← Feed
@gatesvp@mstdn.ca
2026-08-09 09:41 UTC
@mayintoronto@beige.party @Amgine@mamot.fr
... And yet they want the Engineer team to maintain the monstrosity that none of their peers built...
At some point, it just makes rational sense to cut over to the other things that matter to you.
If you got into the field because you Loved to program software, and you just spent the last 8 months having management tell you that you're not doing that anymore, then you move to building something else you also love.
To be clear, this isn't just about the robots problem. The grander scope, software has stopped really growing. It has moved very heavily to corporate rent collection. That means a lack of growth potential for workers. And it means whatever work you were doing will be cut. Whatever work you're supposed to do in the future is going to be cut. Even if it was clear the company needed to do that work.
The corporate monopolies in Tech are so powerful, they can afford 100x more bugs before people start turning them off. It may be a 1000x, they won't know unless they try 🤡 //
Replies (1)
-
@gatesvp@mstdn.ca @mayintoronto@beige.party @Amgine@mamot.fr Right, it's always been boundary-pushing from the corpos. Why did we have high pay and good working conditions in the first place? Because there was a bit of gold rush thinking upstairs about what you had to give programmers to persuade them to join your company and stay there.
But we're expensive. We are so fucking expensive. We (usually) earn it more than most jobs in this inverse-pay-to-effort economy, especially with the workaholism, but it's a lot. So there was always going to be a reckoning someday where the bosses started chiseling those salaries and benefits down to see how far they could go before hitting a breaking point. It is for the best for that breaking point to still be very high, because the alternative is tolerating doing what we do for fire sale prices for the rest of our lives.
Open ##5148699