EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: capt bullshot on November 15, 2018, 05:00:02 pm
-
at least if you're interested in actual electronics and development.
There's a simple reason for this advice:
Nowadays, this job is all about (in descending order of importance) business, money, bureaucracy, policies, compliance, standards, ..., customer, knowledge, skills, electronics.
When I started my career in the electronics business about 25 years ago, my work was about developing a working system, consisting of analogue electronics, analog to digital conversion, a digital microprocessor system, power supply for the whole stuff, making firmware to get it running, doing the layout, assembling the first prototypes myself, testing the stuff and continuously improving the system according to the needs of the customers. There were good times and bad times, of course, business was sometimes good and sometimes bad, the boss managed to bring the small company through bad times and we all (about 10 employees) enjoyed the good times.
Today, I have a job in a larger company (maybe 400 ... 600 employees here and half of them doing real work, the others are managers ;)). Some fourty to sixty developers around here. The stuff I have to deal with now is: Comply to corporate policies, take care to fill forms formally correct, for a single project I had to deliver a number of proposals that basically did the same thing but in a slightly different way to enable managers to (not) make decisions based on the estimated component cost of each proposal, sitting around and waiting for them bring up some requirements for the new product, transforming their poor quality requirements into formally correct requirements, throwing away these results because the managers decided otherwise, beeing forced to repeat some integration testing done four years ago just because the new applicable standards requires to use calibrated equipment that was calibrated by an accredited lab, not just calibrated as the former standard required, and so on.
I've done some "real" electronics development there, but on a specialized area, mostly subcircuit level (admittedly on a non-trivial level), not a whole product as before. I've got a good knowledge on a rather wide field of electronics, mainly because I refuse to stop learning, experimenting and designing stuff for my own, but it's not required to do my job. Once you are established in your special field, that's your job forever here. If there's appearing a new field of development, the company prefers to hire a new person over asking their employees (OK, that's the way I got my current job for a new field back then, but I didn't know about this practice then).
Looking around, and talking to friends that are also working in comparable jobs, apparently this is the situation nearly everywhere, so just changing the job / company doesn't look too promising.
-
Well... yeah. Unfortunately the alternatives are not many.
We could think of suggesting working in research labs instead, for those willing to do interesting stuff, but unfortunately that's not even always that interesting, means are often limited and those jobs are notoriously underpaid.
You can also try and target jobs in startups. Some interesting stuff to do but a lot of bullshit as well.
What you're describing is not just in the electronic business...
-
What on earth makes you think those phenomena are only found in the electronics industry? I suspect it is merely because (1) you have a limited breadth of experience, and (2) you are getting older. There's a reason the comic character Victor Meldrew has become popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Meldrew
"The grass is greener on the other side of the fence". Discuss.
-
Somebody call? :)
-
What on earth makes you think those phenomena are only found in the electronics industry?
I agree 100%. As a software engineer at a medical device company, I probably spend around 20% of my time actually programming. The rest is process, procedure, paperwork, blah, blah, blah.
The younger employees are usually shielded from a lot of that (they don't have the experience or domain knowledge necessary).
-
That has been my experience in software too, I think it's just corporate life. At a previous job they talked a lot about how agile isn't about process and tools and yet day to day life at the office was almost entirely about process and tools. Didn't matter if what we were doing made sense as long as we went through all the motions and used all the tools they had decided we would use.
-
Excuse me,
I must disagree.
Your opinion, of course, is conditioned on your experience. In a large corporation, office politics dominates, and you get that situation. It's important to note that not all jobs carry that burden.
My daily activities are largely electronics and implementing specifications or standards. Coincidentally, we have brought in potentially about half a dozen jobs from a local large corporation, within which, during a recent project with them, one engineer, and later one manager responsible for said project, coincidentally left to take new (presumably better) jobs elsewhere...
Perhaps you are contemplating a similar path? :)
Tim
-
I totally agree with OP.
Electronics engineering is a terrible profession. I regret choosing it. Beginners, pick something else for a career.
It is great fun at the hobby and home workshop level, but at the corporate level it's just too stressful and no fun anymore.
Don't have your heart in it, as something you love.
Electronic Product Development fails at over 90% of the companies I've worked at. For many reasons:
The project management basics are never in place, one example is the Requirements. You never really really know what exactly is to be designed and built, it's always up in the air. Or build every possible feature every competitor has.
The Project Schedule is as aggressive as possible and a fantasy. "we want it as quickly as possible" "is there any way to speed that up?". Projects are always late and in crisis.
Resources: Hiring more people is not possible, we'll just expect the engineers to work free overtime and make up for it. Push the engineers harder.
Efficiency: 33% of your time will be wasted doing Admin stuff- meetings, mandatory corporate safety, ethics courses, scorecard/performance reviews, paperwork for buying a resistor from Digikey etc.
Reward: If you do an outstanding job, your paycheque stays the same. Sales get commission and a bonus but engineers are flat, there are no incentives or rewards or recognition for doing well.
Support: Supply Chain is inept and can't find parts, component shortage. "Can you find alternate parts for us?". Manufacturing can't look after the builds so you have to deal with the mistakes, the test fixture, the stuffed boards that aren't working.
You need need new test equipment? "Oh it's not in this year's budget. Can you just use a scope to measure EMC at your desk?"
Now I'm finding most product development has moved to Asia, few employers are doing electronics unless you are in the big core cities with their higher cost of living.
Prove it by looking at job postings and seeing how many EE's were needed in the past couple years in your locale.
Corporate employees are fine to be paycheque players- get your paycheque regardless if the project succeeds or not. So people don't care that the project is a failure, going in circles and burning out the engineering team. I've seen it happen many times.
My last job they fired two engineering managers and three engineers. No new products for over 10 years.
Job before that, they fired three engineering managers and two engineers and four techs. No new products for over 8 years.
It's a steady revolving door and ultimately companies give up trying to build anything because they keep failing, due to their own leadership incompetency. And the engineers get blamed for it all.
-
And here's me trying desperately to HIRE someone with a reasonable mix of small core software and medium speed digital (Think SDI-HD video), ideally with some VHDL nous, fecking nightmare it is.
Plenty of work out there and it is not all dilbertesque by any means.
Regards, Dan.
-
And here's me trying desperately to HIRE someone with a reasonable mix of small core software and medium speed digital (Think SDI-HD video), ideally with some VHDL nous, fecking nightmare it is.
Plenty of work out there and it is not all dilbertesque by any means.
Regards, Dan.
I know a guy who fits that description, he's in the Seattle area, dunno if he's still looking for a job or not.
-
Specifying anything is a nightmare. I need cULus and cCSAus and CE and CCC and every other regulatory approval/listing/recognition under the sun to spec parts.
-
I know a guy who fits that description, he's in the Seattle area, dunno if he's still looking for a job or not.
Seattle won't work for me, UK based, so that is out.
You would have thought that with the recent purchase of SAM by Grass Valley/Belden there would be people out there it it seems not so much.
Regards, Dan.
-
Specifying anything is a nightmare. I need cULus and cCSAus and CE and CCC and every other regulatory approval/listing/recognition under the sun to spec parts.
That's what always struck me as surprising. In electronics you have massive amounts of regulations to follow and you can pay dearly for not doing so. In something like software you can test in production and nobody cares. At worst a customer sues you.
-
That's what always struck me as surprising. In electronics you have massive amounts of regulations to follow and you can pay dearly for not doing so. In something like software you can test in production and nobody cares. At worst a customer sues you.
I get dirty looks from the software team for referring to them as the 'typing pool' >:D
The difference between an Engineering discipline and being a typist is that the Engineers understand that crashing after a months runtime is NOT acceptable, doubly so if you cannot explain what went wrong.
Regards, Dan.
-
Another vote for the software industry parallel.
The primary issue I see (which applies to both electronics and software) is that these are technologies that have evolved past the handful of languages/components with a vastly expanded range of use cases. Capabilities of the technology have increased exponentially with the complexity of nearly every element following suit. As a result, work environments have shifted to ones of specialisation - out of simple necessity. Only a specialist in a certain area will be able to have the breadth of knowledge and experience to be able to best implement the capabilities available.
I have seen this principle extended to the point where the "big picture" is totally lost. I came from environments where I was involved with a project from the first discussions, through design, coding, testing and implementation. This gave clarity as to what was required from each step and by understanding the big picture, many small decisions could be made that would keep the objectives on track. The responsibility also fell upon me - but that was OK, since I had a handle on what was happening and the authority to act. This end-to-end responsibility gave the best chance for the solution the customer was seeking at one end was delivered at the other.
Or so I thought.
Enter the compartmentalised specialist approach. Take each stage in the project and employ specialists within that scope, then pass on the results to the next. The only communication is the receipt of the results from the previous step and what is passed onto the next. Certainly, these points of communication are meant to be well documented - but the reality is that they are exceptionally well crafted ass-covering, with project objective information almost a footnote. Continuity of thought does not exist and what gets pumped out at the arse end will have all the documentary support to prove that's what the customer ordered - even if it is barely recognisable.
While I might be overstating things a bit, there is still a lot of truth in it - but what does get lost is all the nuances and variations that can add richness to the product which come from the many little decisions that are made during development. For a PCB it could be the routing of a couple of traces which will enable a simple break-out connection later on, but has no impact if this is never taken up. The same sort of things can be done with software. But with no "big picture" available, such opportunities will never become apparent. Add to this the defensive nature of communication and the sheer havoc that would be created by a trivial amendment to the specifications and you have somebody who might detect such an opportunity who will have zero motivation to raise it. Taking this to the extreme, if something doesn't work, then as long as they can refer back to their arse-covering documentation, then someone else can get blamed.
I enjoy the end-to-end process. Start out talking to the customer and understand what they need.
Communicate throughout the project and then provide them with something that is at least as good as they wanted.
I know. I am a dinosaur.
-
You would have thought that with the recent purchase of SAM by Grass Valley/Belden there would be people out there it it seems not so much.
SAM doesn't seem to have been a very stable company in recent years, and certainly wasn't the Quantel of old. Perhaps Belden is currently making them look like a better place to be.
-
Looking around, and talking to friends that are also working in comparable jobs, apparently this is the situation nearly everywhere, so just changing the job / company doesn't look too promising.
You need to become self-employed. I don't like to do the same thing forever and being self-employed seems to be the only way to achieve that.
-
"Looking around, and talking to friends that are also working in comparable jobs, apparently this is the situation nearly everywhere, so just changing the job / company doesn't look too promising."
Any company or business that is large enough irregardless of the field of work is going operate the same In my experience. The larger the company the worse it gets.
It's interesting to hear friends of mine vent their frustrations with their employer / company. Its all very consistent but the nature of their work is completely unrelated.
Unfortunately its the way it is. I have been with the same company for 32 years. I am not in the tech field, this a hobby for me. Every year this kind of stuff gets worse.
They have treated me pretty good. I just look at as part of job to follow the policy, programs and procedures and do the best job I can within their box.
The only thing consistent is change.
Don't forget to watch the movie Office Space and make sure you fill out your TPS reports. :)
-K
-
Looking around, and talking to friends that are also working in comparable jobs, apparently this is the situation nearly everywhere, so just changing the job / company doesn't look too promising.
You need to become self-employed. I don't like to do the same thing forever and being self-employed seems to be the only way to achieve that.
All jobs have their positive and negative aspects to them.
Each individual needs to assess their current situation, and act accordingly.
-
I loathe being self employed. I'd take a steady paycheck and the ability to let someone else deal with all the boring business stuff over the added flexibility any day. I've done the self employed thing before and didn't like it at all.
-
I would say true of corporation, but if you can get into an SME then you have a better chance of doing real work.
Corporate morons do not understand what is required, how many times have I heard the phrase "it's just a processor in a box". :palm:
Corporations are about policies and meetings and who can come up with the new wank word of the week "innovation", "cloud", "connected", etc, the outcome is the same, they don't understand what it means but think they look intelligent by saying them.
Interestingly I never realised until I was staring at some 24V relays wondering why they wouldn't switch at 5V ( :palm:) that OMRON is an anagram of MORON.
-
And with the hyper connected, globalized economy, you are expected to be available 24/7.
Right now, as I type this, I’m preparing for a meeting with our Chinese factory, and it will last until midnight.
-
"Looking around, and talking to friends that are also working in comparable jobs, apparently this is the situation nearly everywhere, so just changing the job / company doesn't look too promising."
Any company or business that is large enough irregardless of the field of work is going operate the same In my experience. The larger the company the worse it gets.
It's interesting to hear friends of mine vent their frustrations with their employer / company. Its all very consistent but the nature of their work is completely unrelated.
Unfortunately its the way it is. I have been with the same company for 32 years. I am not in the tech field, this a hobby for me. Every year this kind of stuff gets worse.
They have treated me pretty good. I just look at as part of job to follow the policy, programs and procedures and do the best job I can within their box.
The only thing consistent is change.
Don't forget to watch the movie Office Space and make sure you fill out your TPS reports. :)
-K
Even fairly small companies can be bad that way.
The smallish company I worked with was much worse for that sort of nonsense than the large organisations I had previously worked for.
Dumb things like incorporating automotive type "multi-function switches" in the final assembly without checking if the bloody things worked first, continuing to build and incorporate a relay panel which no longer served any purpose, holding up production for a couple of days because they didn't have a particular ( non- critical) resistor value in stock, useless, endless unproductive meetings, having standby CSRs who were IT people, when the software was a solid as a brick dunny, & most faults were electronic or mechanical.---aaaaarrrrgggghhhh!
-
That's what always struck me as surprising. In electronics you have massive amounts of regulations to follow and you can pay dearly for not doing so. In something like software you can test in production and nobody cares. At worst a customer sues you.
Well, that's still pretty rare for stand-alone software. Most software EULAs clearly state that the company can't be held responsible for any damage, direct or indirect.
For software as part of a safety-related system, yes. But then this is usually a regulated field anyway and the whole system is considered pretty much at the same level, software included.
-
Well, that's still pretty rare for stand-alone software. Most software EULAs clearly state that the company can't be held responsible for any damage, direct or indirect.
For software as part of a safety-related system, yes. But then this is usually a regulated field anyway and the whole system is considered pretty much at the same level, software included.
EULAs aren't worth shit in a lot of places outside of the US. It's just scaremongering.
Even in safety related fields there's a lot of handwaving going on when it comes to software. We do the things we do because it's how they're always done and nobody wants to assume the risk of not doing it any more. In many cases there's little to no evidence that something like a line by line code review actually makes things safer or better. More modern techniques like fuzzing seem to be slightly more effective, but there too there's a distinct lack of industry standards. The whole sector is quite immature and nobody really knows what he's doing.
The fact that the software industry seems to be tripping over itself to create or pursue the latest fad, instead of doing things considered and properly isn't helping either. Doing things right means falling behind, so everyone seems to be dedicated to producing poop at breakneck speed. We've had decades or even centuries to learn the lessons that make up our electrical safety standards. We've had nothing of the sort in software and it shows.
-
I loathe being self employed. I'd take a steady paycheck and the ability to let someone else deal with all the boring business stuff over the added flexibility any day. I've done the self employed thing before and didn't like it at all.
Sorry to hear that; for me, it was the best career decision I've ever made.
The opportunity to do it for a couple of days / week came up about six years ago, and it soon grew to the point where 'my' work was taking up as much time, and paying much better, than my day job. So I quit.
Now I spend ~75% of my working time actually doing electronics or software. The rest is 'business stuff'... taxes, admin, keeping the lab in good order, that kind of thing. Nothing I really resent as a waste of time.
I still have a boss, of course. Several. They're called 'customers', and that means the relationship is different.
If you want me to design a thing, I'll do the engineering, deliver a working prototype, CAD data, manuals and so on, and send you an invoice.
If you then need technical support, or an analysis of why one isn't working, or an update, then that's no problem. Once again, I'll do the work, and I'll charge by the hour for my time.
If you want me to sit in meetings, that's fine too, but you've no doubt already seen the pattern emerging here.
The upshot is that even though I now have the overheads of running my own company - several, in fact - I still spend a lot less time on non-engineering activities than I did when I was a full time employee.
There are downsides, of course. I have no regular, predictable income, which might be a problem for some.
There's quite a big jump from doing 95% of the technical work yourself, and being able to ask colleagues for help on the other 5%, to having to do 100% of it yourself. Be prepared to lose a lot of time learning stuff for yourself that a co-worker could probably show you (or do for you) in five minutes.
-
1) Your manager gives you a task to design and built a widget.
2) You research the chips and design the widget using parts from (say) Digikey because they have a better range of devices. You prepare the BOM and submit it to your manager.
3) Your manager tells you not to use Digikey because of somereasonorother, use Element 14 instead.
4) Because one particular chip in your design isn't available from Element 14 you redesign and submit a second BOM which is 80% more expensive and uses 20% more parts.
5) Your manager asks why the widget doesn't do 'X' even though 'X' wasn't in the original specification. A possible requirement to do 'X' was however discussed in a meeting six weeks ago and no decision was taken. You redesign again so that your widget can do 'X' as well as 'A' and 'B' then submit a third BOM.
6) The MD asks if the widget can be upgraded to do task 'A' but at three times the current, you research this and find out that it will double the cost and triple the size of the unit, the idea is quietly forgotten.
7) Your parts are ordered and arrive, the widget is built and used twice before it's put in a cupboard and forgotten about. Six months later the MD discovers the widget and fires you because you didn't carry out his wishes of tripling the current.
8) The Chinese discover the design for your widget when they review the PCB files. They then make half a million of them and sell them on Alibaba at 20% of the cost of your device.
-
Sorry to hear that; for me, it was the best career decision I've ever made.
The opportunity to do it for a couple of days / week came up about six years ago, and it soon grew to the point where 'my' work was taking up as much time, and paying much better, than my day job. So I quit.
Now I spend ~75% of my working time actually doing electronics or software. The rest is 'business stuff'... taxes, admin, keeping the lab in good order, that kind of thing. Nothing I really resent as a waste of time.
I still have a boss, of course. Several. They're called 'customers', and that means the relationship is different.
If you want me to design a thing, I'll do the engineering, deliver a working prototype, CAD data, manuals and so on, and send you an invoice.
If you then need technical support, or an analysis of why one isn't working, or an update, then that's no problem. Once again, I'll do the work, and I'll charge by the hour for my time.
If you want me to sit in meetings, that's fine too, but you've no doubt already seen the pattern emerging here.
The upshot is that even though I now have the overheads of running my own company - several, in fact - I still spend a lot less time on non-engineering activities than I did when I was a full time employee.
There are downsides, of course. I have no regular, predictable income, which might be a problem for some.
There's quite a big jump from doing 95% of the technical work yourself, and being able to ask colleagues for help on the other 5%, to having to do 100% of it yourself. Be prepared to lose a lot of time learning stuff for yourself that a co-worker could probably show you (or do for you) in five minutes.
I'm not saying self employment isn't for anybody, my point is simply that it's not for everybody. Predictable steady income is a *huge* benefit to me, I don't have to think about money generally, I don't have to track my spending and income in detail, I simply spend less than I earn and it all works out. Also being in the UK you have one substantial advantage over me, universal healthcare. I don't want to turn this into a political debate but as with most people in the US I get my health insurance through my employer. Getting insurance as an individual is hugely expensive, like $500/month for a crappy high deductible plan that only covers me and is effectively only catastrophic coverage and going up from there and the whole system is is a byzantine nightmare. When it comes down to it, I have my hobbies for enjoyment and for work I personally like to go to work, complete the tasks I'm asked to do, collect a paycheck for my efforts and go home to do the stuff I really want to do. I don't have to interact with customers, I don't have to make big decisions, I don't have to think about taxes or roadmaps, facilities, finances, legal issues or any of that stuff, I'm just given a job to do and I do it.
-
1) Your manager gives you a task to design and built a widget.
(...)
8) The Chinese discover the design for your widget when they review the PCB files. They then make half a million of them and sell them on Alibaba at 20% of the cost of your device.
Excellent! ;D
-
Self-employed as an engineering consultant is different than being on the corporate treadmill.
On the corporate treadmill, for some reason management beats their staff for not performing while a consultant is treated with more respect and as an expert. They can almost be mercenaries and avoid a corporation's dysfunction to work on something.
I negotiate with contractors and consultants for either a fixed-sum or fixed-time on projects, with penalties if these are not met. Otherwise, they have no incentive to finish on any time schedule or dollar amount and just loaf along burning up money.
-
It's perfectly reasonable to ask for fixed quotes and/or time scales, though I would caution that it works both ways.
If you require a fixed price, then the specification needs to be fixed as well.
Too many times I've quoted for a job, only to hear "can you just make it do...?" once the price and lead time have already been agreed. Saying 'no' at this point never goes down well, so there's a problem.
Normally I address this by factoring in something to cover "can you just?" into a quote, then invoicing a bit less at the end if the job has gone smoothly and the spec hasn't been changed.
In general, my customers know me and normally ask for an estimate; I charge for time and materials, and provided the costs work out more or less as expected (averaged over a number of jobs), everyone's happy.
-
Why is it that some of the posters above expect to actually like their job? If it was fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to do it!
And the Golden Rule is: "He who pays, says!". Do what you're told and keep getting a check. Pretty simple concept, really.
Make sure you get into a high paying job whether you like it or not. That way you will be able to afford the better things in life. Perhaps a home (not in Silicon Valley), maybe a boat (spend 20 years sailing San Francisco Bay) and money to put in your 401(k). Maybe even enough for some other hobbies. Just don't confuse your real life with your job.
Always remember, "Jobs come and jobs go. Some last longer than others!".
-
Why is it that some of the posters above expect to actually like their job? If it was fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to do it!
Fun?
You can have fun even in a stupid job, but most of us do appreciate simple respect for our abilities more.
And the Golden Rule is: "He who pays, says!". Do what you're told and keep getting a check. Pretty simple concept, really.
This is pretty good advice for a "callow youth" just starting in their first job, but for most of those posting here, the jobs they are complaining about "ain't their first rodeo!"
If you find yourself in a job where the expertise you were hired for is ignored, people with neither experience nor knowledge dismiss suggestions which are based on hard earned experience in real companies, & you see ridiculously dysfunctional practices, it's very hard just to "pull your head in", "knuckle to your betters" & get on with the job.
In the one I was bitching about, I became "an enemy of the people" >:D because I kept telling them about their various stuff ups.
Eventually they gave me the sack! ;D
I was quite happy to go, but they said "Can you stay on for a while, till we get a replacement?"
Silly buggers couldn't even do that properly, so I hung on another two years till I couldn't stand it anymore, & "pulled the plug" properly.
"Why didn't I go sooner?
Inertia, plus, let's face it, when you are approaching retirement age, there are not many "techs" jobs around, even lousy ones like that one.
Make sure you get into a high paying job whether you like it or not. That way you will be able to afford the better things in life. Perhaps a home (not in Silicon Valley), maybe a boat (spend 20 years sailing San Francisco Bay) and money to put in your 401(k). Maybe even enough for some other hobbies. Just don't confuse your real life with your job.
Always remember, "Jobs come and jobs go. Some last longer than others!".
That would be nice
I had a fairly high paying job once, but non-technical management decided a "restructure" would be a great idea, so my staff position disappeared, but I can't say they didn't "give me something in return".
I found myself driving hundreds of miles a week, fixing remote sites for less money, so I "pulled the plug", & went to work at a Commercial TV Station.
They paid less, but didn't expect the world-------that was good for ten years, until they caught the
"restructure" disease, too!
-
When I started my career in the electronics business about 25 years ago, [...]
Today, I have a job in a larger company [...]
Could it be that the changes you are describing are not an effect of "now vs. 25 years ago", but of "small company vs. large company environment"?
I recommend looking for a small company, maybe a startup, if you want to evade much of the bureaucracy.
-
I find this advice applies for almost any hobby really. When you do it as a job it starts to not be fun anymore - at least on the job, the stuff you do at home may still remain fun. For example I was a lot "into computers" so naturally I wanted to be in IT, and do sysadmin type stuff. So I took computer science, and eventually landed a full time job at a help desk and moved up to server admin for a hospital for same company as a contractor.
I quickly learned that the job was like 80% politics and 20% actual technical. There was constant red tape with everything. And simple things were turned into an outrage. So many meetings over the stupidest stuff. Also did not help that the IT manager at that particular place was an asshole. I saw a job opening for NOC within my company and moved there. Best decision I ever made. Not exactly the line of work I anticipated myself doing, but it's a nice cushy job and pays well and has great hours, as it's shift work. I'd hate going back to a 8x5 grind again. 2 day weekends are too short. Rather work a bunch of 12h shifts and get more time off.
Oddly over the years I've kinda spread myself too thin as far as hobbies so have not really done any serious projects in a while. Like I need to actually pickup something and stick to it. Electronics has always interested me but can't say I've gotten super deep into it. One project I do want to start on eventually is kinda going to tie in all the stuff I know including what I do at my current job. I want to make a home automation/monitoring system. I'm sure there's already stuff like that which exists but still want to roll my own. I probably won't sell it - too much politics (compliance, copyright etc) but I'll probably just open source the software etc.
-
Thanks to all you guys!
Most of the things you mentioned I've been thinking of more or less before, and came to similar conclusions. E.g. to me, beeing self-employed isn't the thing I want to do, because I don't sell myself well enough. I've got experience in small companies and larger ones (from 5 to 500 employees, depending on how they were counted, up to 10000), and I've learned the differences between small and large enterprises.
Anyway, there is a change over time that small companies cannot deny, regulations and standards get more and more complex and demanding, that is the reason why larger companies have more people specialised in conformance and standards that some small companies cannot afford at all. In the 90's a small company could get away with vastly ignoring standards and regulations, today the rules are somewhat different. So for a small company it'd be rather difficult to design and sell a hardware product. Things are different with software and support, so changing from HW to SW is also one of my thoughts. Even in the largeish company I'm working now, the SW guys appear to have to cope with way less bureaucracy and paperwork like us HW guys.
-
Why is it that some of the posters above expect to actually like their job? If it was fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to do it!
And the Golden Rule is: "He who pays, says!". Do what you're told and keep getting a check. Pretty simple concept, really.
Make sure you get into a high paying job whether you like it or not. That way you will be able to afford the better things in life. Perhaps a home (not in Silicon Valley), maybe a boat (spend 20 years sailing San Francisco Bay) and money to put in your 401(k). Maybe even enough for some other hobbies. Just don't confuse your real life with your job.
Always remember, "Jobs come and jobs go. Some last longer than others!".
Hell no. Life's too short to be doing something which doesn't make you intrinsicly happy in some way. No amount of money can compensate the lack of fun or fulfilment. They're not mutually exclusive either. If you have a good head on your shoulders and have the right attitude, you can have fun while also earning a more than adequate paycheck.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to make ends meet. Sometimes it just isn't fun. That's part of the game. But just looking at it as a financial transaction doesn't make sense for something which dominates your waking hours by typically a huge margin. If you're only enjoying the few hours you have for and to yourself you're wasting most of your life.
-
Even in the largeish company I'm working now, the SW guys appear to have to cope with way less bureaucracy and paperwork like us HW guys.
Don't get your hopes up too high on that one though. It will change. In some regulated fields, the amount of paperwork needed for SW is already larger than for HW...
-
I've enjoyed most of the jobs I've had, much of the time. There have been ups and downs in all of them and one I stayed in much longer than I should have because I was no longer enjoying it but overall I would not want to work a job I didn't like. I don't expect it to be fun all the time, nor is it as enjoyable as goofing around on my own pet projects and doing whatever I please but as someone else said, life is far too short to spend most of it slaving a way in a job I hate just to have more money. I'd gladly take a smaller paycheck doing something I enjoy over a huge paycheck in a stressful job I hate any day of the week. I value my day to day happiness far more than I value money, far too many people spend the bulk of their healthy days in the miserable quest to acquire greater wealth.
-
(https://i2.wp.com/entrepreneurialambitions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ratrace.jpg)
-
8) The Chinese discover the design for your widget when they review the PCB files. They then make half a million of them and sell them on Alibaba at 20% of the cost of your device.
lol @ the well-placed emoji
-
at least if you're interested in actual electronics and development.
There's a simple reason for this advice:
Nowadays, this job is all about (in descending order of importance) business, money, bureaucracy, policies, compliance, standards, ..., customer, knowledge, skills, electronics.
When I started my career in the electronics business about 25 years ago..m
Totally agree after 22 years experience.
Now, you have to produce some shitty project with 25 cents budget and to respect EMI and CE and tons of requirements EXCEPT solid state,reliable and well done.
All my attempts to bring quality to the product and raising the company level was rejected and brought me the image of a person who talks too much.
I decided this months to change domain, use electronics as hobby and let the amateurs to continue the work.
My last manager told me youd don't need to know electronics to manage the research and development line of work.It was just proud it came from Normandy.For what I notice, stupid people came from every part of this planet...
Best regards,pierre
Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk
-
I also would make the distinction between private-held and public-held companies.
Public-held companies are all about stock price....an Economics professor of mine actually theorizes that whatever companies do, whether is selling burgers, making cars or transporting people with an airplane, this product or service is only the means to an end.
And the end is the stock price.
Stock price plummets? The CEO and some board member's will get sacked. Not before inflicting lots of pain on their underlings.
-
That has been my experience in software too, I think it's just corporate life. At a previous job they talked a lot about how agile isn't about process and tools and yet day to day life at the office was almost entirely about process and tools. Didn't matter if what we were doing made sense as long as we went through all the motions and used all the tools they had decided we would use.
Not really.I saw it in 4 persons company and in 49 employees company too...4 employees me included, one was accountant...
Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk
-
I have never had the problems described.
My current employer is very laid back, eager to invest in money and equipment well needed, we work a four-day week, they pay for all off-site expenses, and the job is rewarding. I've been working on one product for my whole time here, and my needs have been met at every step.
The only complaint I would have is that the salary is a bit low, but then again I'm still relatively green as an engineer. I've already negotiated one pay rise, I'd expect another in the near future, but not holding my breath.
-
And with the hyper connected, globalized economy, you are expected to be available 24/7.
Right now, as I type this, I’m preparing for a meeting with our Chinese factory, and it will last until midnight.
True. Being into automation you are expected to travel the 7 seas.
Fortunately, you can meet and know a lot of people.... And if you are good at your job the possibilities of career and changing country and maintaining your job are increased.
This may be a blessing or may be a curse depending what you plan to do in life, however, you cannot expect to have a "regular job" anyway, otherwise you will end up in a factory (if you are lucky).
-
I also would make the distinction between private-held and public-held companies.
Public-held companies are all about stock price....an Economics professor of mine actually theorizes that whatever companies do, whether is selling burgers, making cars or transporting people with an airplane, this product or service is only the means to an end.
And the end is the stock price.
Stock price plummets? The CEO and some board member's will get sacked. Not before inflicting lots of pain on their underlings.
As a stockholder, the guy who ultimately risks his own money to fund the company, I expect no less. If my investment doesn't grow with one company, I will move it to another.
-
My current employer is very laid back, eager to invest in money and equipment well needed, we work a four-day week, they pay for all off-site expenses, and the job is rewarding. I've been working on one product for my whole time here, and my needs have been met at every step.
The only complaint I would have is that the salary is a bit low, but then again I'm still relatively green as an engineer. I've already negotiated one pay rise, I'd expect another in the near future, but not holding my breath.
Is your "current location" indeed still the University of Leeds, as your profile suggests?
-
My current employer is very laid back, eager to invest in money and equipment well needed, we work a four-day week, they pay for all off-site expenses, and the job is rewarding. I've been working on one product for my whole time here, and my needs have been met at every step.
The only complaint I would have is that the salary is a bit low, but then again I'm still relatively green as an engineer. I've already negotiated one pay rise, I'd expect another in the near future, but not holding my breath.
Is your "current location" indeed still the University of Leeds, as your profile suggests?
No; I've forgotten to update that, but I'm not far away from that (I don't work for a university, just a small private company, turnover ~£3m/year.)
-
(https://i2.wp.com/entrepreneurialambitions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ratrace.jpg)
Yep, the rat race.
Any salaried job is subject to that.
You could also say that self-employed people are their own slaves somehow (although they are also often their clients' slaves). But at least you can say no or even "fuck off" to yourself without necessarily feeling the need to fire yourself.
-
Meh, if not that we could be spending our waking hours searching for food and running from predators while hoping to survive to breeding age and find a mate like most animal species. I'd much rather work in an office than that. I do the work I'm told to do and get a paycheck in exchange. That allows me to do the things I really want to do.
-
Meh, if not that we could be spending our waking hours searching for food and running from predators while hoping to survive to breeding age and find a mate like most animal species. I'd much rather work in an office than that. I do the work I'm told to do and get a paycheck in exchange. That allows me to do the things I really want to do.
Physiological needs and safety are number one and two in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, belonging, esteem and self-actualisation are number three through five. Just settling for the first two levels is both setting an incredibly low standard and setting yourself up for an unhappy life.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice higher levels to satisfy lower ones, but forfeiting them from the get-go seems silly and entirely unnecessary. Happy employment is very attainable, especially if you don't prioritise financial gain over everything else.
-
Rstoffer;
please do not mis-understand me. I am all for, shareholders deserve their rewards. I am not a closet socialist.
My criticism is the corporate short term vision, the desperate and atrocious decisions, and the accounting shenanigans they make, in order to meet quarterly promises.
-
Corporate values have changed drastically over the years and pretty much killed EE as an enjoyable profession.
Old corporation: Building a good, high quality product is priority #1. We will grow our technology and skills.
New corporation: Maximize returns to shareholders, immediate profit is priority #1. Greed is good, greed is legal.
Whereas it's great fun to be a maker and build hobby projects, I find doing electronics engineering for corporations is just the opposite.
Since engineering is the bottleneck to rolling out new products, great pressure is on engineers as they are in the way of profit.
There is also the added burden of designing for global regulatory and safety approvals, none of which is taught in university.
My number is: 10 engineering jobs under 16 different bosses and 14 different executive/CEO's.
-
Meh, if not that we could be spending our waking hours searching for food and running from predators while hoping to survive to breeding age and find a mate like most animal species. I'd much rather work in an office than that. I do the work I'm told to do and get a paycheck in exchange. That allows me to do the things I really want to do.
Physiological needs and safety are number one and two in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, belonging, esteem and self-actualisation are number three through five. Just settling for the first two levels is both setting an incredibly low standard and setting yourself up for an unhappy life.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice higher levels to satisfy lower ones, but forfeiting them from the get-go seems silly and entirely unnecessary. Happy employment is very attainable, especially if you don't prioritise financial gain over everything else.
if you only set yourself up for the first two you will contract whats called 'mental illness'.
Some people actually prefer living at a scarcity of the first two and having the other three fulfilled (i.e. woodsmen, self sustaining isolated farmers, etc). Pretty sure they would die if someone made em change it.
-
This is a global problem that is happening to people in all professions.
It originated in part with Frederick Winslow Taylor who advocated 'deskilling', as part of his 'scientific management' program.. basically the turning of skilled tradespeople and their work into commodified standardized parts, inputs and outputs in a machine.
Another of the mental models I find works well for the current situation is that we're seeing a sort of cult of competition. Its now become okay to set everybody everywhere against one another in a race to the bottom. Except nobody wins this race and everybody loses.
Physiological needs and safety are number one and two in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, belonging, esteem and self-actualisation are number three through five. Just settling for the first two levels is both setting an incredibly low standard and setting yourself up for an unhappy life.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice higher levels to satisfy lower ones, but forfeiting them from the get-go seems silly and entirely unnecessary. Happy employment is very attainable, especially if you don't prioritise financial gain over everything else.
if you only set yourself up for the first two you will contract whats called 'mental illness'.
Some people actually prefer living at a scarcity of the first two and having the other three fulfilled (i.e. woodsmen, self sustaining isolated farmers, etc). Pretty sure they would die if someone made em change it.
Until fairly recently people could make that choice in places like America and Western Europe and many other places, and live a happy life without being bothered. There was a sort of social contract which was unwritten but which was generally kept. that all changed however over the past few decades, based on a set of theories about the nature of promises versus 'efficiency'.
A body of theory which has a lot of problems with it.
This change went largely unnoticed but it had the effect of creating a body of new international law (so its gone without being noticed at the country level, yet it controls what countries can do) that basically says "whatever makes the most money is right" - even if every kind of promise that was made to people is broken. Its being relied upon to bring about a large scale extraction of value from resources and people of every kind. Its not going to sit back and live and let live, its on the offensive to lock down everything in the most 'efficient' way. That means that farmers everywhere are being evicted from land they have farmed for generations, it means that poor people who have legal title to their lands can be displaced simply because 'X makes more money'. And this is happening against a backdrop of changes that should be helping the world achieve a better work life balance, so its having the effect of creating a race to the bottom where everybody must work more and more for less and less.
"Law and Economics. The law and economics movement applies economic theory and method to the practice of law. ... The general theory is that law is best viewed as a social tool that promotes economic efficiency, that economic analysis and efficiency as an ideal can guide legal practice."
Its a cult, it seems to me, a cult of efficiency. it's advocates' unquestioning acceptance of its agenda has all the characteristics of a cult. It has a body of tenets which are I think logically wrong - which are going totally unquestioned. I have a feeling the word is heading into a major disaster because of these changes which are being made.
A big reason for these changes, their advocates claim is that the advent of "highly mobile global capital" has made it so businesses have to get high returns on investment "or the money will go elsewhere". Countries are using this as an excuse to gut social programs and transfer value of every kind to corporations.
For example, in health care. The rest of the world's healthcare establishments are being pushed to act like really really horrible US HMOs, that deliver really low quality medical care, and this set of facts is being hidden from them.
One wouldn't think that the definitions of what test results indicated whether somebody has a treatable condition, would change, but that is exactly what they are doing.
Basically they are rigging the system to prevent care for people who have treatable illnesses and also make it so sick people, because they make a lot of medical mistakes, have no record of their health issues. These HMOs are extremely well connected. But their profit-oriented model of healthcare delivery is totally wrong. And doctors hate it. Because they are being asked to deceive patients. (They are not allowed to discuss important health issues with patients-things that the patient may need treatment for, without the HMOs blessing)
These HMOs also are exerting pressure on lawmakers to make laws that continually push the medicolegal standards of care, which vary quite a bit by geographical area, down. You can imagine what this does to good doctors. People are paying for care, but they arent getting it. The HMOs are forcing them to attenuate their care to a sort of triage or disaster medicine where they only get the minimum and its an impossible situation. One where its understood that in this kind of environment, a lot of mistakes will inevitably be made.
Doctors absolutely hate it.
Its also the creation of artificial scarcity, in order to enhance profits.
I have two friends who I have known for decades, they used to be a couple, but now they are both married to other people. They are both doctors and - in private- they have a lot to say about these firms. They advise their friends to give them a wide berth.
Some of these HMOs make it a practice of destroying information. They intentionally deliver really low quality care for poor people. This is represented as a successful business model.
Now these kinds of practices are being pushed by lots of firms. Basically, the system is broken. But nobody is courageous enough to say it.
-
8) The Chinese discover the design for your widget when they review the PCB files. They then make half a million of them and sell them on Alibaba at 20% of the cost of your device.
As someone who has had a design i did photocopied by a Chinese manufacturer, that kind of situation lives in the past... The 90s were twenty years ago now.
Nobody in China wants or needs western engineers' IP any more.
They'll design it themselves if they want to make their own version of something. And lately, lots of Chinese manufacturers are totally doing their own thing. Why compete with cut price copies when your can make something unique and better?
-
8) The Chinese discover the design for your widget when they review the PCB files. They then make half a million of them and sell them on Alibaba at 20% of the cost of your device.
As someone who has had a design i did photocopied by a Chinese manufacturer, that kind of situation lives in the past... The 90s were twenty years ago now.
Nobody in China wants or needs western engineers' IP any more.
They'll design it themselves if they want to make their own version of something. And lately, lots of Chinese manufacturers are totally doing their own thing. Why compete with cut price copies when your can make something unique and better?
These days most Chinese designers do what most western designers do. They look at every competitor's model they can lay their hands on, critique them, and try to build something better than any of them.
-
https://youtu.be/VvB8h5LNpwA?t=12
-
Rstoffer;
please do not mis-understand me. I am all for, shareholders deserve their rewards. I am not a closet socialist.
My criticism is the corporate short term vision, the desperate and atrocious decisions, and the accounting shenanigans they make, in order to meet quarterly promises.
This is the same gripe I have. Companies have become so short sighted. All focus is on the quarterly gains, we're seeing an epidemic of execs running a company into the ground and bailing out with a golden parachute only to do it all over again in some cases. As a shareholder I'd much rather see slow but steady with dividends than rapid growth that turns the stock market into a game of hot potato where the goal is to sell at the right moment to leave someone else holding the bag. Infinite growth is not possible, a system based on a need for that is destined to fail.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQleT6BtCbE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQleT6BtCbE)
-
Often companies buy other companies to split off and sell their valuable assets and dumping their liabilities in somebody elses lap.
Buying low and selling high is the essence of capitalism. Financial shenanigans with other peoples money is the purest form of capitalism. The people who practice it know this, but others don't.
Almost all Americans, even self-described conservatives, always, when asked to describe capitalism describe something completely different.
Something which at best is in serious danger, it is under tremendous pressure, and almost doesn't exist any more. Not because thats what we want, its because the top has been taken over by crooks. Everywhere. Because they know their model is not working and they are in a state of panic. And making really bad decisions, as sort of a way of mounting a preemptive strike.
Rstoffer;
please do not mis-understand me. I am all for, shareholders deserve their rewards. I am not a closet socialist.
My criticism is the corporate short term vision, the desperate and atrocious decisions, and the accounting shenanigans they make, in order to meet quarterly promises.
This is the same gripe I have. Companies have become so short sighted. All focus is on the quarterly gains, we're seeing an epidemic of execs running a company into the ground and bailing out with a golden parachute only to do it all over again in some cases. As a shareholder I'd much rather see slow but steady with dividends than rapid growth that turns the stock market into a game of hot potato where the goal is to sell at the right moment to leave someone else holding the bag. Infinite growth is not possible, a system based on a need for that is destined to fail.
I am totally in agreement with you two guys. In my opinion, lack of a moral compass and compulsive greed and dishonesty is a plague on our society. The people who are doing these things need to be called out for what they are, or they will bring the whole world to ruin.
This addiction to growth at any cost is a cover up of the fact that growth as they want it is unsustainable, a Ponzi scheme.
Instead of their race to the bottom (thats what it is, a race to the bottom where wages will eventually approach zero, a situation that nobody in their right mind would view as a positive outcome, but thats what they are working for, seriously, and I can prove it to you in fifteen minutes of quality time) Instead what we need and want, what everybody wants, what we all grew up wanting is something where life is satisfying, where the people in the poor countries gradually pull themselves up, a model which is not based on 'shock therapy' and disruption so much as cooperation. Competition but not via dirty tricks. And new knowledge should be used to raise the quality of life for everybody as much as is possible.
What they fear is really at its essence, a race to the top.
Its what we all thought we were getting but they have hijacked the train, they have all formed an alliance to jettison democracy, because its directly in conflict with capitalism as they see it. And they are actually right because thats what at its core its always been. The period we grew up in was a historical anomaly of labor scarcity.
You don't have to take my word for it, the World Economic Forum (the Davos crowd) will explain it to you on their web site, under (Trilemma)
-
I also would make the distinction between private-held and public-held companies.
Public-held companies are all about stock price....an Economics professor of mine actually theorizes that whatever companies do, whether is selling burgers, making cars or transporting people with an airplane, this product or service is only the means to an end.
And the end is the stock price.
Stock price plummets? The CEO and some board member's will get sacked. Not before inflicting lots of pain on their underlings.
Allow me to make a refinement to that.
Besides public vs non-public, another distinction is "for profit" vs "non-profit". This will high light why you are there from the employer's perspective.
If you work for say the government (non-profit driven), you are there just to do a task. It may serve you, it may serve your boss to justify his existence, or it may serve no purpose at all. You are just filling a pigeon hole. If you like it, great, if not, find another hole to fit in.
If you work for say "Cure Cancer Now" (I made this non-profit organization up for discussion), may be they do want to cure cancer, may be the founder just wanted a hobby, who knows. But taking them at face value, profit surely should not be an issue. At this point, it would just be like working for the government - with the added benefit of feeling having done something good for the world. May be. May be not. If it does, "doing something good for the world" should be worth something to you. If not, it is just a job.
If you work for Microsoft (or sub in any major for profit firm), they pay you and expect you to be a tool for them to use to make a profit. Whatever role you may play: marketing, development, sales, accounting... You have to add to the top line or the bottom line or both. Otherwise, you are not useful to the company.
In all three cases, their mission statement should say why they are there. You are there to help them complete their mission. But, as life would have it, many managers have no idea what the employer's mission is, and your manager might just be one of those - so you would be there wondering why the heck am I doing this...
In all case, what you think or want really doesn't matter. You have something to offer. You just make sure what they offer for what you have is a good trade for you. The golden rule again: "the one with the gold makes the rule." The more you add to their gold pile, the more gold dusk you should get...
-
Rstoffer;
please do not mis-understand me. I am all for, shareholders deserve their rewards. I am not a closet socialist.
My criticism is the corporate short term vision, the desperate and atrocious decisions, and the accounting shenanigans they make, in order to meet quarterly promises.
This is the same gripe I have. Companies have become so short sighted. All focus is on the quarterly gains, we're seeing an epidemic of execs running a company into the ground and bailing out with a golden parachute only to do it all over again in some cases. As a shareholder I'd much rather see slow but steady with dividends than rapid growth that turns the stock market into a game of hot potato where the goal is to sell at the right moment to leave someone else holding the bag. Infinite growth is not possible, a system based on a need for that is destined to fail.
I am totally in agreement with you two guys. In my opinion, lack of a moral compass and compulsive greed and dishonesty is a plague on our society. The people who are doing these things need to be called out for what they are, or they will bring the whole world to ruin.
Big companies have the moral understanding of a 4 year old kid. This documentary makes that painfully obvious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazUh0Ym8rc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazUh0Ym8rc)
-
Big companies have the moral understanding of a 4 year old kid.
Big companies have the moral understanding that the environment they are in forces upon them. Its a game, like most other aspects of life, and people play to the limits of what the rules make possible. To be clear I mean the actual rules, not the theoretical ones. "That's illegal, but nobody has ever gone to jail for it" is not rule in practice.
Research since the 60s has shown over and over that people can do terrible things when they can shift the blame to someone above them, leaving them "just following orders". These days that someone has become the company itself, and even at the highest level of the company no individual has to take responsibility. Everyone acts on the basis that they must do what benefits the company. The snag is that the bizarre legal precedent of corporate personhood has never resulted in a company being jailed or executed for murder.
-
This is a good explanation of "Groupthink" which is a form of institutional self-deception which I think is happening on a large scale.
https://www.afirstlook.com/docs/groupthink.pdf (https://www.afirstlook.com/docs/groupthink.pdf)
If its not tempered with some sanity, and deep self-examination as to where we really want to go with all this, I think it will lead us into a global disaster. Soon.
If you look at Irving Janis's warning signs that groupthink may be going on, they are all there.
The PDF mentions the Challenger disaster and subsequent investigation. Richard Feynman also wrote a book about that investigation, and the chapter of it that is relevant to this discussion is on the web somewhere. Worth digging a bit for.
Its totally relevant to the practice of engineering and also for many other reasons, really quite worth reading.
-
Big companies have the moral understanding of a 4 year old kid.
Big companies have the moral understanding that the environment they are in forces upon them. Its a game, like most other aspects of life, and people play to the limits of what the rules make possible. To be clear I mean the actual rules, not the theoretical ones. "That's illegal, but nobody has ever gone to jail for it" is not rule in practice.
Research since the 60s has shown over and over that people can do terrible things when they can shift the blame to someone above them, leaving them "just following orders". These days that someone has become the company itself, and even at the highest level of the company no individual has to take responsibility. Everyone acts on the basis that they must do what benefits the company. The snag is that the bizarre legal precedent of corporate personhood has never resulted in a company being jailed or executed for murder.
Companies/Corporations are no more and no less moral than the people who run them. But one must draw a clear distinction between immoral vs illegal.
I see your UK flag, so I am not sure if the legal situation is the same. In the USA, it is not unusual that officers of the corporation are held liable for the misdeeds of their corporation - after all, that is part of being officer of the corporation. Some even serve time in prison for illegal misdeeds.
A good case study is probably Enron. The company went kaput for its misdeeds - more than just Enron itself went totally kaput out of existence. Some Enron officers served time in jail. Even accounting firms that just checked (audited) numbers that Enron handed them were hurt too. The once prestigious accounting firm Arthur Andersen went kaput with Enron. Some Merrill Lynch execs finished serving jail time already when the Appellate Court and then the Supreme Court overturned some or all of the significant charges1. So they were "over punished" if there is such a term.
Arthur Andersen's demise shows the difficulty in punishing companies. Perhaps some knows the number they were getting were fake numbers, perhaps. It is also possible that no one at Arthur Andersen knew the numbers were fake - after all, their role was to check the math and not a role to investigate the truthfulness of the source numbers. May be they should have been more suspicious when the numbers looks too good, may be. Fair or not, Arthur Andersen went kaput. When it went kaput, every employee from VP to receptionist to janitor all paid for the crime, if any.
Footnote:
[1] The Applet Court thew out the fraud part. The Supreme Court might have overturned ALL remaining charges - after all, there was no fraud to obstruct so Obstruction of Justice charge is defunct. But I am not sure of what else might have remain without doing deeper research. So I will leave it as the Supreme Court threw out the "some or all of the significant charges".
-
A good case study is probably Enron. The company went kaput for its misdeeds - more than just Enron itself went totally kaput out of existence. Some Enron officers served time in jail. Even accounting firms that just checked (audited) numbers that Enron handed them were hurt too. The once prestigious accounting firm Arthur Andersen went kaput with Enron. Some Merrill Lynch execs finished serving jail time already when the Appellate Court and then the Supreme Court overturned some or all of the significant charges1. So they were "over punished" if there is such a term.
Enron was in the 90s. The world has changed. After 2008 nobody from Wall St served jail time for what happened.
From the middle of the 19th century, when company law first got really serious, both Britain and America jailed quite a few people for various types of misdeed. Even in the 1980s, when AT&T was broken up, several people have told me of speeches from senior people, to massed assemblies of employees, saying the court edicts would be complied with fully, because they were in danger of going to jail if only lip service were paid. You don't see that kind of worry among bosses any more.
I'm not sure, but weren't the only jailings of Enron people for the personal frauds they committed to swell their own bank balances?
-
The CEO of Enron died before serving a day of jail time, a death certificate with his name on it was signed by his doctor.
-
A good case study is probably Enron. The company went kaput for its misdeeds - more than just Enron itself went totally kaput out of existence. Some Enron officers served time in jail. Even accounting firms that just checked (audited) numbers that Enron handed them were hurt too. The once prestigious accounting firm Arthur Andersen went kaput with Enron. Some Merrill Lynch execs finished serving jail time already when the Appellate Court and then the Supreme Court overturned some or all of the significant charges1. So they were "over punished" if there is such a term.
Enron was in the 90s. The world has changed. After 2008 nobody from Wall St served jail time for what happened.
From the middle of the 19th century, when company law first got really serious, both Britain and America jailed quite a few people for various types of misdeed. Even in the 1980s, when AT&T was broken up, several people have told me of speeches from senior people, to massed assemblies of employees, saying the court edicts would be complied with fully, because they were in danger of going to jail if only lip service were paid. You don't see that kind of worry among bosses any more.
I'm not sure, but weren't the only jailings of Enron people for the personal frauds they committed to swell their own bank balances?
I think money is one of the main reason crimes are committed. The other one is passion.
As to 2008 collapse... In earlier reply, I drew the distinction between immoral vs illegal. For the 2008 collapse, there was nothing illegal. It was bad judgement and bad timing on the part of investment banks. That balloon (house prices) was going to burst some point in time. When government bank sells it at X, you know it is eventually going to be worth X/10. But you know for tomorrow it would be worth (X+1%) so it is a money maker... Except this time you run out of tomorrows... Bad timing.
Think about Sony Ericsson Phones, once one of the giants. Big Executive made a big decision (Just In Time inventory), except it failed1... Now it is a mere (and small) shadow of itself. It too was a mistake that could have been foreseen - but wasn't. Many, including a friend of mine, were hurt because of such mistake. Life is imperfect. Life has risks. Not all risks are caused by execs being immoral or illegal, it could have been just a storm as in Ericsson's case.
Executives make mistakes. We (average tech employee) on a day to day basis make smaller decisions. Executives makes decisions that could take the company down - presumably, that is why they make the big bucks to make the bigger decisions.
That said, culture of a company one works for is important.
It should be no surprise to anyone here that many consider Google to be "left leaning". Agree or not, for discussion purpose, let's assume that for now.
- What does that mean?
- What does that impact the companies' long term viability?
- How would that impact the work environment?
- How would that limit your personal viability there?
- How will that impact your getting the next job else where?
- How would that limit your future worth?
All those questions I raised above are valid questions but few would thinks about those issues at a job interview or during a job hunt. Those issues are important. Push come to shove, you take the job while not forgetting those land mines in front of you.
EE/Technology has its unique "land mines" no doubt, but a career in another field would not avoid all land mines, you just traded one set for another. Hey, Monty Python thinks being a "Charter Accountant" is boring, but think about the excitement it would have been for an Enron accountant! Oh, and those little land mines that could put you in jail...
The grass always look greener on the other lawn. EE career may well be something to avoid, that is not for me to say. What is important is always remember the longest runway still ends. Look ahead as you enjoy your cheese - someone may move it. Career in EE, technology, anything-else; always be on the lookout for "Who Moved My Cheese"2. Doesn't matter what field your are in, but always know where you are at, check if the floor under your seat is rotting, and be aware of the land mines ahead of you. And, always remember... you don't live to work; you work to live.
Footnotes:
1. "When the chain breaks - Being too lean and mean is a dangerous thing" The Economist, June 2006 article.
IT BEGAN on a stormy evening in New Mexico in March 2000 when a bolt of lightning hit a power line. The temporary loss of electricity knocked out the cooling fans in a furnace at a Philips semiconductor plant in Albuquerque. ... ... ...
Full article here:
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2006/06/15/when-the-chain-breaks (https://www.economist.com/special-report/2006/06/15/when-the-chain-breaks)
2. Who Moved My Cheese, Dr. Spencer Johnson.
Just quote Amazon here: "A timeless business classic, Who Moved My Cheese? uses a simple parable to reveal profound truths about dealing with change so that you can enjoy less stress and more success in your work and in your life."
-
There are many high paying jobs in the printing industry, repairing them. Some of these printers are 8+ million $$ and run 24/7.
Training, travel, vehicles all paid for. With a bit of overtime, 6 figures is not so hard to hit in ohio.
Sure, a fixed, exotic salary may sound better and higher, until you start working 70-80 hour weeks for the same pay as a 40 hr week.
-
The CEO of Enron died before serving a day of jail time, a death certificate with his name on it was signed by his doctor.
That sounds like the best possible outcome frankly. It costs a lot of money to keep somebody in jail, and if they die, it accomplishes the same goal of protecting society from them.
-
The CEO of Enron died before serving a day of jail time, a death certificate with his name on it was signed by his doctor.
That sounds like the best possible outcome frankly. It costs a lot of money to keep somebody in jail, and if they die, it accomplishes the same goal of protecting society from them.
I agree. It costs a lot to keep them in jail. At least their CFO and his wife (assistant Treasurer) did serve. The judge actually allow them to serve one after the other so their child has at least one parent this side of the prison walls.
-
The problem is, these scams are coming at regular intervals and they keep getting bigger. The taxpayers end up getting soaked for trillions.
These scams are literally trading away our futures, because deregulation now is getting locked in, because of WTO law, it cant be reversed. We set that up and we did it to frustrate democracy.
These scams are a very sophisticated form of fraud on the people of the whole world by a tiny group of very wealthy people. They are thefts and they are 'inside jobs'.
A good case study is probably Enron. The company went kaput for its misdeeds - more than just Enron itself went totally kaput out of existence. Some Enron officers served time in jail. Even accounting firms that just checked (audited) numbers that Enron handed them were hurt too. The once prestigious accounting firm Arthur Andersen went kaput with Enron. Some Merrill Lynch execs finished serving jail time already when the Appellate Court and then the Supreme Court overturned some or all of the significant charges1. So they were "over punished" if there is such a term.
Enron was in the 90s. The world has changed. After 2008 nobody from Wall St served jail time for what happened.
From the middle of the 19th century, when company law first got really serious, both Britain and America jailed quite a few people for various types of misdeed. Even in the 1980s, when AT&T was broken up, several people have told me of speeches from senior people, to massed assemblies of employees, saying the court edicts would be complied with fully, because they were in danger of going to jail if only lip service were paid. You don't see that kind of worry among bosses any more.
I'm not sure, but weren't the only jailings of Enron people for the personal frauds they committed to swell their own bank balances?
I think money is one of the main reason crimes are committed. The other one is passion.
As to 2008 collapse... In earlier reply, I drew the distinction between immoral vs illegal. For the 2008 collapse, there was nothing illegal. It was bad judgement and bad timing on the part of investment banks. That balloon (house prices) was going to burst some point in time. When government bank sells it at X, you know it is eventually going to be worth X/10. But you know for tomorrow it would be worth (X+1%) so it is a money maker... Except this time you run out of tomorrows... Bad timing.
Think about Sony Ericsson Phones, once one of the giants. Big Executive made a big decision (Just In Time inventory), except it failed1... Now it is a mere (and small) shadow of itself. It too was a mistake that could have been foreseen - but wasn't. Many, including a friend of mine, were hurt because of such mistake. Life is imperfect. Life has risks. Not all risks are caused by execs being immoral or illegal, it could have been just a storm as in Ericsson's case.
Executives make mistakes. We (average tech employee) on a day to day basis make smaller decisions. Executives makes decisions that could take the company down - presumably, that is why they make the big bucks to make the bigger decisions.
That said, culture of a company one works for is important.
It should be no surprise to anyone here that many consider Google to be "left leaning".
Nope, far from it. The workforce is not the management.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Agree or not, for discussion purpose, let's assume that for now.
- What does that mean?
- What does that impact the companies' long term viability?
- How would that impact the work environment?
- How would that limit your personal viability there?
- How will that impact your getting the next job else where?
- How would that limit your future worth?
All those questions I raised above are valid questions but few would thinks about those issues at a job interview or during a job hunt. Those issues are important. Push come to shove, you take the job while not forgetting those land mines in front of you.
EE/Technology has its unique "land mines" no doubt, but a career in another field would not avoid all land mines, you just traded one set for another. Hey, Monty Python thinks being a "Charter Accountant" is boring, but think about the excitement it would have been for an Enron accountant! Oh, and those little land mines that could put you in jail...
The grass always look greener on the other lawn. EE career may well be something to avoid, that is not for me to say. What is important is always remember the longest runway still ends. Look ahead as you enjoy your cheese - someone may move it. Career in EE, technology, anything-else; always be on the lookout for "Who Moved My Cheese"2. Doesn't matter what field your are in, but always know where you are at, check if the floor under your seat is rotting, and be aware of the land mines ahead of you. And, always remember... you don't live to work; you work to live.
Footnotes:
1. "When the chain breaks - Being too lean and mean is a dangerous thing" The Economist, June 2006 article.
IT BEGAN on a stormy evening in New Mexico in March 2000 when a bolt of lightning hit a power line. The temporary loss of electricity knocked out the cooling fans in a furnace at a Philips semiconductor plant in Albuquerque. ... ... ...
Full article here:
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2006/06/15/when-the-chain-breaks (https://www.economist.com/special-report/2006/06/15/when-the-chain-breaks)
2. Who Moved My Cheese, Dr. Spencer Johnson.
Just quote Amazon here: "A timeless business classic, Who Moved My Cheese? uses a simple parable to reveal profound truths about dealing with change so that you can enjoy less stress and more success in your work and in your life."
What caused the 2008 crash? The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, allowing the US taxpayer to be soaked by the failure of these huge companies that deliberately pumped up their books with "nina" (no income, no assets) loans for properties whose valuations were set unrealistically, insanely high.
Loan companies deliberately wrote as many loans as they could - loans to bad credit risks knowing that the changes which had been made would end up costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars. And now they want to do it again.
It was a scam, a scam perpetrated by crooks who had inside information that the government would make good on those fraudulent loans. When before the taxpayers had been protected.
Kind of like the S&L scandal here a few years earlier.
Why was the Glass-Steagall Act repealed?
You can find out the claimed reason at the top of the very last page of an obscure document filed in Geneva on February 26, 1998 as part of the annex to the US Schedule of Specific Commitments for the financial services Understanding, part of the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services. You wont read about it in any newspaper.
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?Query=(@Symbol=%20gats/sc/ (https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?Query=(@Symbol=%20gats/sc/)*)%20and%20((%20@Title=%20united%20states%20)%20or%20(@CountryConcerned=%20united%20states))&Language=ENGLISH&Context=FomerScriptedSearch&languageUIChanged=true#
-
what rights are you talking about?
-
It would be a better question to ask, what rights were/are NOT being given to them? What rights are being left in the hands of human natural people? Almost none of any economic value. Democracy is being gutted of its ability to do anything. To prevent anything, to protect anyone.
Instead of people, money is being given the rights. I mean that quite literally.
This is a change that impacts all Americans and really all humanity, equally. Because they are hijacking all of our futures.
Americans, Australians, Britons may not always agree about directions, but we do agree that the people, the voters should be able to choose what gets done, right?
Right, we all agree about that and no amount of wedge issue politics could divide us on that.
How does one execute a theft of the entire world from its people? We have to look at how con artists do it.
They prey upon their mark's greed. There is an element of that.
Another model for another way of seeing what is being done is sort of as a fraudulent 'straw man' transaction.
Another way to look at their scheme - its sort of like adverse possession.
But people have to know they have rights to know they are being taken away. We've been intimidated into not even realizing we own them. But we do. We can choose our future. Nobody in their right mind would choose a future that didn't include themselves.
One has to be a very fast talker indeed to pull that one off. And my thinking is that the people who are doing this must have some realization that its not going to work. But they cant control themselves because they have a mental illness. Narcissism is a state of megalomania or delusion. They are very very convincing liars but they always screw things up, not only that, they do it in a very big way. All of the biggest man-made disasters in human history are their creations.
One has to understand the concerns of the very wealthy. They are not like most people. They see a shift coming which they feel threatens their cozy existence. That shift is arguably a very good thing, simply the end of the need for most people to work. The further we get along this continuum, the higher the bar will rise. In the end what will lead to our victory is the simple fact that people wont be able to be good enough to get a job in something unless they really love it. Money is not a good enough motivator to create talent and love of a subject in people who have none.
However, some people are obsessed by money and power. The rest of us live our lives and have our families and friends, and are not obsessed. Some of us do quite well. But are still mentally well balanced. many tech people are sort of accidentally rich. Many are probably among the most sane among the wealthy today.
But to get really really rich it takes sort of an obsession with money. Its also very much a shared conspiracy among the wealthy to help themselves and others of their class. They feel a much stronger bond between themselves and other wealthy people everywhere than between themselves and their countrymen and women who are not wealthy.
A lot of planning has gone into their scheme, especially the onion skinned nature of the arguments - what they tell people to justify it. But, they would not stand up to any real scrutiny, if people saw them discussed them and compared notes. So they keep it hidden, playing different groups off against one another. Telling them things in confidence. More than anything else, its a classic confidence scam.
And it doesn't pass the smell test. So no matter how much planning has gone into it it still lacks the legitimacy it would need to work. Because its a huge fraud. Perhaps the biggest fraud ever.
-
Lots of folks talks about the surface, the theater, the artificial causes, why people behave like this and that often from a financial angle what has to be done is actually study what causes their behavior from a biological angle such as infestations of Toxoplasma Gondii and other "freewill dissablers/brain rerouting" using Neuroendocrinology ,Behavioral endocrinology ,etc and why the brain activity pattern between psychopaths and "normal" people are so different.
Nothing going to change on planet earth until people who seeks a power position (and EE's) over others undergo psychopathy/grandeur Messiahs complex/narcissistic sadist cynic etc by above mentioned scientific means to determine the grade of their particular behavior as a way to block them for getting power positions.
Hypothetical example: if fraud behavior is due to Toxoplasma Gondii then you know that this person shall not work at a bank or at wallstreet as a hedge manager.
Example: If a person wants to be a jet pilot and its discovered the adrenal cortex glands produces the wrong level of cortisol then its known it will cause sleep deprivation who then degenerates situation awareness.
Example: Well known these days Mr Hitlers personal doctor Theodor Gilbert Morell pumped Mr Hitler full of various drugs so he was constantly high, most likely he hadent made all those crackpot decision if drug free.
So yes "greed" has a reason, which one we yet dont know but in 50 years time i bet we do.
-
...
Nope, far from it. The workforce is not the management.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
...
What caused the 2008 crash? The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, allowing the US taxpayer to be soaked by the failure of these huge companies that deliberately pumped up their books with "nina" (no income, no assets) loans for properties whose valuations were set unrealistically, insanely high.
Loan companies deliberately wrote as many loans as they could - loans to bad credit risks knowing that the changes which had been made would end up costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars. And now they want to do it again.
...
I do not understand your statement "Nope, far from it. The workforce is not the management. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Not every company is privately owned. For most companies, most folks in Management are (at least in the USA) part of the work force. When a company retracts or dies, VP's get laid off along with the janitor just the same.
Now if you are talking about senior management (first or second level away from CEO, head of divisions, so forth), they are still employees but may be judged different and surely paid different. Achieving objectives and stock price probably has a lot to do with their bonus (non-salary compensation). Their bonus would dwarf their fixed salary. This is no different than sales rep's typical small salary but could drawn big commissions depending on sales volume. And both are no different than waiters/waitresses taking a small salary with the lion share of the income coming in as "tips" (gratitude).
As to the 2008 crash... Discussion of the 2008 crash probably exceeds what this forum is for. Governmental pressure to increase lending (to give poorer people a chance to own home) is as guilty as profit motive so I would not be too quick to blame the banks for it. I will leave it at that before I get too far into a political discussion.
So, to get back into discussion about careers...
This distraction really shows that the role of the job has as much to do as the field the job is in. If you are in senior management, EE could be very little different than Banks and very little different than a Meat packing company.
One of my classmate from undergraduate actually deal with Pork, I was surprise his worries and mine were very similar. If your given management objective is to cut cost 50% and your income depends on that - you roll with it and cut whatever you need to cut, or resign and let your boss find someone else to do it.
If you are a day to day grunt, you roll with it just the same. Find the one (field/role) you can most live with. EE may be a difficult field to survive, but other fields have their draw backs too. Recall just not so long ago, I posted something about New York City taxi drivers killing themselves - because of Uber like technologies taking their livelihood away. So, every industry has its drawbacks. Grass just look greener on the other lawn so don't be too quick to abandon your own lawn (EE field) only to find the same brown grass after you get there.
Understand that we are talking grunt-ish jobs in this paragraph, you have little or no control because the "big boys" are deciding your life behind closed doors. So, whether your current job role is bearable or not, adjust the dial. Even if you love the role, make sure that the dial is not set at zero because your cheese might have been moved.
You don't live to work, you work to live. Mean time, always seek improvement. May be something as little as having a coffee pot put in can make your job a hell of a lot easier to deal with. And always watch your cheese even if you don't like how it tastes. You may depend on it a lot more than you like.
-
I was mostly talking about the fact that Google's workforce is coming out against their being asked to set up censored Chinese version, and defense industry contracts which track vehicles which may be used for targeting drones, etc. People in computing, perhaps more so than many other fields, tend to have egalitarian values.
There has been a big discussion recently about ethics in computing, a debate which is reflected in the creation of a code of ethics or similar in many open-source projects. Basically, many, perhaps most people working in computing want their work to be a positive force for good, not a means of oppression.
Most corporations likely do too, in addition to making a living doing something they like. I think though that the institution of the corporation is inherently amoral, not bad, not good, just amoral. As it was set up that way, to protect wealth, even if the people who make them up are moral, human human beings.
"I do not understand your statement "Nope, far from it. The workforce is not the management. Nothing could be further from the truth."
One of the things I was getting at is that for people to become really good at things, which is going to become absolutely essential for people to even get a job of any kind in them in the future, they are going to have to genuinely like doing them. So much so that they would likely be motivated to do them even if money did not exist. Or was not at issue. It seems to me that (most?) of the real geniuses I've known have been less driven by money than most of us. Or else they just would be unwilling to spend the time required to get to that level. This is likely to become more and more obvious. I think thats going to act as a limit on how far the profit-obsession - i.e. the joy-destroying aspect of society this thread is about, will be able to go along that path.
Its like what they used to say about the Internet, that it routes its way around censorship.
-
I was mostly talking about the fact that Google's workforce is coming out against their being asked to set up censored Chinese version, and defense industry contracts
...
There has been a big discussion recently about ethics in computing, a debate which is reflected in the creation of a code of ethics or similar in many open-source projects....
...
I think though that the institution of the corporation is inherently amoral, not bad, not good, just amoral. As it was set up that way, to protect wealth, even if the people who make them up are moral, human human beings.
I had to give a pause first... I was reluctant to reply initially because it seem to stray too far from the topic. But since talking about employer is part of talking about jobs , I think this may still be appropriate.
I agree with you 100% that corporation is inherently amoral, etc., all your point there. A for profit corporation is there to make profit for its stock holders. That they are amoral is okay, but we the society has to control them as such. Where their ethics is falling short, they need to be self-aware enough to know that. If not, society (laws) need to come in to make sure they are aware they are just another average profit seeking businessman no different than the used car dealer down the road.
Case and point: Google employees coming out against their own censored Chinese version is a good thing. But do they realize the damage to freedom in the way they censor free speech in their non-Chinese (USA/Western Europe) version? Probably not. Probably, they still think they are a force for good when instead many think they are mere ideologues pushing their own agenda.
Nothing wrong with even pushing their own agenda. They are a "for profit" organization and that is what they should do. We (the society) therefore have to manage them like a "for profit" organization and apply the monopoly rules (Sherman act) to ensure that they are "behaving" at least legally speaking.
...
One of the things I was getting at is that for people to become really good at things, which is going to become absolutely essential for people to even get a job of any kind in them in the future, they are going to have to genuinely like doing them. So much so that they would likely be motivated to do them even if money did not exist.
...
Liking what one actually do to make a living certainly would be a plus. With automation and robotics today, I think we are entering a very murky era that the outcome is hard to predict.
The problem Desk Set (1957) portrayed with automation is trivial in comparison to what we can accomplish with today's automation.
- Flat screen readers like Dave (of Space 2001) use is reality today. Even a conversion with a HAL9000 like entity is reality today.
- The Terminator III's robotic soldiers portrayed in the General Brewster's HQ is certain coming to reality as we speak.
- The FedEx delivery man portrayed in i.Robot is certain coming into reality if not for FedEx but surely for Amazon as we speak.
Tasks that is rule-based can be easily done with robotics. Heuristic self-learning implementation makes machine unpredictable. Witness Microsoft's bigot chatbot (Tay AI) shows the danger of machine learning by itself. We don't know what it learned.
I think we are entering an inflection point. How we come out is yet to be determined. Human arrogance will probably be a big hurdle for us to overcome.
...
Its like what they used to say about the Internet, that it routes its way around censorship.
Yeah, but then came Google and Facebook and the rest... That kind of blew away the "way around censorship"...
-
I came to the conclusion that the creation of the supranational corporation existing in the rarefied space above countries as leading to a lot of the news stories we see today in a sort of logical progression. Also, the creation of the WTO and its many agreements, particularly ones involving telecommunications, led to a state where all countries monies were equal, meaning, if they are willing to pay for it, if one is, all countries must be entitled to all data collected, all data becomes surveillance data.
Just as all corporations desire equal treatment by countries, much of the content of trade agreements is concerned with creating what are alleged to be level playing fieldsfor corporations from around the world to compete in.
US trade policy, in all respects, many of the little known, bad positions our country takes on issues that have the potential to impact people are based on how US corporations want to be reciprocally treated overseas, especially when they invest in setting up expensive facilities like factories there.
We have to agree to allow or disallow similar things here, because they want to get them overseas from other countries in return.
With the domain of countries being political things, and the domain of corporations being whatever they sell (in this case technologies, information, and data transmission.)
That means that if one country gets a (surveillance) back door from any corporation, and that becomes known, they all likely are entitled to it.
All the stuff we see in the news on stories like that may be an act/cover up of this fact.
Unless I am wrong on something, one thing leads to another and my conclusion has been that in practical terms, this likely means the end of all revolutions and the end of real democracy.
This is because people don't exist at this higher level, by design. We are just parts of markets, the rights to which can be bought and sold, value which now cannot be devalued by state action, like changing or making of new laws (which is called 'indirect expropriation') without compensation being paid to investors whose investment is adversely impacted!