Mikes work account wrote:
>I like what someone said in one of the previous posts:
>
>1. It lets anyone listening know that we are not to be taken for granted
>and,
>
>2. We sometimes learn that where we are is not as bad as it seems.
>
>My only issue is that I have been told that I am making as much as I can
>expect in this position,, and according to all the salary sites that I
have
>visited, I am being underpaid by a bunch. That having been said,,, who in
>their right mind would hire a sixty year old man!! ;o)
>
>I find that part the most difficult to accept.
>
>I guess my only choice is to try to pick up extra work that I can do
>online. Talk about a tough assignment!
>
>Michael C. Rock
>
To find small chunks of work online, you might look at:
www.elance.com
You can bid on small projects. Unfortunately, you have to pay a
subscription fee ($25/mo?) in order to bid, whether or not you ever win
a bid. Also, it seems that there are a lot of bids coming in from
countries such as India. I am glad to see technology flourishing in
these countries, but it is hard for an American to underbid someone for
whom $120/mo is a good salary.
For an interesting examination of out-out-out-sourcing software
development, check out "The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer"
and "The Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer" both by
Yourdon. In his earlier book, he predicted that Americans would be
unable to compete because of the low cost of overseas development. In
his later book, he reversed himself; it seems that one hot-shot
programmer is worth quite a few drudging-along programmers. For some
reason America produces a lot more hot-shot programmers than other
cultures that produce programmers (perhaps our near-maniacal embrace of
individuality?)
Regardless of cultural distinctions, if a project is small-enough that
one great, "cowboy" programmer can do the entire project, then that is
usually very efficient* (the end-product may suffer somewhat from the
single-mindedness of this programmer, but the productivity is high). As
soon as you have to create a team with 2 (maybe 3)** or more developers,
so much time is lost in coordination, communication, MEETINGS, etc. that
your efficiency goes downhill really fast. Contracting to have a
project executed by a large team of merely competent programmers might
be more expensive (especially over the lifecycle of the entire project)
than paying one or two hot-shots.
* However, if your One programmer gets hit by a bus, then the entire
project may have to start-over from scratch! Note that the "bus" might
be a lucrative job offer or a paralyzing attack of
boredom/frustration/over-management.
** One exception that I have read about is "Extreme Programming", that
seems to advocate a team of exactly two developers working very closely
(there is much more to it than this, but the partnership is one central
tenet). I have never tried it. It has gotten good buzz, but most of
the worst techno-fads have gotten gobs of great buzz. Anybody on this
list tried Extreme Programming in a professional setting?
--ronan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:08:03 EDT