This is a very inspiring story and the quintessential manifestation of JFDI. It takes some serious guts to quit your job and say "i'm going to build a software product", with no ideas to start with. I hope Carl can keep growing Soti or even start something else once he gives the reigns to his managers.
This is also the quintessential manifestation of survivorship bias - for every company that succeeds there are plenty of examples of people who quit their job, start a company and then fail after losing a pile of money, and have to get a job again.
The important thing is to understand that and then use it to motivate yourself to work harder on your idea.
That was the overriding thought in the back of my mind too, when I read the article.
I sincerely mean "Well done" to Carl for what he has achieved, and how he did it, but I think that more than one person who reads this article will quit their job shortly and try and achieve the same thing to the same scale that he did. It is still somewhat a game of chance. Nothing is guaranteed. I've been there, and I know the scene well.
I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what makes someone succeed where others fail. There is an element of luck involved, but you can greatly improve your chances by doing things like working hard, understanding the problem you're solving, really talking to your customers, getting a mentor, saying no to distractions, etc. Those things wouldn't have any impact if it really was a lottery.
Three years ago before doing a startup I would say it is more talent than lottery.
After three years I'm bound to believe in the lottery. Sometimes those calls do fall out of nowhere and dictate the survival or death of your company (so was our case).
Related to this, there is a Portuguese saying: "A sorte favorece os audazes", meaning: "Luck favors the bold ones". This was derived from the Roman empire, so for sure there has to be some reason to stick around for so long.
There are entrepreneurs that have success numerous times, many times in wildly different fields. Creating a successful business isn't a coin flip/lottery, it's tens of thousands of decisions over years.
I JFDI with VR. Had a stroke, got separated, sold the house in the posh neighbourhood. Now I live with my kids (part-time) in a 1 bedroom apartment ... moving to a 2 BR.
The same impulsivity that made me JFDI also made me terrible at focus and operations.
Now I make apps that make toddlers giggle, work in an almost no-stress environment where people really do leave at 5pm, and get paid twice a month.
Of course, I still have ideas and side projects...
I imagine the advice would be to do what works for you with the hand you're dealt. The context sounds like part of the decision to leave his or her old lifestyle and start something with VR, but also why it didn't work out. Making apps and small games sounds like a third career after the JFDI one, but one without complaints, since it is pleasant and stress free.
To take nothing away from this gentleman and his accomplishments, but consider if this timeline seems plausible:
1. Works in IT, daily faces all kinds of problems.
2. Quits job to make a software product
3. Suddenly realizes: I should make a product for the problems I faced back when I worked in IT!
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the true circumstances of what happened here. But, it's much cleaner and makes it much more unlikely for his former employer to come back at him if the narrative is: "I left. I was struck with inspiration the next day" than "While I was working for this other place, I built a prototype that I thought would work. When I was sure it did, I quit."
That to me would be a red flag unless the pay and other comp was phenomenal. Not talking about a facebook IPO or taking VC money, but thought train would be forget about any equity/options the company has been going for 15yrs, $1b turnover and thousands of staff and the owners haven't diluted any of their shares to even reward the longest most loyal executives.
They have 80 million in revenue and 700 employees.
That's a fairly large number of employees for that amount of revenue.
How on earth can they be worth 10 billion?
If he has no intention of selling or going public why would it matter? Even if he was giving out equity it would have no value since there aren't going to be any liquidation events.
To me it would be more of a red flag if he was giving away equity because he would be giving something that he knows will never have any value.
This may be different in Canada, but in the US if a company is owned 100% it makes more sense to have it taxed as an S Corp. In that case all "distributions" are salary that is taxed as ordinary income.
This is done because even though the income tax rate is high, it is lower than getting double taxed (paying corporate tax rates plus playing capital gains).
So generally if a company is owned 100% by one person there are no distributions. This means for a company like this equity has virtually no value and profit sharing is a far better deal for everyone involved.
Some private companies distribute equity to employees; it pays dividends and sometimes gives voting rights. Taken to an extreme, this can result in the company becoming a cooperative.
it sounds like this company actually has ongoing profits, which means the shares do have value even without a liquidation event. Even closely-held small firms with little turnover can be valued (e.g., partnership buy-outs, unexpected death of a key shareholder, divorce).
> partnership buy-outs, unexpected death of a key shareholder, divorce
Since this company is 100% owned by Rodrigues, all of those events would require Rodrigues to decide to sell, or for him to die and for his heir(s) to decide to sell - all things that I would classify as liquidation events.
Maybe I am miscategorizing his viewpoints, but the article implied that Rodrigues doesn't plan on selling Soti.
So unless you are expecting Rodrigues to die soon I'm not sure what path exists for any other theoretical equity holders to gain any value from their equity.
A minority shareholder can force a liquidity event. For example, the founder gives 5% to a valued employee who after vesting and several years of company growth gets a divorce. Husband wants his 50% community property interest in those shares and the employee minority shareholder doesn't have enough cash. Court forces a sale.
Alternatively, employee pledges the shares as security for a loan and then defaults. Lender forecloses.
My point is this: there are ways for a minority shareholder to force a liquidity over the objections of the majority shareholders. Therefore those shares have value.
If he decided from the start that he wasn't going to take investors or go public, handing out stock would be incredibly misleading since there isn't any market to trade in or liquidity coming. In that case simply paying well and creating a good workplace, free of investor pressures, is exactly the right thing to do (I can't say if that is the case here).
"I don't think they realised that they were talking to just one guy in a basement, so when the person asked to speak to someone in sales I came back on the phone with a slightly different tone."
This takes the "Fake it till you make it" mantra perfectly!
Pretty cutting reviews even for Glassdoor, esp. the one accusing him of writing the reviews himself (a point that wasn't addressed in the reply). As people say, there's always two sides
I know from experience that comments on GlassDoor usually tend to err on the side of caution because people are afraid that saying too much will reveal too much of them. I've seen it first hand, having worked at a company owned by a german game developer that was having some major issues. Not once did I see anything untrue or misleading on GlassDoor, but had probably 2-3 things I could add to their posts.
In the meantime, you end up reading posts like these from people who would rather think that companies don't just suck. It's really annoying, because it's not as if you can reveal the whole situation to people just to prove that their "No, no, companies wouldn't just act like that / be so mismanaged".
> people who would rather think that companies don't just suck
I think most people have worked at somewhere that sucked, but even some cases (e.g. Uber) can still make a lot of us step back and wonder how a workplace managed to become that toxic.
Uber strikes me as a particularly bad example of this, to be honest. It's a company that's built on ignoring and circumventing the law and growth at any cost. Them not respecting worker laws and basic decency doesn't surprise me in the least.
Situations like these make me wonder about the Asian family-centric model of business. Many times it is touted as the way for minorities to get out of poverty, and here it seems to be the case because him and his wife are making out like bandits. However, it seems to be a terrible deal HR-wise where the founder's immediate community are favoured in hiring processes, leading to immense disgruntlement among the workers.
Nepotism seems fine to me for small businesses. Where is it touted for mature, global organizations? If anything, I believe it's frowned upon, alongside cronyism, despite the fact that it still happens. Of course one certain elected official is trying to make nepotism popular "again", as if it ever was. I can't think of a time when it was, aside from when kings and queens reigned, pre-democracy.
>Many times it is touted as the way for minorities to get out of poverty
The reason it is a good approach is that; when you think about poverty, one may go round and round in circles trying to uncover a panacea but it all comes down to productivity. Are a group of people/is a person able to produce goods and services? This (ability) could be hampered by a lack of skills relevant to the current economic environment among other things. To acquire said skills among other inputs, one requires capital. If you consume capital goods, it won't be possible to save up enough to acquire the aforementioned production inputs. Systems like the Asian family-centric one you mentioned earlier allows for 1) creation of capital goods through production and 2) preservation of capital goods through savings and reinvestment over multiple generations.
If there's capital for future generations in such a family, then acquisition of the relevant skills in an economic environment that's constantly mutating becomes plausible.
It starts with a sense of frugality in a bid to amalgamate capital that can be compounded over generations in the future. Without capital generation and preservation (by the subjects themselves in order to cultivate discipline), you have nothing in terms of wealth creation and poverty alleviation.
I've started sorting the reviews by Date lately instead of popularity. I find a better mix that way. It doesn't stay in that order though so I need to do it each time.
Niaje Majani? I'm very big on bootstrapping so I'd say kudos to Soti's founder. Your typical tech company in the news today is far from profitability and has either taken on a lot of VC funding or has an inordinate amount of debt to fuel growth. While this company financing model works sometimes, I find that it can abstract the reality of a business to make money i.e. it can be hard to know if there's a there there as far as monetization is concerned.
I prefer ventures that start generating revenue as soon as there are signs of traction (curious if this applies to ghafla in the early days). To this effect, I'm reminded of a story I read a while back on how tableau took on no external financing until they hit $100 million in revenue.
I met somebody the other day who works for a tiny start-up and said their MD frequently hires a couple of extra actors to make the office look busier when they have client meetings.
> One problem Mr Rodrigues says the company has faced, is struggling to recruit enough good computer programmers.
Well yeah, he's trying to run a software business in Mississauga. As a developer who used to commute to the 'Saug every day: very few of us want to work there. No decent food, no after work fun, just suburb hell for miles around.
He's competing with the banks and Amazon downtown in Toronto proper. He's also competing with Google Waterloo 30 minutes in the other direction for people not interested in living in the city. And he's going to be competing with them on pay as well as location.
Edit: woo, this may be my most controversial comment ever based on the point swings. I welcome counterpoints! Discussion is always good.
Thank you for a great idea for my next startup - an application to micromanage remote workers. It will be even better than office micromanagement since the boss will have a large screen where all the remote desktops will be visible and under control simultaneously and the boss will be able to assist remote developers get back on track should they ever consider taking any initiative or heaven forbid be creative. It will also make it much easier to spot activities that do not seem to be directly work related. I feel I'm really on to something :-)
What I'm saying is that a company that hires remotely very likely won't have issues hiring, because they haven't arbitrarily decided that what they do requires everyone to be in the same office.
If you're trying to hire for a place people don't want to work in or if you're having issues with skill levels of new hires, the solution is to widen the net: Not in terms of skill ranges, but in terms of geography.
Not everyone wants to work remotely and that's fine. Especially considering that for the vast majority of people, there is someone better than them out there that desperately wants remote work.
> a company that hires remotely very likely won't have issues hiring, because they haven't arbitrarily decided that what they do requires everyone to be in the same office.
Right, no issues hiring, but maybe some issues managing, communicating effectively, and completing work. You're potentially trading one set of problems for another.
Perhaps they've tried a bit of remote and it hasn't worked for them. We don't know.
Issues managing and completing work? How does remote make those issues any different? Do we write code on paper? Does a manager need to physically direct us to our keyboard?
When I hear comments like this I roll my eyes because those issues aren’t remote issues, those are incompetent manager issues – issues that don’t get resolved by simply sitting in an office.
Management, communication and productivity are challenges regardless of work location. Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.
If your workers can’t perform in a remote environment, then they aren’t going to suddenly get better by virtue of sharing a ping pong table.
I think the big thing is that if you work in an office you can more or less gauge if the person is working by glancing at them. Yes there are better ways to keep track of this, but by simply glancing at the person once every 30 minutes to an hour you can more or less gauge how much they appear to be working.
For remote work a manager has to be more on top of keeping track of his/her employees.
I understand you have strong opinions about this, FWIW I work remotely so yeah I get it.
> I think the big thing is that if you work in an office you can more or less gauge if the person is working by glancing at them.
It's much more than this for me. Coding still requires teamwork, and, short of everyone being able to execute perfectly without in-person discussion, it's useful to communicate with all human gestures being immediately apparent.
I'm surprised at the level of negativity here against office work. I expected people to argue it as another option- not that it should always be the only option for effective teams. I say this as someone who works remotely, and who prefers office work with the right people and not too long of a commute.
I think the bigger issue is just finding the right people with whom you work effectively, not whether work is done in the office or remotely.
> Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.
This strikes me as a bit rude and prejudicial. Not all of us are rockstars who can function effectively without social contact. I personally prefer a central meeting point and face to face communication.
All I'm arguing is that in-person work is preferable by some managers and employees. I'm not arguing that it should dogmatically be applied to everyone.
From your hn profile, I gather you understand yourself to be a bit disagreeable,
> I'm opinionated, inconsistent, irrelevant, irreverent and incontrovertible
I don't see that as a problem myself but I wonder, based on this statement, whether or not you've found working in offices to be effective for you. I'd also wonder if you ever admit to being wrong, and how you react under those circumstances. I'm not convinced you could lay any and all disagreement at the feet of insecure managers.
Or paid more. Whenever companies say "there's a skills shortage" or "we can't find enough good developers" or whatever, they are missing off the important "... for the price that we would like to pay" part.
I don't think most companies are. I will say I tried applying several years ago and during the initial phone interview I was told I would get exactly my salary at my current company and no raise if I came aboard, before any technical interview. After that I was sent an email telling me exactly how to dress for my second interview... I declined.
I was later in their office on Hurontario near the 401 for a HackerNest meetup. I was speaking with a manager of theirs and mentioned someone who I knew that worked there, to find out he no longer did and he laughed about this person with a colleague.
I love hearing about a Canadian success story but their culture seems a bit off.
Exactly. Soti is paying on average $80k/year for their non-senior devs (source:glassdoor). That's $20k/year less than the median starting salary of graduates from my undergrad. Of course, they are in Canada, but still, it's no wonder they're having trouble hiring people. Just pay more for less positions...
Yes they are in Canada where they don't need their employers-sponsored health insurance, get more vacation time, don't have huge student debt, and can't get laid off with no severance and no notice.
Just as a rebuttal, I don't have student debt and get plenty of vacation time, and my employer has pretty amazing health insurance. Not everyone is lucky this way but I personally would never move to Canada for a tech job and don't know anybody who has done so, while I have definitely met many Canadians who have moved here.
The Canadian and US labor markets are pretty interconnected so in my opinion these companies are going to have to start raising salaries if they really want to get talent. I feel like I read something on HN every week bemoaning the Canadian tech industry, when most of the problems have a pretty simple solution: pay more. Of course, that's easy to say but not necessarily easy to do financially.
No argument here that the jobs are more lucrative, on paper, South of the border. Just trying to point out that there are lots of aspects to consider when you're looking at compensation. Being young, healthy, and single in the US can net you a lot, but I suspect that other bills would quickly eat up the difference if you aren't all 3 of those things.
As a Canadian who moved south for work and is rapidly approaching or in middle age, this is my position on the healthcare here: If you have good insurance, it is AMAZING! I understand that others have it worse, but all major software dev employers that I've looked at had really really great HI. In Canada OTOH, the service is much worse for non-emergency things, but everyone gets to have it. From an ethical standpoint, of course I support some kind of 'everyone gets sensible healthcare'. But I pay less out of pocket here than I would in Canada for my family of 5. Financially, moving back to Canada would be a disaster.
If the employer doesn’t pay health, then salaries should be much higher than the US. Salaries in the US are exclusives of health benefits. So an SV company paying $140k is paying that in addition to health benefits. A Canadian company is paying $60k AND they don’t have the additional expensive of health. Then on top of that low salary, the employee has to pay taxes which obstensiby funds their health care.
Perhaps it’s worker protection that makes salaries lower in Canada? If it’s harder to fire people, that cost gets spread across all salaries to reflect the risk of having an employee you can’t easily fire.
Canadaians make far less than Americans even after accounting for the “benefits.”
I once saw a company looking to hire a senior rails developer at $25 CAD per hour. Insanity. I think it was even for a Vancouver company.
The US has a "payroll tax", which is paid by companies and is usually a percentage of the salary paid to the employee. You may not consider it a "business tax", but others might.
Also, some cities have business taxes on a per-employee basis.
Additionally, there is potentially a lot of variance in business taxes between one state/province/municipality and another.
I don't believe for a second that the average amount a CS undergrad from any Canadian school is getting is 100k. The top students sure, they will get offers from big places in California for 90k USD but the top students are far from "average."
Even in the US when you consider the whole instead of just Silicon Valley that is not a reasonable number to expect.
Maybe if you have a PhD, but not from undergrad. If you have any sort of data to back this up please present it, because public statistics don't reflect this, and logic doesn't support paying an undergrad anything close to that.
You're right, I don't go to a school in Canada. But 90k USD is actually very low these days for places like Google/Facebook/MS so your comment is still not quite so up-to-date. 100k really is the median starting salary of graduating undergrads (at my undergrad, at least).
If Canada doesn't want all their CS graduates chasing the huge amounts of money they can make in the US, they need to raise their salaries. Otherwise they won't only face a tech-worker shortage, they'll have to deal with a full-on brain drain, which is even worse (of course, Google is expanding in Canada so hopefully this won't happen).
Our company has been fully remote for 3 years now and I don't think most programmers are capable of remote work. Poor communication, inconsistent work schedules, spending way too much time down rabbit holes that would have been avoided if we were in the same office, and generally not delivering the desired results on a reasonable timeline. In the past 5 hires, we had one employee who actually was a solid remote worker.
I'd love to a) know how to recruit good remote-capable employees and b) how to better manage remotely -- because at this point, we're going to open an office and hire locally.
Interstate taxation, necessary corporate filings/fees/forms, and offering healthcare in multiple states also make being fully remote incredibly difficult unless to restrict employees to being "remote" from the states in which you're already established.
there are a few hundred people at Wordpress.com and Automattic that would beg to differ. Give a read to "Year Without Pants," it's very interesting and might help your team make the transition.
I don't understand this. I have worked remote and semi-remote for several years at large and small US companies, with internationally distributed teams. Generally, we have run loose SCRUM/agile processes with good results. There is really nowhere to hide. Either the bug is fixed or it's not. The new feature is there, or it's not! You make stories/tickets. You run sprints. You check in code. You see passing or broken builds. You demo to customers or management that serving as proxies for customer interest. There is much imperfection in our processes, but basic visibility is good. The stakeholders can see Jira, Github, Jenkins/Teamcity. The devs cannot hide, so the work gets done.
i guess it depends on the project. if business side is not too complex and can easily be translated into jiras and stories, then developers should have a good grip on what needs to be done and why. then remote is fine.
but if business requirements, on the other hand, are complex, poorly understood or fluid, then developer will be absolutely lost and will start cranking up patterns instead of solutions. teamcity will be building alright and scrums will roll, but project will be a complete mess heading for a disaster. face to face will not save the day, but to some degree will mitigate lack of communication and understanding of common goal.
How is Waterloo 30 minutes in the other direction...Also Mississauga has grown and with the transit and rail systems, Toronto to Mississauga is a breeze so you don't have to live in Sauga to work there.
>No decent food, no after work fun, just suburb hell for miles around.
???
I live in Port Credit (south Mississauga)... I can tell you absolutely that is not the case. Also it would be hard to name a culture that didn't have food here.
Specifically my food problem in Mississauga was that lunch sucked. You had to drive at least five minutes from my office to get anywhere, and then it was just fast food. Maybe go a bit further to streetsville, get something a bit better. It was just corporate mid rises and suburbs everywhere else!
In Toronto, I am walking distance from everything after work, plus the subway to get me home. Port Credit may be cool, but it can't compete with that. Also, as you said that's south of Mississauga- again, we're going to have to drive everywhere.
That's just not there lifestyle I want, and very few in my office did- which was why we pushed so hard for a downtown office instead.
It's the southernmost neighbourhood in Mississauga, not south of it. I live and work (in IT) here. I can walk to several award winning restaurants within a couple minutes from my office at the marina here. Just look on Google Maps, this place is more walkable than most of TO and my rent is <$1000.
walk to the car, drive 5 min, find parking. same in reverse. at least 30-40 min wasted. esp during the winter.
i hate commuting to downtown toronto, but it is hard to beat the Path, abundance of pubs/restaurants and constantly bumping into people i used to work with (aka stay in the loop). there is no fricking loop in mississauga.
If you don't live or work in a walkable area, or that otherwise makes up for this somehow, this won't sound that awful to you. As a native Texan, this sort of thing didn't sound that bad to me in general. But once you work somewhere where a 5 minute WALK will net you two dozen food options, it's a big shift in your quality of life, as far as work lunch goes.
It takes me about 5 minutes to walk from my desk to my car. Then another 5-15 minutes to drive for food. Then a minute or two parking and walking to the restaurant - if I'm lucky. If I wanted to go somewhere popular during the lunch rush, or that has shitty parking, maybe that's 5-10 minutes finding a parking spot and walking.
It doesn't seem like a huge deal, but it really can be.
Depending where you are and the state of the roads at that time, port credit could be an hours (or more) drive away. Some way to spend your lunch break!
Weird, there are a bunch of software companies/jobs in the northern Atlanta suburbs. I've spent time in Oakville and Burlington and they are a lot like the suburbs here, can't speak for Mississauga. I feel like there is a cultural difference: here people will think nothing of driving 45 or 60 minutes across the city not just for commuting but for restaurants, entertainment, or visiting friends, but a similar drive there, Toronto to Hamilton for instance, is a major trip!
> Weird, there are a bunch of software companies/jobs in the northern Atlanta suburbs.
that definitely makes sense; the only reason anything aside from housing exists in the Altanta suburbs is because of how long it takes to get anywhere more than a couple miles from where you live. Our company has an office in the midtown area, and the work schedule for a large part of the office is:
I can't imaging working anywhere in Atlanta that requires you to have your ass in the office at 8. I've heard people in Atl joke about how they used to be friends with someone that moved 10 miles away, and they can't hang out anymore cause it legitimately takes too long to get there.
Living in Toronto now, I can't imagine doing all that driving. (I used to live in Barrie, ON and did way too much driving).
The TTC subway is hated here, but I love it. Commuting is a breeze, no effort, no stress, and I always know I can get home if I go out for drinks after work.
Seems like any company in Ontario should have a really easy time hiring just by offering competitive salaries. They wanna offer $100K CAD and think that's high, come on. Bump that up to 130K (that's only 100K USD) and perhaps some people would be interested.
I met someone else complaining about this, that they hired everyone they could and were desperate. Their salaries were around $60K. Don't see how anyone can be scratching their heads over that.
It's become cliche for companies to complain about a talent shortage while wage statistics don't rise in response. I've heard restaurant owners complain about not being able to attract and retain quality wait staff while they pay the tipped minimum wage (less than $3 per hour).
This attitude has to change.
If a company can make significantly more money by hiring someone, then they should be aggressively increasing wages to signal to the market that they are serious. It's basically refusing to participate in the free market, or a complete lack of understanding of how markets work.
Business managers frequently act like they understand economics better than economists yet this attitude should telegraph a level of cluelessness that makes them unfit to manage a hiring process.
Everyone wants to pay less and get more talent. If you can't afford to pay more then compete on other aspects---allow remote work, more flex-time, and so on. Try something different in your interviews. Offer apprenticeships.
Sometimes it's not even a pure talent shortage that force increasing wages. In San Francisco the housing shortage and lack of support for new construction wipes out a lot of gains that come with higher salaries.
> In San Francisco the housing shortage and lack of support for new construction wipes out a lot of gains that come with higher salaries.
You can even see that problem get worse as people leave. Fantastic dev I worked with moved from Seattle back to India. She said that yes, she made more money in Seattle, but cost of living was so low in Bangalore that she effectively made a lot more money there. Coupled with her family being closer, it made perfect sense.
If you don't care about buying 'big ticket' items e.g. iPhones, MacBooks, VR, etc, - this is true. But these items don't change in price depending on where you are, and are likely much harder to buy as a result.
Some of us have no desire to actually own a house, as far as a home goes. I'm no opposed to buying a house for investment, but have no real urge to live in my own house.
unless the difference between your rent spend and a hypothetical mortgage is well invested, you're very likely worse off renting. after all, your rent is paying someone else's investment mortgage!
Rental life is a simpler life. It means someone else is responsible for fixing your sink when it leaks. The biggest financial risk renters take is not getting their deposit back due to necessary repairs when they vacate at the end of their lease terms.
And, from an investment point of view, maintenance may not be worth it if you believe that housing prices are too high and that a correction will be coming in the short to medium term. Why spend your own money on repairs if your house's value is going to tank in a few years anyway?
The problem is companies like this are constantly rewarded by young drop-outs and fresh grads who have faced adversity entering the job market and will take any job. These people are living with their parents and have never been truly employed. They will take these jobs and work their butts off, validating these same managerial processes.
You don't give them enough credit. This process works for them sometimes. And sometimes is evidently enough.
I think this arguably reinforces my point if a company has a process that works yet they complain about a talent shortage.
Part of this complaining can be an attempt to influence/distort government policy, justify a flawed or exploitative hiring process, or managing who to blame when they miss a quota.
I definitely agree that what you said is part of reality for some companies, which is why I think it's important to aggressively point out that there are solutions when the "skill shortage" is brought up.
Additionally, if underpaying younger talent is prevalent, then all the more reason a company should offer competitive salaries to recent graduates when faced with a shortage. They'd start booking some easy wins.
It would seem at least a little disingenuous for a company to hire new grads who will take any job and then turn around to complain about skills shortage. I'm not saying that grads don't ever have skills, but if the company tends to hire desperate noobs then they aren't (or are just barely) shopping for the skills they say they need.
It's frustrating. A huge number of top grads move to the US when they graduate for 30-50% higher pay, before exchange rate. Even Amazon will offer you 50% more to move to the US vs. Toronto.
Sure, but even if you count $1K a month for health insurance, it's still hardly competitive. Even at $2K they're only starting to get close. And from what I see, $120K CAD is basically the absolute top you're going to get as a very experienced dev.
I think that depends on the specific skillset they are looking for. In the systems software industry $120K CAD total compensation is about half of what a Senior Staff makes based on what I've seen.
Generally speaking, people need to start being more proactive asking for raises and switching to higher paying jobs if we want compensation in the GTA job market to improve.
This is part of the problem. Canadians are generally more complacent and have a lower tolerance for conflict compared to Americans from what I've seen. (I'm Canadian)
I can't speak for other regions, but for Vancouver $120k CAD is about the upper end of the middle. Most truly senior developers in the $150k-$180k range.
I'm just going off of what senior folks have told me in the Toronto area, for banking, or at big employers like AMD. $150-180k makes it far more reasonable, and if I had seen hints that offers would be close to that, I would have moved back to Ontario years ago.
Senior positions at EA, MS, and Amazon all pay at that level in Vancouver. That's what I was making as a TD at EA 7 years ago -- wow I can't believe it's been that long. Pretty much everyone in my peer group has a base salary in that range.
The problem in Vancouver is that it often feels like any PHP jockey with 3 years of industry experience is called "senior". This doesn't happen in other market's I've experienced. It happens here because the Vancouver talent pool is very shallow. We have a very wide base of low skilled juniors and intermediates with a very narrow point of experienced senior engineers. There are far more juniors than there is demand for juniors so that pushes down salaries. Conversely, there is a lot more demand for seniors, real seniors, than there is supply in the local market and that pushes up salaries.
It means Canadian salaries ought to be much higher since they aren’t paying health insurance for employees. It makes zero sense: US employers pay salary + health insurance. Canadian employees pay salary.
So it’s backwards. Canadian salaries should be a lot higher to reflect that they have a lower total employee cost.
But they also have the Skilled Worker immigration program that takes in people with specific skills and fast tracks them to a Canadian permanent residency (with higher priority given to people with job offers in hand.) Thus, they are able to attract talent from the rest of the world. I think that might help keep things low too, perhaps? Probably balanced a little bit by all of the Canadians who leave for the US searching for higher salaries?
I was wondering this too, and would love to hear the parent's reasoning.
One difference I can think of is that Canada has Universal Healthcare. Maybe the compensation system differs because Canadian companies can pay <Salary> and US Companies have to pay <Salary + benefits>?
(I mostly see people here on HN throwing salary numbers around, not total compensation. Also, I wonder if having the government handle benefits would make it easier to pay more (since companies don't have to pay benefits) or less (since companies just pay the government to do the benefits). )
If that was the case, Canadian employers should have the upper hand in competitive salaries, because they don't have to cover healthcare, and corporate taxes are also cheaper. This happened in the auto sector, where Canadian plants have enjoyed a few decades of favoured status compared to American plants due to lower employment costs. That's now changed since the UAW has caved in so much to the automakers and workers in the U.S. South will work for peanuts, on top of state government offering massive subsidies to attract new plants.
What happens is simply that many Canadians like Canada and don't want to move south, and the Canadian economy is poorer than the American one (in particular, there is way less VC investment per capita), so companies have less money to fight over developers, and many developers (like myself) are content with this market.
The one reason that occurs to me is the different expectations for social safety nets, which most people I think ignore when they are youthful and/or healthful. In Canada, losing one's job (sometimes following a bad health diagnosis) will not likely condemn the person to bankruptcy and worse. It was stunning to me how different Canadian society is compared to the US when one digs just below the surface. In some sense, the analogy that occurs to me is riding a motorbike (US) to riding a Camry (Canada) - the former is thrilling, full of freedom, and 'bad', until you get in an accident.
I agree that Canadian employers can totally up their hiring game by upping the miserly salaries but they could emphasize the social differences between Canada and the US to attract risk-averse/future-focused candidates.
It's about the personal calculus. It's easy to move to the US for work, if crap really hits the fan they can move back. The actual likelihood of that happening is minor, and if your young then it's rational to live in the USA for a 10-30 years and save up the huge compensation difference. If you stay long enough to reach 65, then you'll have medicare, and you can pocket the lower cost of living difference too.
Also employers pay for your medical insurance with pretty good plans, if you have a medical issue your paying at most ~$5k and $3k/yr for family medical insurance.
So universal healthcare isn't a good enough reason to not move to the USA. Also the US might get universal healthcare in that time span.
You are kind of proving my point: for Canadians to come to the US for more money as you state makes a lot of sense. You get to keep your Canadian citizenship and if things go badly, you move back. Also, re. 'employers pay for your medical insurance', the trouble is how long said employer will keep you around if some unforeseen illness comes about. COBRA, for which the premiums are very high, is good for another 18 months, assuming you have enough money saved up to pay for it along with the medical expenses brought about by the adversity.
I think my motorbike vs. Camry analogy is reasonable. Vast numbers of people ride motorbikes every day and live for decades without encountering a problem .Others can end up having their lives turned upside down as a result of some accident. A social safety net is not designed for everyone to bounce on but to catch the most unfortunate in society and help them cope as best as possible at their time of extreme adversity. My point is that the US, especially with the impending destruction of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid defunding, is about to lose its very short-lived and already weak safety net. If you can go back to Canada when adversity strikes, you are in good shape. Most people don't have that option.
I am aware that most companies will automatically buy a certain amount of disability insurance for employees with option to buy more, often as a pre-tax deduction. These cover, afaik, something like $1 million in expenses for the specific circumstance of disability. However, I think the overall sub-thread was discussing healthcare. It is not clear to me that a long-term debilitating disease, such as (heaven forbid) cancer, would be covered adequately by such plans. Certainly, even healthcare prior to the Affordable Care Act could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or if there ever was any lapse of coverage; for such circumstances, assuming the disability insurance applied, the money would get spent pretty quickly. Real disability expenses are often much more expensive than anticipated - the referenced link [1] shows the expenses for Texas governor Gregg Abbott, who was disabled by a falling tree trunk while jogging at age 27; he managed to negotiate a pretty good settlement with the homeowner and you can see that his disability, for which he was too young or unprepared to have purchased disability insurance, had cost $6 million as of 2013.
My intent was to outline the fact that the US safety net is weak and there are plenty of corner cases that one could fall into from which recovery will be tough. Reduction in Medicaid will only worsen this. If you have coverage that you feel covers you in a majority of worst case scenarios, then you are in good shape but hopefully you are up to date on your read of the coverages. The Canadian safety net, in my opinion, saves one a little bit from this planning.
In Canada, you pay for that healthcare via taxes, so pre-tax salary shouldn't be different. If you're on a high salary, you can get income protection and healthchare insurance.
Though I'll note that the US puts a higher percent of GDP into public healthcare expenditure than Canada (yes, Americans pay more taxes for healthcare than Canadians, despite not having much public healthcare), so I guess the US is just bad at doing healthcare efficiently. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL.ZS
I agree, Canadian employers are really not paying good wages for the same skills as the US. The reason for that, AFAIK, is Canada's skills-based immigration policy. In the original article, notice that the CEO effectively brought over teams of people permanently to the country fairly easily (it seems like) so perhaps that causes wage depression?
I was answering the parent post on why salaries are not directly comparable in the US and Canada with one opinion, re. the healthcare safety net. It is entirely possible that having a sane immigration policy rather than the indentured sickness that is the H1B also leads to a healthier supply of talent and thus lowers wages. I am sure there are other factors.
Seriously? These are people just working on one piece of software. On what planet does someone who is maybe doing unit tests, or working only on one part of a code base, deserve or even demand such a high pay?
If your firm makes less money because it can't get enough developers to reach full capacity, then it makes sense to spend extra money on salaries to make even more money from customers.
Assuming that this calculation applies to your firm, are you going to leave profit to others when you could instead have a win/win situation for everyone (business, employees, customers) instead?
Markets aren't made by how much something costs. They are made by the perceived value of things.
In the same vein, people aren't paid based on the content of the work -- they are paid based on market rates. Doing mundane work like fulfilling unit test contracts doesn't sound that valuable until there is no one in your geographic area that can or will take that job {in that place, at that time, with the legal ability to work, etc}.
The article mentions that they hired programmers from Ukraine and helped them to relocate to Canada with their families. I happen to know one of those programmers and he's been with the firm for 10 years and seems to be quite happy.
Mississauga is no better or worse than any other suburb. The fact that you have to drive to get food, forces you to plan better and actually bring food into the office instead of eating take out all the time. In a way, that's a plus :-)
This perception probably depends on what life stage you are in: if you are single or married no children then "no after work fun" and "suburb hell" are minuses. Once you are "married with children" ;-) then those things stop being important as you have other priorities to rush to.
What salary does Soti offer? Your points about the office location are valid, but do you know how much they are paying their developers? You make it seem like they are paying less than Google/Amazon. But how much less? Would your comments be the same if they were in fact paying just as much as Google? I think it's productive to talk in numbers, or else Canadians will be perpetually wondering if they are paid below market or not.
Canadian banks are horrid employers for software devs. I worked for RBC FG after having my first child -- e.g. time to get serious, etc -- and it was absolutely soul crushing. My pay was out of their bands so every year was a new middle manager making me and everyone else justify it, etc. They're always trying to replace you with either external solutions, or outsourcing. Peers at other banks have all the same impressions.
The Waterloo thing is just weird. No, not really.
And for what it's worth, of the programmers I've worked with, having spent years working downtown for both RBC and Bell, and then a number of smaller firms all through the GTA, the overwhelming majority live West of town in the "suburban hell". Increasingly pushing even further to Oakville and Burlington. Most prioritize positions to the West of downtown. And there is good food everywhere in the area.
> They're always trying to replace you with either external solutions, or outsourcing. Peers at other banks have all the same impressions.
This sounds like cutthroat capitalism to me. It's what happens to every industry when the margins are thin.
I suspect it will come to the wider tech sector sooner or later when innovation slows and VC capital dries up.
Then again, maybe some large corps will figure out that company culture, mental health, incentives, innovation, and creativity can be boosted by giving people some additional sense of job security.
It's a balancing act, to be sure. I'm sure all of the issues you raised would be serious impediments to hiring 20-somethings but many of us have only improved our programming prowess with age.
I'm in my 40s, I don't care about after work fun. I HATE that I have to commute into the city every day.
I would LOVE a 15 minute suburban commute to work. If the pay/benefits are right the only big concern would be stability.
When a company says, "we can't find enough good developers." To me that is a huge red flag and makes me look for a few things.
One it might say they have so much tech debt they need an army of programmers to maintain it. willing to bet good programmers stiff this out quick.
Second they are doing recruiting all wrong and/or have some senior guy that asks some dumb riddles and if people get it wrong or mess under stress they don't offer a job to them. I have been to so many job interviews like this in my career, where they have a programmer on staff with a huge ego and it shows in the interview. I never even entrain an offer if I meet anyone like this at all.
Third, which was cover heavily in comments here is salary and benefits. It isn't always salary either. I have take less money for more vacation time and other great benefits. I like to look at the big picture, not just the salary, as long as the total package is within the average.
Last and I think the most important is company culture. I think you can have all the others correct but if this isn't working great you will just keep losing people. It only takes one bad apple at the company for this to drive people away. This is the hardest to see and fix, especially if it starts from the top management.
I was interested in this too, so I keep on reading and finally understood: "Born in Pakistan to a Roman Catholic family that had its roots in the former Portuguese colony of Goa". Rodrigues is a common Portuguese surname. Once again, the empire strikes back :).
I don't think the BBC article really explains what Soti's software does. Especially considering the story took place in 2001, we're talking about Windows CE. A lot of stores and warehouses used (some still do) Windows CE devices to scan products and manage inventory.
I'm not terribly familiar with the product, but it sounds like Soti would be used to track all of these handheld scanners, possibly read what they're scanning and add it to the master inventory database, let the helpdesk reboot the device or push updates if something is malfunctioning, etc.
PoF is the Unicorn of all the Unicorns. In fact, I would really call it the Mother of all Unicorns. There is no way you can get away with comparing it to anything and anything to it.
Not really. Can you name a website that sold for anywhere near $500 million that required so little effort by the founder who was the only person working on the website? The creator of PoF had a work week that consisted of 1 or 2 hours of work. He did not even hire a another employee for 4 or 5 years after he started the website and the site was pulling in a million dollars a month at that point. The amount of work he put into the website is pretty amazing for the amount of money he got from it.
tl;dr: He [...] spent a number of years working as a consultant, before launching Soti in 2001. [B]ack in 2001 he [...] started to try to dream up something. [...] After a month of working[...], Mr Rodrigues had come up with [an] idea - a software system that allowed the user to control his or her mobile phone from their laptop. [M]ost people have never heard of the firm - because it sells its mobile technology software systems to companies instead of consumers
In Nepal, with 100k USD, one can rent decent office space, offer in-work benefits/recreations and employ 15+ professionals (including tech and non-tech), for 2 years. Yes, you can literally trade salary of 1 engineer with entire company fund.
210 comments
[ 142 ms ] story [ 659 ms ] threadThe important thing is to understand that and then use it to motivate yourself to work harder on your idea.
I sincerely mean "Well done" to Carl for what he has achieved, and how he did it, but I think that more than one person who reads this article will quit their job shortly and try and achieve the same thing to the same scale that he did. It is still somewhat a game of chance. Nothing is guaranteed. I've been there, and I know the scene well.
I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what makes someone succeed where others fail. There is an element of luck involved, but you can greatly improve your chances by doing things like working hard, understanding the problem you're solving, really talking to your customers, getting a mentor, saying no to distractions, etc. Those things wouldn't have any impact if it really was a lottery.
After three years I'm bound to believe in the lottery. Sometimes those calls do fall out of nowhere and dictate the survival or death of your company (so was our case).
Related to this, there is a Portuguese saying: "A sorte favorece os audazes", meaning: "Luck favors the bold ones". This was derived from the Roman empire, so for sure there has to be some reason to stick around for so long.
(As for execution that doesn't mean anything else that "it succeeded whereas others didn't" if one can't pinpoint a winning execution in advance).
Have done it two times so far, about to do it a third time (hopefully, with a different outcome). Wouldn't call it "failing".
The same impulsivity that made me JFDI also made me terrible at focus and operations.
Now I make apps that make toddlers giggle, work in an almost no-stress environment where people really do leave at 5pm, and get paid twice a month.
Of course, I still have ideas and side projects...
I imagine the advice would be to do what works for you with the hand you're dealt. The context sounds like part of the decision to leave his or her old lifestyle and start something with VR, but also why it didn't work out. Making apps and small games sounds like a third career after the JFDI one, but one without complaints, since it is pleasant and stress free.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/path-of-a-hero
1. Works in IT, daily faces all kinds of problems.
2. Quits job to make a software product
3. Suddenly realizes: I should make a product for the problems I faced back when I worked in IT!
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the true circumstances of what happened here. But, it's much cleaner and makes it much more unlikely for his former employer to come back at him if the narrative is: "I left. I was struck with inspiration the next day" than "While I was working for this other place, I built a prototype that I thought would work. When I was sure it did, I quit."
Good to see a company with turnover in the $80M/yr range and still being 100% owned by him and his wife.
To me it would be more of a red flag if he was giving away equity because he would be giving something that he knows will never have any value.
This is done because even though the income tax rate is high, it is lower than getting double taxed (paying corporate tax rates plus playing capital gains).
So generally if a company is owned 100% by one person there are no distributions. This means for a company like this equity has virtually no value and profit sharing is a far better deal for everyone involved.
Since this company is 100% owned by Rodrigues, all of those events would require Rodrigues to decide to sell, or for him to die and for his heir(s) to decide to sell - all things that I would classify as liquidation events.
Maybe I am miscategorizing his viewpoints, but the article implied that Rodrigues doesn't plan on selling Soti.
So unless you are expecting Rodrigues to die soon I'm not sure what path exists for any other theoretical equity holders to gain any value from their equity.
Alternatively, employee pledges the shares as security for a loan and then defaults. Lender forecloses.
My point is this: there are ways for a minority shareholder to force a liquidity over the objections of the majority shareholders. Therefore those shares have value.
10x ARR + a bit for brand and goodwill. Its a stretch but the valuation seems about right.
This takes the "Fake it till you make it" mantra perfectly!
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/SOTI-Reviews-E156148.htm
In the meantime, you end up reading posts like these from people who would rather think that companies don't just suck. It's really annoying, because it's not as if you can reveal the whole situation to people just to prove that their "No, no, companies wouldn't just act like that / be so mismanaged".
I think most people have worked at somewhere that sucked, but even some cases (e.g. Uber) can still make a lot of us step back and wonder how a workplace managed to become that toxic.
The reason it is a good approach is that; when you think about poverty, one may go round and round in circles trying to uncover a panacea but it all comes down to productivity. Are a group of people/is a person able to produce goods and services? This (ability) could be hampered by a lack of skills relevant to the current economic environment among other things. To acquire said skills among other inputs, one requires capital. If you consume capital goods, it won't be possible to save up enough to acquire the aforementioned production inputs. Systems like the Asian family-centric one you mentioned earlier allows for 1) creation of capital goods through production and 2) preservation of capital goods through savings and reinvestment over multiple generations.
If there's capital for future generations in such a family, then acquisition of the relevant skills in an economic environment that's constantly mutating becomes plausible.
It starts with a sense of frugality in a bid to amalgamate capital that can be compounded over generations in the future. Without capital generation and preservation (by the subjects themselves in order to cultivate discipline), you have nothing in terms of wealth creation and poverty alleviation.
What gets me is that these are always displayed first by the default "popular" sort even though they have no votes.
I prefer ventures that start generating revenue as soon as there are signs of traction (curious if this applies to ghafla in the early days). To this effect, I'm reminded of a story I read a while back on how tableau took on no external financing until they hit $100 million in revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaswallow/2012/12/27/bootstr...
Here are a couple of others that followed the same route:
https://www.quora.com/What-great-companies-did-not-raise-ven...
Well yeah, he's trying to run a software business in Mississauga. As a developer who used to commute to the 'Saug every day: very few of us want to work there. No decent food, no after work fun, just suburb hell for miles around.
He's competing with the banks and Amazon downtown in Toronto proper. He's also competing with Google Waterloo 30 minutes in the other direction for people not interested in living in the city. And he's going to be competing with them on pay as well as location.
Edit: woo, this may be my most controversial comment ever based on the point swings. I welcome counterpoints! Discussion is always good.
https://support.upwork.com/hc/en-us/articles/211068518-Use-Y...
What amazing metrics they have! /s
If you're trying to hire for a place people don't want to work in or if you're having issues with skill levels of new hires, the solution is to widen the net: Not in terms of skill ranges, but in terms of geography.
Not everyone wants to work remotely and that's fine. Especially considering that for the vast majority of people, there is someone better than them out there that desperately wants remote work.
Right, no issues hiring, but maybe some issues managing, communicating effectively, and completing work. You're potentially trading one set of problems for another.
Perhaps they've tried a bit of remote and it hasn't worked for them. We don't know.
When I hear comments like this I roll my eyes because those issues aren’t remote issues, those are incompetent manager issues – issues that don’t get resolved by simply sitting in an office.
Management, communication and productivity are challenges regardless of work location. Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.
If your workers can’t perform in a remote environment, then they aren’t going to suddenly get better by virtue of sharing a ping pong table.
For remote work a manager has to be more on top of keeping track of his/her employees.
I understand you have strong opinions about this, FWIW I work remotely so yeah I get it.
It's much more than this for me. Coding still requires teamwork, and, short of everyone being able to execute perfectly without in-person discussion, it's useful to communicate with all human gestures being immediately apparent.
I'm surprised at the level of negativity here against office work. I expected people to argue it as another option- not that it should always be the only option for effective teams. I say this as someone who works remotely, and who prefers office work with the right people and not too long of a commute.
I think the bigger issue is just finding the right people with whom you work effectively, not whether work is done in the office or remotely.
This strikes me as a bit rude and prejudicial. Not all of us are rockstars who can function effectively without social contact. I personally prefer a central meeting point and face to face communication.
All I'm arguing is that in-person work is preferable by some managers and employees. I'm not arguing that it should dogmatically be applied to everyone.
From your hn profile, I gather you understand yourself to be a bit disagreeable,
> I'm opinionated, inconsistent, irrelevant, irreverent and incontrovertible
I don't see that as a problem myself but I wonder, based on this statement, whether or not you've found working in offices to be effective for you. I'd also wonder if you ever admit to being wrong, and how you react under those circumstances. I'm not convinced you could lay any and all disagreement at the feet of insecure managers.
I was later in their office on Hurontario near the 401 for a HackerNest meetup. I was speaking with a manager of theirs and mentioned someone who I knew that worked there, to find out he no longer did and he laughed about this person with a colleague.
I love hearing about a Canadian success story but their culture seems a bit off.
The Canadian and US labor markets are pretty interconnected so in my opinion these companies are going to have to start raising salaries if they really want to get talent. I feel like I read something on HN every week bemoaning the Canadian tech industry, when most of the problems have a pretty simple solution: pay more. Of course, that's easy to say but not necessarily easy to do financially.
Perhaps it’s worker protection that makes salaries lower in Canada? If it’s harder to fire people, that cost gets spread across all salaries to reflect the risk of having an employee you can’t easily fire.
Canadaians make far less than Americans even after accounting for the “benefits.”
I once saw a company looking to hire a senior rails developer at $25 CAD per hour. Insanity. I think it was even for a Vancouver company.
The US has a "payroll tax", which is paid by companies and is usually a percentage of the salary paid to the employee. You may not consider it a "business tax", but others might.
Also, some cities have business taxes on a per-employee basis.
Additionally, there is potentially a lot of variance in business taxes between one state/province/municipality and another.
Even in the US when you consider the whole instead of just Silicon Valley that is not a reasonable number to expect.
If Canada doesn't want all their CS graduates chasing the huge amounts of money they can make in the US, they need to raise their salaries. Otherwise they won't only face a tech-worker shortage, they'll have to deal with a full-on brain drain, which is even worse (of course, Google is expanding in Canada so hopefully this won't happen).
I'd love to a) know how to recruit good remote-capable employees and b) how to better manage remotely -- because at this point, we're going to open an office and hire locally.
Interstate taxation, necessary corporate filings/fees/forms, and offering healthcare in multiple states also make being fully remote incredibly difficult unless to restrict employees to being "remote" from the states in which you're already established.
but if business requirements, on the other hand, are complex, poorly understood or fluid, then developer will be absolutely lost and will start cranking up patterns instead of solutions. teamcity will be building alright and scrums will roll, but project will be a complete mess heading for a disaster. face to face will not save the day, but to some degree will mitigate lack of communication and understanding of common goal.
More to the point, if I'm willing to work and live in a smaller suburban area, why not just move to Waterloo?
His potential list of developers is much smaller because of his location.
???
I live in Port Credit (south Mississauga)... I can tell you absolutely that is not the case. Also it would be hard to name a culture that didn't have food here.
https://www.insauga.com/
In Toronto, I am walking distance from everything after work, plus the subway to get me home. Port Credit may be cool, but it can't compete with that. Also, as you said that's south of Mississauga- again, we're going to have to drive everywhere.
That's just not there lifestyle I want, and very few in my office did- which was why we pushed so hard for a downtown office instead.
Five whole minutes, my word. Not sure how you survived as long as you did.
i hate commuting to downtown toronto, but it is hard to beat the Path, abundance of pubs/restaurants and constantly bumping into people i used to work with (aka stay in the loop). there is no fricking loop in mississauga.
It takes me about 5 minutes to walk from my desk to my car. Then another 5-15 minutes to drive for food. Then a minute or two parking and walking to the restaurant - if I'm lucky. If I wanted to go somewhere popular during the lunch rush, or that has shitty parking, maybe that's 5-10 minutes finding a parking spot and walking.
It doesn't seem like a huge deal, but it really can be.
I understand the argument in SOTIs case because their office is in the middle of nowhere, although there are restaurants very close to it.
that definitely makes sense; the only reason anything aside from housing exists in the Altanta suburbs is because of how long it takes to get anywhere more than a couple miles from where you live. Our company has an office in the midtown area, and the work schedule for a large part of the office is:
8:30 - 9:30 = work from home, fuck traffic; 9:30 - 10:00 = drive to office; 10:00 - 3:30 work; 3:30 - 4 = drive home, fuck traffic; 4 - 5:30 = work.
I can't imaging working anywhere in Atlanta that requires you to have your ass in the office at 8. I've heard people in Atl joke about how they used to be friends with someone that moved 10 miles away, and they can't hang out anymore cause it legitimately takes too long to get there.
I guess the friend thing kind of depends on which direction they moved in relation to traffic.
The TTC subway is hated here, but I love it. Commuting is a breeze, no effort, no stress, and I always know I can get home if I go out for drinks after work.
I met someone else complaining about this, that they hired everyone they could and were desperate. Their salaries were around $60K. Don't see how anyone can be scratching their heads over that.
This attitude has to change.
If a company can make significantly more money by hiring someone, then they should be aggressively increasing wages to signal to the market that they are serious. It's basically refusing to participate in the free market, or a complete lack of understanding of how markets work.
Business managers frequently act like they understand economics better than economists yet this attitude should telegraph a level of cluelessness that makes them unfit to manage a hiring process.
Everyone wants to pay less and get more talent. If you can't afford to pay more then compete on other aspects---allow remote work, more flex-time, and so on. Try something different in your interviews. Offer apprenticeships.
Sometimes it's not even a pure talent shortage that force increasing wages. In San Francisco the housing shortage and lack of support for new construction wipes out a lot of gains that come with higher salaries.
You can even see that problem get worse as people leave. Fantastic dev I worked with moved from Seattle back to India. She said that yes, she made more money in Seattle, but cost of living was so low in Bangalore that she effectively made a lot more money there. Coupled with her family being closer, it made perfect sense.
iPhones are cool, but houses are cooler.
(mostly joking)
And, from an investment point of view, maintenance may not be worth it if you believe that housing prices are too high and that a correction will be coming in the short to medium term. Why spend your own money on repairs if your house's value is going to tank in a few years anyway?
You don't give them enough credit. This process works for them sometimes. And sometimes is evidently enough.
Part of this complaining can be an attempt to influence/distort government policy, justify a flawed or exploitative hiring process, or managing who to blame when they miss a quota.
I definitely agree that what you said is part of reality for some companies, which is why I think it's important to aggressively point out that there are solutions when the "skill shortage" is brought up.
Additionally, if underpaying younger talent is prevalent, then all the more reason a company should offer competitive salaries to recent graduates when faced with a shortage. They'd start booking some easy wins.
And I say this as a Canadian.
Generally speaking, people need to start being more proactive asking for raises and switching to higher paying jobs if we want compensation in the GTA job market to improve.
The problem in Vancouver is that it often feels like any PHP jockey with 3 years of industry experience is called "senior". This doesn't happen in other market's I've experienced. It happens here because the Vancouver talent pool is very shallow. We have a very wide base of low skilled juniors and intermediates with a very narrow point of experienced senior engineers. There are far more juniors than there is demand for juniors so that pushes down salaries. Conversely, there is a lot more demand for seniors, real seniors, than there is supply in the local market and that pushes up salaries.
So it’s backwards. Canadian salaries should be a lot higher to reflect that they have a lower total employee cost.
One difference I can think of is that Canada has Universal Healthcare. Maybe the compensation system differs because Canadian companies can pay <Salary> and US Companies have to pay <Salary + benefits>?
(I mostly see people here on HN throwing salary numbers around, not total compensation. Also, I wonder if having the government handle benefits would make it easier to pay more (since companies don't have to pay benefits) or less (since companies just pay the government to do the benefits). )
What happens is simply that many Canadians like Canada and don't want to move south, and the Canadian economy is poorer than the American one (in particular, there is way less VC investment per capita), so companies have less money to fight over developers, and many developers (like myself) are content with this market.
I agree that Canadian employers can totally up their hiring game by upping the miserly salaries but they could emphasize the social differences between Canada and the US to attract risk-averse/future-focused candidates.
Also employers pay for your medical insurance with pretty good plans, if you have a medical issue your paying at most ~$5k and $3k/yr for family medical insurance.
So universal healthcare isn't a good enough reason to not move to the USA. Also the US might get universal healthcare in that time span.
I think my motorbike vs. Camry analogy is reasonable. Vast numbers of people ride motorbikes every day and live for decades without encountering a problem .Others can end up having their lives turned upside down as a result of some accident. A social safety net is not designed for everyone to bounce on but to catch the most unfortunate in society and help them cope as best as possible at their time of extreme adversity. My point is that the US, especially with the impending destruction of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid defunding, is about to lose its very short-lived and already weak safety net. If you can go back to Canada when adversity strikes, you are in good shape. Most people don't have that option.
My intent was to outline the fact that the US safety net is weak and there are plenty of corner cases that one could fall into from which recovery will be tough. Reduction in Medicaid will only worsen this. If you have coverage that you feel covers you in a majority of worst case scenarios, then you are in good shape but hopefully you are up to date on your read of the coverages. The Canadian safety net, in my opinion, saves one a little bit from this planning.
[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-politics/2013/08/02/gr...
Though I'll note that the US puts a higher percent of GDP into public healthcare expenditure than Canada (yes, Americans pay more taxes for healthcare than Canadians, despite not having much public healthcare), so I guess the US is just bad at doing healthcare efficiently. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL.ZS
I was answering the parent post on why salaries are not directly comparable in the US and Canada with one opinion, re. the healthcare safety net. It is entirely possible that having a sane immigration policy rather than the indentured sickness that is the H1B also leads to a healthier supply of talent and thus lowers wages. I am sure there are other factors.
Assuming that this calculation applies to your firm, are you going to leave profit to others when you could instead have a win/win situation for everyone (business, employees, customers) instead?
In the same vein, people aren't paid based on the content of the work -- they are paid based on market rates. Doing mundane work like fulfilling unit test contracts doesn't sound that valuable until there is no one in your geographic area that can or will take that job {in that place, at that time, with the legal ability to work, etc}.
Mississauga is no better or worse than any other suburb. The fact that you have to drive to get food, forces you to plan better and actually bring food into the office instead of eating take out all the time. In a way, that's a plus :-)
This perception probably depends on what life stage you are in: if you are single or married no children then "no after work fun" and "suburb hell" are minuses. Once you are "married with children" ;-) then those things stop being important as you have other priorities to rush to.
Canadian banks are horrid employers for software devs. I worked for RBC FG after having my first child -- e.g. time to get serious, etc -- and it was absolutely soul crushing. My pay was out of their bands so every year was a new middle manager making me and everyone else justify it, etc. They're always trying to replace you with either external solutions, or outsourcing. Peers at other banks have all the same impressions.
The Waterloo thing is just weird. No, not really.
And for what it's worth, of the programmers I've worked with, having spent years working downtown for both RBC and Bell, and then a number of smaller firms all through the GTA, the overwhelming majority live West of town in the "suburban hell". Increasingly pushing even further to Oakville and Burlington. Most prioritize positions to the West of downtown. And there is good food everywhere in the area.
This sounds like cutthroat capitalism to me. It's what happens to every industry when the margins are thin.
I suspect it will come to the wider tech sector sooner or later when innovation slows and VC capital dries up.
Then again, maybe some large corps will figure out that company culture, mental health, incentives, innovation, and creativity can be boosted by giving people some additional sense of job security.
I'm in my 40s, I don't care about after work fun. I HATE that I have to commute into the city every day.
I would LOVE a 15 minute suburban commute to work. If the pay/benefits are right the only big concern would be stability.
One it might say they have so much tech debt they need an army of programmers to maintain it. willing to bet good programmers stiff this out quick.
Second they are doing recruiting all wrong and/or have some senior guy that asks some dumb riddles and if people get it wrong or mess under stress they don't offer a job to them. I have been to so many job interviews like this in my career, where they have a programmer on staff with a huge ego and it shows in the interview. I never even entrain an offer if I meet anyone like this at all.
Third, which was cover heavily in comments here is salary and benefits. It isn't always salary either. I have take less money for more vacation time and other great benefits. I like to look at the big picture, not just the salary, as long as the total package is within the average.
Last and I think the most important is company culture. I think you can have all the others correct but if this isn't working great you will just keep losing people. It only takes one bad apple at the company for this to drive people away. This is the hardest to see and fix, especially if it starts from the top management.
https://youtu.be/MUXlTnFBOu8
I'm not terribly familiar with the product, but it sounds like Soti would be used to track all of these handheld scanners, possibly read what they're scanning and add it to the master inventory database, let the helpdesk reboot the device or push updates if something is malfunctioning, etc.
That's like saying "Apple - A $700B firm built in a garage"
I'd like to know what the actual largest single-founder business is that's being run out of a basement
I don't know if a literal basement was involved, but Plentyoffish was solo for about four years and had a fair few users before hiring any staff.
Or Tech support? Like the Amazon Fire phone?