It's also a popular myth that innovation only comes from small businesses and entrepreneurs. A huge amount of true innovation actually comes out of well-funded universities, businesses, and government projects.
Innovation has two main components, r&d and commercial application. While giant organizations produce decent amounts of r&d, it's generally small businesses that come up with the commercial applications. Hence, the myth.
While giant organizations produce decent amounts of r&d, it's generally small businesses that come up with the commercial applications.
I'm not really sure that's true. Bell Labs produced a whole lot of innovative research -- how much of that actually ended up being implemented by small companies instead of by large companies or open source projects?
Disruptive commercial applications come from small businesses for obvious reasons. This may just be perception bias in the end.
The amount of innovative R&D that is implemented and commercially applied by large companies is nothing to sneeze at. Of course, the best examples of such behavior probably comes from outside the IT sector, in more traditional engineering disciplines (think e.g. car manufacturing (outside the US, maybe)).
Is there any evidence to support this? The value I see generated by small businesses and entrepreneurs has more to do with market incentives, not innovation. I'm seeing them mostly create wealth by offering different mixes of price, quality, and packaging, but mostly built on existing innovation that has already been commercially applied.
37Signals, for instance, didn't really innovate. They didn't invent groupware or were nowhere near the first to commercially apply it. They simply built a product with the right levels of price, quality, and packaging that hit the right spot for a large number of people. This isn't as much innovation as it is market savvy and competitiveness.
This isn't to say that they aren't very important though, quite the contrary. Small businesses create vast amounts of wealth, and more often directly reward those who are responsible for it, rather than further lining the pockets of the super rich or bureaucrats.
It's not about 'stable' or 'unstable', there are degrees of stable-ness. And founding a company is riskier than working for a bank, a few outlier notwithstanding. What's the point of this article?
Some people really feel the need to say that traditional jobs aren't stable, even though they are more stable than non-traditional jobs. An attempt to make themselves feel less insecure of their decisions? Seems to me that creating fake reasons is a great way to drive insecurity, since at some point your whole platform could be supported by lies to yourself.
There's a big difference between job stability and personal risk. People who work in startups will sometimes have jobs that stop existing when the company goes under. So what? They move onto the next project, or join a bigcorp, or do consulting. There's a filter between business risk and personal risk.
I've always suspected this to be true, but I would love to see some data to back it up. My parents have seen enough instability in their career paths to agree with my decision to actively pursue starting my own company. They are pretty risk averse...
It seems like the author started out talking about stability, but then ended by talking about personal satisfaction, or some deeper meaning.
I'll say something more direct: full-time work at any company is not meaningfully more stable than contract-based work. The difference is that employers attempt to instill a sense of loyalty in you which is not reciprocated. Work for yourself. Create product independently and generate passive income. Work for others on a contractual basis and formalize the exchange of lifetime-hours for money.
In my personal experience, working as a consultant or for a startup is a lot more stressful.
But as far as job stability goes -- I like keeping doors open with former colleagues, associates, customers and also with local software companies in general. That way, if the shit hits the fan, I can find another comparable job in a week tops; while being picky about it.
And all modesty aside, it rarely goes a month without being contacted with a job offer. Not all offers are good; some are downright insulting. But it keeps my confidence up.
But the advantage of a big company is in the stress levels -- you can take medical leaves, you can go on vacation without freaking out your bank balance will be negative on return, you can switch projects if bored. In many companies work assignment and the process are so fucked-up that you could also do nothing all day, while pulling a fast-and-furious before the and of the sprint.
But this kind of life won't make you rich and your salary will always be an average one in your industry.
This is right on. If you contract you make more money, if you amortize that versus a large company and are good they are at least equal if you factor in time to get a new gig etc..
Don't put your eggs in one basket. Having one source of income that can be easily cut off is like driving a car without seat-belts or airbags. It's an illusion, yes, perpetuated by those who benefit from it.
I've worked with a company like that and it was an incredibly depressive experience (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374271). Don't be naive, people, it's in business's best interest to keep you as close to a slave as possible, while cutting off the rest of your options by making you stay in the office for as long as possible for as little of a pay as possible.
You think your boss is your friend and likes you, and cuddles you but in reality he is an actor; it's his job to create that illusion, and he gets paid very well for playing the role properly. I do not see how this is much different from scam-artists.
14 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 48.1 ms ] threadI'm not really sure that's true. Bell Labs produced a whole lot of innovative research -- how much of that actually ended up being implemented by small companies instead of by large companies or open source projects?
The amount of innovative R&D that is implemented and commercially applied by large companies is nothing to sneeze at. Of course, the best examples of such behavior probably comes from outside the IT sector, in more traditional engineering disciplines (think e.g. car manufacturing (outside the US, maybe)).
37Signals, for instance, didn't really innovate. They didn't invent groupware or were nowhere near the first to commercially apply it. They simply built a product with the right levels of price, quality, and packaging that hit the right spot for a large number of people. This isn't as much innovation as it is market savvy and competitiveness.
This isn't to say that they aren't very important though, quite the contrary. Small businesses create vast amounts of wealth, and more often directly reward those who are responsible for it, rather than further lining the pockets of the super rich or bureaucrats.
I've always suspected this to be true, but I would love to see some data to back it up. My parents have seen enough instability in their career paths to agree with my decision to actively pursue starting my own company. They are pretty risk averse...
I'll say something more direct: full-time work at any company is not meaningfully more stable than contract-based work. The difference is that employers attempt to instill a sense of loyalty in you which is not reciprocated. Work for yourself. Create product independently and generate passive income. Work for others on a contractual basis and formalize the exchange of lifetime-hours for money.
But as far as job stability goes -- I like keeping doors open with former colleagues, associates, customers and also with local software companies in general. That way, if the shit hits the fan, I can find another comparable job in a week tops; while being picky about it.
And all modesty aside, it rarely goes a month without being contacted with a job offer. Not all offers are good; some are downright insulting. But it keeps my confidence up.
But the advantage of a big company is in the stress levels -- you can take medical leaves, you can go on vacation without freaking out your bank balance will be negative on return, you can switch projects if bored. In many companies work assignment and the process are so fucked-up that you could also do nothing all day, while pulling a fast-and-furious before the and of the sprint.
But this kind of life won't make you rich and your salary will always be an average one in your industry.
I've worked with a company like that and it was an incredibly depressive experience (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2374271). Don't be naive, people, it's in business's best interest to keep you as close to a slave as possible, while cutting off the rest of your options by making you stay in the office for as long as possible for as little of a pay as possible.
You think your boss is your friend and likes you, and cuddles you but in reality he is an actor; it's his job to create that illusion, and he gets paid very well for playing the role properly. I do not see how this is much different from scam-artists.