| ▲ | tossandthrow 7 months ago |
| This approach to careers fails to take into account that we inherently change as people. In periods of ones life other things matters - maybe it is taking an education, starting a family, etc. Other periods work matter. It should be entirely fine to switch it on and off and change tracks throughout life - and in my view it seems like it is! To reach a peak it takes roughly 10 years, but these 10 years can be started at 40 when your kids does not wear diapers anymore. |
|
| ▲ | Sebb767 7 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| > This approach to careers fails to take into account that we inherently change as people. OP very much talks about this in the last few paragraphs, both in that you can't plan exactly and that you need to course correct as things change. Also, just because it's okay or may happen that you change tracks within your career, it's still a good idea to optimize the track you are currently on and have an idea of where you want to be. Just coasting because you can't possibly plan your life seems like a strictly inferior option. |
| |
| ▲ | tossandthrow 7 months ago | parent [-] | | You make it sound like I implied that one should life their life nihilistically or with indifference - I definitely do not think one should do that. I thnk there is most satisfaction in putting yourself 100% into whatever you do. But what you do is not strictly limited to your work. Sometimes you put yourself 100% into your family, sometimes it is education, and sometimes it is work. | | |
| ▲ | Sebb767 7 months ago | parent [-] | | That's fair, but my point is: Irrespective of whether you put 100% or 20% into your work, you should do some planning of your career so that whatever percentage you put into it is reasonably spent. Even when you just plan on spending 10% on your work, planning where you want to end up makes sense. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rakejake 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think the OP is talking about whether to focus on running the race or not, but rather which race to run. As you grow older, the number of open tracks diminishes and that is the point the OP is trying to make. While one can change tracks at any time, success is far from guaranteed. Being a distinguished engineer at 40, one cannot suddenly decide to enter the track for CFO or CEO. The track for that accepted entries 10 years back and is already over-subscribed. Only the CTO track is open at that point and only in certain companies. |
| |
| ▲ | Gud 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Disagree here. Start your own company, boom, you are the CEO. | | |
| ▲ | 12thhandyman 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Can’t really tell if this is tongue in cheek but starting a company doesn’t make one CEO. It makes them a partner/owner but typically CEO needs a board of directors etc | | |
| ▲ | ido 7 months ago | parent [-] | | I don’t see where you get that definition. If you’re the one running the company, you’re the CEO. You may argue you need employees to be a CEO rather than a consultant but you certainly don’t need a board of directors. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tossandthrow 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think the number of open tracks diminishes. But I do think we generally focus. When one is 55 it is probably not too interest to attempt to go into the race to become and investment banker. Not because it is inherently impossible, but because there are more interesting opportunities. Or at least: I think this narrative is the most productive, and the one I will stick to. | | |
| ▲ | rakejake 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Depends. If one had been planning to shift tracks earlier in life but something got in the way, there would be some disappointment that the window for that track had passed. But your narrative implicitly signals acceptance of one's station and a realistic assessment of the tracks still open which is probably the right way to go. |
| |
| ▲ | valval 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Source: made it up. |
|
|
| ▲ | la64710 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And also I want to acknowledge everything that ends our career is not in our control .. like the dual forces of global offshoring / outsourcing and relentless automation (including AI driven) will continue to put downward pressure in the career curves of tech workers for next few years/decades. |
| |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | It's interesting that the common sentiment on HN a couple of years ago was the polar opposite of that. I lost count of the number of comments that affirmed the boom was going to go on forever. Software was eating the world, etc. | | |
| ▲ | CoastalCoder 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | I should point out that a perceived shift in the general opinion of the overall group doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of individuals within that group had a shift in opinion. I.e., it's probably affected by who bothers to voice their opinion, and how memorably, at different times. | |
| ▲ | mettamage 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Software is steal eating the world, just not for employees. But we will integrate with tech more, as a society. I wonder where brick and mortar stores will be in 20 years. |
| |
| ▲ | ponector 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | It depends on the perspective. Global offshoring/outsourcing does an upward pressure in the career curves of tech workers anywhere around the world except few countries. |
|
|
| ▲ | mettamage 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Well said: I think in this sense, flexibility is key. |
| |
