to be that managers would take capable workers under their mentorship and prepare them to move into their old role, as their manager was helping them do the same. Everyone extended a hand down to pull someone up, because companies promoted internally and hired from within.
That's not the case anymore. Your manager won't mentor you not because they don't want to, but because they're also struggling to find footing and progression in a corporate world where nobody gives a shit about the folks beneath them, nor do they have any vested interest in long-term organizational health. It's not personal, it's just the system our predecessors put into practice so they could have an easier time keeping money and power for themselves.
If we want to care about the careers of others again, we have to build institutions where mentorship and training happen, as well as where good ideas are recognized and rewarded. That's something even the most "meritorious" of SV companies completely lack atm, and they're viewed as the companies to emulate by the rest of the investor class and industry. Until and unless other companies reject those fads in favor of strategies that grow and improve their orgs from within again, we're all kind of on our own.
Every manager I ever had has spent time working on career growth with me. This is in fortune 100 companies, and smaller late stage startups.. heck, even when I worked in retail in the 90s they would have these conversations. What is going on at amazon?
It always surprised me when people talked about their Bosses / Managers like they were some sort of gods that were going to save them and protect them from all bad things in the world.
I'm all for personal responsibility but when it comes to employer/employee relationship there is a certain duty of care (beyond paying you) from the employer side. In many countries this is even coded in law but even if not it makes sense.
If there is no protection for the employee no one would get into a dependent employment relationship in the first place, especially when the pay is universally worse than being self-employed.
> It always surprised me when people talked about their Bosses / Managers like they were some sort of gods that were going to save them and protect them from all bad things in the world.
Most of the managers that I worked with opened up our first conversation together with how they "care about people and their careers".
Given the way the world is, that's true.
Now, intrinsically, the job of a manager is to serve the company by serving those they manage. They do this by enabling workers to do the work that needs to be done. A middle manager is supposed to represent his team to upper management. However, too often, middle management is more interested in schmoozing with upper management rather than standing by their team. And if he is too difficult, upper management can just replace him with a more compliant manager who will function as a faithful messenger and nothing more.
So, there's no structural way to ensure these things work. Culture and personal virtue are necessary.
I'm retired from working in the trades. My bosses only cared if I could do the job, period. Put up or shut up and go home. The only slight exception was when I went to work for an airline, for obvious reasons.
Although I once worked at a data center, I was on the facility side of things, but was always around the white shirt workers. All of us were happy to be gainfully employed and raising families, paying taxes, pursuing hobbies,etc.
I heard a radio article yesterday which said AI was very concerning for the future of data/tech workers, which was worrying to me. To paraphrase: it claimed that tens of thousands of tech workers are entering data in many different fields and in the process are doing what humans are doing as mentioned above. It claimed that the fear was that AI will replace these workers and instead of all those worker paying taxes/providing for families, perhaps ten or fifteen companies will be using AI to replace them and, as we all know, will pay a fraction of the taxes. (I don't mean to imply that paying taxes and employing people are equal, just that taxes are an important part of any economy.)
I don't have any expertise in business or economics, but it seems to me if AI isn't regulated somehow, not only will this threaten workers, it will further widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
I recently went through an internal transfer at my company, moving to a very distant organization.
My manager and my skip manager tried to persuade me out of the idea, saying they "want to make sure this is the correct decision".
I politely acknowledged their concerns and declined. (It's not like they were offering anything for me to stay.) I really wanted to say, "If it's a bad decision, it's my decision. You guys couldn't care less about my career growth, otherwise you'd have promoted me or given me bigger scope. You just care about shipping products and staff retention."
Steve makes the key point precisely: "AI is compressing the value of routine expertise... If your entire value is built on repeating what you already know how to do, that value is shrinking." But what is the alternative? Most answers land on "learn new skills faster" — which is still repeating what you already know how to do, just in a different domain. The compression will catch up. The capacity that doesn't compress is the one that operates before expertise: arriving at a genuinely unknown situation without a preset conclusion, staying open to what's actually there, finding the structure underneath it before you know what to look for. That's not a skill category most professional development tracks for — and it's exactly what determines whether a person directs AI or is directed by it. Wrote about this specifically: https://medium.com/@genady_awarelife/youre-not-competing-wit...
Whether or not your manager is capable of helping you shape your career is an open question, for sure. But 20 people, over an 18-year career, and not a single one of them bring it up in a 1:1? And, oh okay, all those managers have worked at the same company? Seems like maybe a culture problem. I've had plenty of managers in sub-FAANG enterprises bring it up unprompted.
Very tragic. We need more people to guide juniors. My first job was just "do task and do more task", but my next jump clearly had people invested in training and advising me for that job and beyond. I don't know why we all collectively decided that "sink or swim" is the best way to teach new grads how to transition into enterprise software environments.
Similar with salary. If you want a raise, you need to ask for it. It's sad, but that's what it is. (I'm aware of some companies that do raise the salary annually, and there is also the performance benefit if you have it, but I don't think that's common).
That, and the "you need to change companies frequently (at most one each year)" are the two things I always say to people on a computer science career.
Really great advice. There are some managers out there like myself who do care about your career. It's one reason I got into management- to be different and better than other managers who never think about it.
its even worse than this. managers will pretend to br your career coach for one day per year at your employee reviews. theyll give you advice and even in the moment that manager will think to themselves how they want to help you. they still won't help, the post is correct about that.
I am responsible for my colleague's careers, and they for mine.
This guy is apparently a jerk, who apparently thrived in a jerk atmosphere. Don't listen to him.
I don't think any of this old-school advice applies when our employers are trying to go agentic in the next 5 years.
would be pretty sick to have a career to save in the first place
It'd be pretty sick if the relevant discipline / sector / market of every single career path I embark upon, didn't summarily shit itself as soon as I begin making costly and irreversible personal investments therein.
Well at least you won't be alone in that regard when AI takes 90% of the knowledge jobs in the next few years and the world economy crashes for everyone because of any lack of political planning for this eventuality!
We're all gonna be right there with you. And 'safe' trade jobs like plumbers? Lol let's see how that works out when vastly fewer people can afford your services and millions are trying to panic retrain into anything still deemed safe.
Trade jobs will be scarce, but there could be some exciting opportunities in the leather clad marauder department
Or a union to at least take that charge.
Depends on your country, sorry in German,
https://www.igmetall.de/service/berufeglossar/informatik-gru...
Exactly how would a union help?
It would force a company to come to the negotiating table when laying off workers and grading their performance. It would prevent a lot of bs layoffs; at the very least concrete reasons would be needed for RIFs.
I grew up in small town South GA that growing up has 5 or 6 factories. All but one left when they got tired of dealing with the unions. The one that is still there was never unionized
That’s propaganda. Businesses don't close because they’re “tired of dealing with the unions”.
Nitpick the wording all you like, but “businesses avoid unionized workforces as best they can” isn’t propaganda.
The business didn’t close a they moved to cheaper labor
See: automated train conductors
I don't know why you or your parent commenter got downvoted, but I use that as evidence that the end is very near.
With the current geopolitical climate and the arrival of AI, I'm predicting a sharp economic downturn at the end of the year the likes of which we haven't seen in a century.
I mean the Housing Bubble popping and the Dot Bomb were bad, but the US national debt was so much lower then. Income inequality was lower. Student loan debt was lower. Healthcare was more affordable. Homes were more affordable. Food was more affordable. We had (some) faith in our electoral process.
When the cheap capital runs out, when value of the dollar collapses due to unforced error, when the overseas investment dries up, when billionaires panic and yank their investment in AI (leaving us with a duopoly like always), when the employment rate peaks never to return, when companies stop hiring for the foreseeable future, when people stop visiting websites or buying software, when we abandon liberal arts for the trades in Service Economy 2.0, when hospitals and universities close, when farms go bankrupt, when interest on the US national debt consumes its social safety net, when we sell our public lands for pennies on the dollar, when nobody is held accountable..
That's when we the people will remember who we are. Somehow, like every other time before, we'll pull ourselves up by our bootstraps from nothing. Without time, money or resources, we'll come together and find a way to rebuild. We won't even tax the rich or incite violence against them, we'll simply manifest the abundant reality that's been denied to us by them for so long.
That looks like organizing. Unions. Cooperatives. Mutual aid networks. Renewable energy. Permaculture. Voluntary employment and clock-in. Credit unions and crowdfunding. Automation. Distributed means of production. Fair trade. Class action lawsuits. Boycotts. Voting against incumbents. Solarpunk.
We'll transcend competition and see the matrix for the bill of goods that it is. Rather than trying to get the money and power back in futility, we'll make them irrelevant.
It's time to start thinking about selling those stocks. Divesting from the blood money of unearned income that comes from exploitation, suffering and war (even though they don't tell us that). Steering clear of prediction markets. Dropping the crypto.
We know they won't. But that's why they'll stay insulated from knowing what stuff they're made of, holding out as long as possible, lonely and alone. And the fun part is, they'll get to find out anyway when the music stops.
Mine was downvoted because unionizing is the last thing people on a startup forum want to hear.
[dead]