>Dedication and ability are assessed, in most corporations, based on antiquated, counterproductive, and fascistic reliability measures that disfavor, for one example, taking maternity (or paternity) leave or dedicating substantial energy to childcare
White-collar work inherently discriminates against women because they could possibly get pregnant. Is this what you are saying?
>You really think making $250,000 plus commission is "risky"
Yes, that is why people are hired at such high salaries. Because they do well for a couple of years and then flame out, never to work in the industry again. Again, you are clearly far removed from the industry so I don't fault you for not knowing how compensation works in said industry. But it isn't like you're walking into a golden ticket. If you don't meet bar, you don't get your bonus, which is more often than not the bulk of your "salary". And then you get canned. No remorse. that is risk.
>it's not personally risky to be an employee.
I don't understand how you can say this if you've actually worked for Wall Street firms.
>Like losing your savings (bootstrapping failure)
Smart founders don't tap their savings dry on an unsure bet.
>Playing games with other peoples' money (and getting a resume/credibility boost no matter what happens) isn't nearly as risky as putting 3 years of your life into something that might wreck your career for reasons that aren't your fault.
Except that it is way MORE risky. If you start a company and fail, at least you can say "I started a company and failed" and the Silicon Valley Brigade will give you a job as a Rails programmer. If you fail slinging options, you're never working in that field again. Literally.
I agree with your assessment of VCistan, now that you've expanded on it.
Haha, this happened to me exactly. I didn't even know Ruby. Or Rails!
>White-collar work inherently discriminates against women because they could possibly get pregnant. Is this what you are saying?
I think what he's saying is, actual experience is worthless. The person that has performed an action 100 times is exactly as qualified as the person that has performed it 10,000 times.
Whether you were coding (or doing open heart surgery) for 20% vs 80% of the last 5 years is not relevant. If you have a computer science degree, or a medical degree, that is what really matters. The entire concept of estimating ability based on whether you have actually written a significant amount of code, or have actually performed a significant amount of medical operations, is a flawed concept.
I think that's the essence of what he's saying.
Personally, though, I wouldn't want to be a trader. Quant is as close to that game as I'd want to go. I've seen what traders do and it doesn't look fun. It's not professionally risky, but it's still very stressful. I'll give you that.
Sure, you can get another job after a failed startup, but usually as a subordinate, and that's viewed as dishonorable after 35 and untenable past 40. If you fail as a derivatives trader, VC-istan will let you be a founder. Sure, you're going from $250k plus a possible 1000% bonus to $200k and 15% of a startup. Again, my heart bleeds.
This is not good, I agree with that, but how can it be different? After 5 years off, your lost track of everything that happened, you're 5 years older and 5 years rustier, and, most importantly, somebody else took care of those things you were taking care of - you're not needed as you were when you took off. Now, in big impersonal bureaucracies, this can be not so big a problem, but in most places it is.
IMHO the solution to the actual problem can't be in just saying "that's not a problem, it only is because of sexism/tradition/whatever". By the way, I don't have a solution.
Changing the subject a bit...
Having been a trader, I think that's a major problem with our system. A trader today rarely has his own skin in the game. Or even the firms skin in most cases. It's hella easier to make VERY risky bets with other people money.
I couldn't hire someone who had five years without any practice in their trade to most of the positions I hire for.
You seem to be implying that I shouldn't even be considering that in the past 5 years, between two applicants, one has been in the trade, practicing and producing work, and the other hasn't.
That different life choices have different outcomes isn't sexist.
Only one? I have, like, at least five or six, my friend.
What sexist assumptions is white-collar Work [sic] culture based on? And how is it designed such that it is difficult for women to fit in?
Dedication and ability are assessed, in most corporations, based on antiquated, counterproductive, and fascistic reliability measures that disfavor, for one example, taking maternity (or paternity) leave or dedicating substantial energy to childcare. For a variety of reasons, some cultural, reproduction and child-raising ends up taking more of a woman's time than a man's.
It's almost impossible to take 5 years out of the career game and come back in with the standing you had when you left. While that's not sexist per se, it's incredibly fucking inhumane, and happens to inflict more harm on women.
First off, I can tell you've never been anywhere near a trading floor, or a commercial bank for that matter. The entire industry is based on risk. What do you think trading is? The calculated harnessing of risk. You make bets. That is all. Pure risk. FAR more risky than technology.
Oh, come on. You really think making $250,000 plus commission is "risky"? Yes, if you have a bad year and the firm isn't doing well, you might get fired. Here, "fired" means you get a shit bonus, and 4 months to find another job, usually a promotion. Yeah, that's risk all right.
I know enough about finance to know what I'm talking about here. I'm not denigrating financial professionals. I've worked in a few Wall Street jobs, and liked most of the people. But it's not risky to work there. Risk (with others' funds) is part of the operational calculus but it's not personally risky to be an employee.
Sure, there's financial risk (again, with others' money) involved, but you have much bigger risks as a technology founder. Like losing your savings (bootstrapping failure) or risking 3 years of your career on something that turns into a no-name dud. Or you could do a great job, get screwed over by partners or investors or management, get fired with no severance and your stock diluted in some perverse way. Shit like that happens.
Playing games with other peoples' money (and getting a resume/credibility boost no matter what happens) isn't nearly as risky as putting 3 years of your life into something that might wreck your career for reasons that aren't your fault.
Take advantage HOW?
There's a set of very talented people who have no sense of their real worth, crappy negotiation skills, and an idealistic willingness to work long hours. Most of VC-istan is about turning them into pure gold for well-connected investors and useless executive implants (read: VCs' well-connected, underachieving friends). Who do you think is paying $2 million for small houses in Silicon Valley? Not programmers with their 0.03% slices of things that got beaten to shit by multiple liquidation preferences.
I know you have a reputation, though, and I am ready to weather a storm in the name of truth.
Good for you.