When I was just getting started in my first couple years of learning, I blogged at least once a week about what I was excited about and what I was learning.
It was a good way to put words to thoughts and solidify things I've learned. It also helped keep me on track, I could look back at what I wrote last week and keep myself on track and honest to myself that I was going to follow through.
I should probably pick this back up since it was an effective means for learning. No one ever read what I wrote but some times it helps to put it out there in the public instead of a diary in order to kind of force yourself to stay with it.
This will sound extremely elitist/classist, but...the majority of his supporters are probably not familiar enough with constitutional law to understand how embarrassingly disconnected from reality this suit is.
I don't see 1031 exchange mentioned much in the discussions of housing problems. People who own real estate absolutely lose their shit when this is brought up as something that should go away which is by itself a pretty good indicator. There's so much tax collection being 'lost' on this it's something that should be repealed but likely won't.
I have also noticed that although people are recognizing their is a massive growing homeless population in all cities, particularly the west coast, it gets pushed away as just a bunch of drug users on fent, instead of realizing the bulk of these people became homeless in the last 3 years as housing and rentals have blown up in costs without wages matching.
There's so little resources for the people at the bottom suffering homelessness, the only thing keeping a lot of people housed right now is the soon-expiring eviction moratoriums.
I don’t have a problem with the tools in the tax code to defer realization for capital gains taxes during a lifetime e.g. 1031 exchange, traditional 401(k) or IRA, in-kind redemption for ETFs, etc., so long as the taxes eventually do get paid on the gains. The real issue in my opinion is the loopholes in the tax code to avoid capital gains taxes completely e.g. step-up basis on death + $11.7 million estate and gift tax exclusion per person, $500k capital gains tax exclusion for sale of a home for a married couple (Section 121), Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts, Roth IRAs.
Yeah they're about to expire, just like they've been about to expire for a year. I'll believe it when I see it.
"The Biden administration announced on June 24 an extension of the federal eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through July 31, 2021, and that it will implement a whole-of-government approach to prevent an historic wave of evictions this summer" [0]
I work at a place now that ditched the time estimates and the sprint planning meetings and standups that go along with that and it's so much better.
Time estimates are always wrong, it always slips to the right. This is always used against you. You suffer because of it. Your work suffers because of this.
I get a couple extra hours a week by not doing daily standups, retrospectives, sprint planning, etc etc. This allows tasks to be shipped faster.
If there's a problem I communicate it up and stakeholders understand.
Want to know how long it might take? Look at some historical tasks in Jira and compare timestamps.
At my last company I worked on two very different sides of it throughout my time there. One side did no estimates at all as the nature of the work could afford that. The other side heavily relied on estimates and spent a lot of time planning and creating them. I found the non-estimate side of the company vastly more sane, enjoyable, less stressful, etc.
I get why stakeholders want estimates, don't get me wrong. But I can't help but think just letting them go and trusting the team is ultimately more effective in many cases.
Asking for estimates is fundamentally an expression of distrust. It’s obviously unpleasant to have to participate in a regular ritual in which those in power over you express their distrust.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes distrust or limited trust is justified, but it’s not an ideal.
if one day a month, just fly in. I fly in for a week per quarter (pre-covid). My main office is in SoCal, but I live several states away. Budgets pay for the travel.
Anyone else get a "2% inflation raise" this year? Have you brought up rising inflation and pointed out that raise doesn't match reality? Did your employer agree to give you an extra couple percent?
I like my job and my employer but after getting that pittance after last years bs and now high inflation I'm not sure it's worth arguing for a bigger bump retroactively (showing my hand when I don't get it) and instead I think it might be easier to just find a new job.
Statistically, you'll make more money if you switch jobs every 2 years and right now there's huge demand for talent, so it's probably a good idea to switch.
This might be true in tech world but in local economies does not make sense. How can folks “switch jobs” every two years when there may not be equivalent opportunities in many cases?
I’d also like to point out that while many tech folks are just as fickle with their jobs as they are with programming languages, there is a lot of benefit to holding one’s post and trying to build a better company, too.
That being said at some places stagnation can happen and then it’s obvious to switch jobs, but stability can offer many benefits over arbitrary switching for more money.
> I’d also like to point out that while many tech folks are just as fickle with their jobs as they are with programming languages, there is a lot of benefit to holding one’s post and trying to build a better company, too.
Why? Why should I spent my time/energy at a company that doesn't pay me what I'm worth? I've played this game before and it's not worth it. I've been on committees, I've organized events for work, I've worked on building team/company moral, written surveys and studied survey results, planned meals/outings, etc. That company did not reward that behavior at all and not matter how hard I pushed they wouldn't move on certain things (remote work being top of list but also treating all employees with dignity/respect). All I got was tiny "cost of living" pay increases (3% or less) even as my contributions increased at a much faster rate. I left that job and got a very sizable "raise" and I recommend other people do the same thing. You (often) have zero equity in the company and thus zero incentive to change it for the better, life is way to short to toil away for someone else's gain when they don't reward you for your effort.
Of course each situation can be unique. I wouldn’t recommend staying at any place that overworks employees or unfairly compensates them.
I am referring to tech folks arbitrarily switching jobs JUST for a pay increase, every year or two years. What’s left behind many cases is in maintainable code where people shrug it off as “someone else’s problem.”
There is an easy way for businesses to fix that though: Pay people more. If you compensate people for what they worth they will stay, if you don't they will leave. I don't think it's a good idea to shame people into staying in a job where they are being paid less than they could earn on the open market. Also why should I stay indebted to a company that won't/can't pay what I'm worth? Loyalty died a long time ago. There are no pensions or other incentives to stay and businesses lay people off at the first sign of trouble. If a business can fire or lay me off without warning then I'm not going to feel bad about leaving (and often giving 2-4 weeks notice).
New jobs paying more is inflation. You're supposed to get a new one if the old one doesn't give you a raise. It's a way to allocate workers efficiently.
> I think debating inflation predictions for both the employer and employee could be an endless / counter productive and exhausting thing.
Yes, and OP seems to be on the verge of a new approach - find a new job.
I’d also assume that inflation doesn’t hit the country evenly, and sectors, regions and individuals all experience it differently. The OP could be considerably better placed or worse off than the mean.
I could be based on the most recently available data.
I mean, one of the main reasons we see so much inequality today is that workers haven't demanded inflation increases. The tactic of negotiating for it on merit is good, but it's good to have this as a fallback and to understand if your merit increase really is an increase or not even keeping pace.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. We are saying similar things. I think you just mean the real wage stays the same if you get an inflation adjustment. My point was without that adjustment (or an adjustment less than the inflation rate) the real wage decreases.
Not having inflation based pay raises is exactly equivalent to taking an automatic pay cut every year, which by your logic you only avoid if you "preformed well".
I've seen big sector contracts (e.g. 10k-100k employees) with it built in for a fixed number of years. Presumably the negotiators talked through some indicators originally.
I've also seen several 'eh, on average it's about 2%" type giving leading to a 2% written into your comp.
I've also seen places give it but not in your contract; based on execs opinion I guess on what real cost-of-living was doing. I suppose that's plausibly as accurate as picking an index.
The two concepts are so intertwined they are often rolled together.
FWIW I've seen contracts with separate clauses (e.g. something like everyone gets 2%, if you live in this city or this city you also get a 5% col adjustment). The non-inflation aspect of c-o-l changes is usual housing related and regional, I think (or based on remoteness)
The pay raise I expect is so much more than inflation. If I got less than 20% total comp increase at low numbers or less than $100k at high numbers, I’m assuming my performance is insufficient and I’m going to find a place to be more productive. At the point where we’re debating 2% increases, I don’t really care. I’m gone. You know it, I know it.
I’m not special. This is San Francisco as much as I know.
You can, but inflation isn’t a constant across industries, regions or individuals. It’s a shitty argument to get into - but not ha I got the argument guarantees the outcome.
Go to a competitor. It can be a farce sometimes, when people from two different companies across the street essentially just replace each other for 20% more, but doing the exact same job. And then two years later they repeat and switch chairs again for another 20%.
Maybe there's some benefit to the companies in having stuff like this happen (learning a bit more about the competition), but the negative consequences that result from the loss of talent and internal knowledge seem to be avoidable in this situation if they just worked things out over pay.
Just go looking for a different job at all the top companies in your area. Some of them will offer you a job, and when negotiating pay, ask for 20% more than what you're making now. Simple as that.
This is a lot harder than you make it sound. I have worked in sectors where people would worry that asking that question would terminate the interview - hospitality for one.
What do you have to lose? If there are a lot of companies interviewing (high demand), you just interview at a couple of them. When they ask how much you expect, tell them 20% more than what you are making now. If they say that can't be done, just politely say that it doesn't make sense for you to join at that time, but perhaps in the future another role will open up.
Then, at least you can go home knowing that you are already making what the market can bear, and you aren't leaving money on the table.
So my area doesn't have very many good companies for tech workers. There aren't a lot of tech jobs open here for intermediate devs. Most of the ones I do see are showing estimated salaries 10-20% less than mine already.
I'd say that that's more a reflection of the overall political alignment of that community you've seen rather than anything else.
Just as how reddit swings left, and thus comes with massive aoc/whatever figure the right likes to hate support, that community on Facebook swung right and thus has a higher rate of "left hates this guy" Support.
AoC was selected as the example due to her "dunking on the right" reddit popularity thats analogous to the "destroyed with facts and logic" Shapiro crowd.
That twitter account captures "the sources of the 10 top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages every day, ranked by total interactions.", it's not just some part of Facebook. This is Facebook.
Yeah, it is. I did check that twitter feed afterward. I didn't edit as it doesn't really affect the point I was making. People just love dunking on their enemies.
> The article describes the drone buzzing the original CBP chopper as well as flying an orbit around the police helicopter. It is reasonable to suggest that a collision between the drone and either of those helicopters would be fatal for the pilot. No military pilot I know would ever create the type of risky scenario as described here.
Because CBP encourages assholes, while the military usually kicks them out (at least if they're assholes to civilians). One of the two values discipline, and it's not CBP.
A gram of wax lasts me probably 50+ hits. It seriously lasts a long time. A tiny little crumb you can pinch out of the jar is more than enough for a big hit
It was a good way to put words to thoughts and solidify things I've learned. It also helped keep me on track, I could look back at what I wrote last week and keep myself on track and honest to myself that I was going to follow through.
I should probably pick this back up since it was an effective means for learning. No one ever read what I wrote but some times it helps to put it out there in the public instead of a diary in order to kind of force yourself to stay with it.