The Vent and Rant Thread

[Hitch]

Kats:

My sole comment to you, about this, is this:

67 or so gets here a LOT BLOODY SOONER than you would think, at your age. Trust me on this.

Remarkably, you may not feel that you should just keel over dead, or what-have-you, once you get there.

And (presumably, this isn't a political comment of any kind??? Not intended to be), yes, unemployment/welfare and all that IS supposed to be a backstop of last resort. Isn't it appropriate to live on one's savings, if you lose your job? Or am I just hopelessly old-fashioned about that stuff?


Hitch

[Rumpelteazer]

I just unwrapped a scented wax melt. I cut it open with a knife and never had any problems doing so. Until tonight. I managed to stab myself not once but twice in the hand with the knife. Luckily it's only superficial and there wasn't much blood.

Now it's time for tea, a silly tv program or film and a big piece of speculaas and no knives.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Kats:

My sole comment to you, about this, is this:

67 or so gets here a LOT BLOODY SOONER than you would think, at your age. Trust me on this.

Remarkably, you may not feel that you should just keel over dead, or what-have-you, once you get there.

That's the entire point. I expect to be alive at 67, and to live another 20 years. As far as I can see now, I will be basically broke for those 20 years.

And (presumably, this isn't a political comment of any kind??? Not intended to be), yes, unemployment/welfare and all that IS supposed to be a backstop of last resort. Isn't it appropriate to live on one's savings, if you lose your job? Or am I just hopelessly old-fashioned about that stuff?

IMHO, welfare and such should be enough to pay for the bare necessities of living. I wouldn't even have a problem with it if there was a rule that stated "if you are still in welfare after 6 months, we expect you to start using X amount per month out of your own savings."

As it is now, you basically don't get ANYTHING until you're near to completely broke, and with today's job market where companies are looking for a sheep with five legs that can lay golden eggs, being unemployed happens sooner than you think.

It happened to me twice (one bankrupt company, one company that packed up three-quarters of the jobs and moved them to Poland), so I expect it to happen again, someday.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

That's the entire point. I expect to be alive at 67, and to live another 20 years. As far as I can see now, I will be basically broke for those 20 years.

If I had ONE thing, and one thing only, that I could redo, I'd save more and have invested less. Investment sounds fabulous, but I managed to catch not one, but two bad curves or waves; the S&L Crisis (Real estate) in 89-90-91, and lost a small ton of money (6 digits, and it hurt), and of course, the '08 crash, at which time I had stocks.

Do I think that savings return very little, in terms of growth? YES. Do I still wish I'd saved more and invested less? YES.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here, I could not manage to live on welfare. Simply could not.

IMHO, welfare and such should be enough to pay for the bare necessities of living. I wouldn't even have a problem with it if there was a rule that stated "if you are still in welfare after 6 months, we expect you to start using X amount per month out of your own savings."

As it is now, you basically don't get ANYTHING until you're near to completely broke, and with today's job market where companies are looking for a sheep with five legs that can lay golden eggs, being unemployed happens sooner than you think.

It happened to me twice (one bankrupt company, one company that packed up three-quarters of the jobs and moved them to Poland), so I expect it to happen again, someday.

I confess, I've never been on welfare here, but I don't imagine that it's a lot different. After all, as we agreed, it's a safety net. It's not really intended to preserve your savings, if you lose a job. "Safety net" doesn't mean "I don't want to use my money to live on." it means, "I need help." No?

Can you freelance, as a self-employed person? Any options for that? (If this is too personal, I'll drop it. I'm not trying to be nosy about your circumstances.)


Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

If I had ONE thing, and one thing only, that I could redo, I'd save more and have invested less. Investment sounds fabulous, but I managed to catch not one, but two bad curves or waves; the S&L Crisis (Real estate) in 89-90-91, and lost a small ton of money (6 digits, and it hurt), and of course, the '08 crash, at which time I had stocks.

Do I think that savings return very little, in terms of growth? YES. Do I still wish I'd saved more and invested less? YES.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here, I could not manage to live on welfare. Simply could not.





I confess, I've never been on welfare here, but I don't imagine that it's a lot different. After all, as we agreed, it's a safety net. It's not really intended to preserve your savings, if you lose a job. "Safety net" doesn't mean "I don't want to use my money to live on." it means, "I need help." No?

Can you freelance, as a self-employed person? Any options for that? (If this is too personal, I'll drop it. I'm not trying to be nosy about your circumstances.)


Hitch

Or lost everything in the oil bust almost 30 years ago and had to start all over with nothing and a new job in a different field. Took over 20 years to finally not be living hand to mouth.

So to the one complaining put some money back while you are in your younger years.
Younger being anything under 40.
That $20 you just spent on booze or cigarettes adds up quickly or whatever your vice may be. Put at least 50% in a savings account.

And wish I had taken my own advice years ago.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

So to the one complaining put some money back while you are in your younger years.
Younger being anything under 40.
That $20 you just spent on booze or cigarettes adds up quickly or whatever your vice may be. Put at least 50% in a savings account.

And wish I had taken my own advice years ago.

Indeed. I urge my younger family members to put away EVERY penny that they can. Just for those days (losing everything...BTDT). And yes, if you're under 40, you still have a lot of viable earning years, in which to put some shekels aside.

FWIW.

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Indeed. I urge my younger family members to put away EVERY penny that they can. Just for those days (losing everything...BTDT). And yes, if you're under 40, you still have a lot of viable earning years, in which to put some shekels aside.

FWIW.

Hitch

The only problem is most don't listen. They want the latest and greatest whatever.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here, I could not manage to live on welfare. Simply could not.

You can't live on welfare alone, but you also get rent subsidization, exempt from some taxes, and extra money if you match some specific criteria. If you match all the criteria, then welfare + rent subsidization + exemption + extras can be as much as a minimum wage.

At that point, you're at the point that you're basically not going to die, if you live very cheaply. (Normally, you could get some rent subsidization + extras on top of a minimum wage as well; you'll need to earn about €500 gross more than a minimum wage before working in a non-minimum wage job starts to pay off... barely.)

I confess, I've never been on welfare here, but I don't imagine that it's a lot different. After all, as we agreed, it's a safety net. It's not really intended to preserve your savings, if you lose a job. "Safety net" doesn't mean "I don't want to use my money to live on." it means, "I need help." No?

Agreed, but I am still of the opinion that "You need to sell and spend everything you have before we help you" is a bit too far in the other direction.

Can you freelance, as a self-employed person? Any options for that? (If this is too personal, I'll drop it. I'm not trying to be nosy about your circumstances.)

I'm not in welfare, but I had a close one, once again.

I've been there once, years ago, having to blow an amount of savings that were... non-trivial, before the government thought I might need some assistance. (Because of my poor eye-sight, a *lot* of jobs are unfit for me because they require having a car, or I can't reach the job location in a normal amount of time.)

Since that time, this stuff is a personal pet peeve, and I rant about it any chance I get. The pet peeve is aggravated by the fact that (and here is where the political bit comes in) you can basically shove it and see how you manage/get a new job, as long as you have some savings left.

On the other hand ... uhm.... 'new countrymen' / 'non-western immigrants' ... *cough* ... get assistance (money, housing, schooling, help in finding a job, even help and money for *moving if necessary*, and *exemption from waiting lists* in some municipalities) that I can only *dream* of if I ever should end up in welfare (again).

It almost makes it worth my while to become a refugee in my own ***ramsay**** country.

I try to avoid welfare, but with the current 'wheeee, flexible job market! fun!'-mentality over here, you can end up there in a jiffy.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Indeed. I urge my younger family members to put away EVERY penny that they can. Just for those days (losing everything...BTDT). And yes, if you're under 40, you still have a lot of viable earning years, in which to put some shekels aside.

I *am* under forty, by a fair bit actually.

However, my poor eyesight often causes people to believe I'm some sort of idiot. In new situations, I can sometimes be slow to act.

I can easily misjudge the height of a doorstep, not see a step in a dark/black floor, or walk head-first into a glass door. Thus if I encounter a situation in which such a thing could happen, I take a few moments to survey my surroundings to make sure I don't make an ass of myself by falling down the stairs or something during a job application.

Also, it take a few moments longer to read a text on screen, especially if it's small and can't be enlarged.

After people understand that I'm near-sighted and not slow-witted, it's mostly fine, but after they find out that I can't drive a car, most job interviews are basically over.

You know what the worst part is?

It's actually in my CV.

"Because of poor eyesight, I am not legally allowed to drive a car."

If people would actually READ THE *ramsay* CV instead of looking for key words only, they would have understood from the beginning, and I would not get job offers for which I find out later that a car is actually required.

Maybe I should also add:

"My eyesight is poor, but I can C# enough to do software engineering."

Maybe I should only talk to recruiters that actually understand that pun.

[Cinisajoy]

Hey Katsunami,
It could be worse. You could run into solid walls. Mine is I can't just distance worth a darn.
Though as far as embarrassing goes, I once tried to go through a glass window. I missed the door by a good meter. I bounced off and once everyone in there realized I was not hurt laughter ensued. The worst part was after that when I went in there, someone would always help me find the door when I went to leave.
Editing to say judge not just. Apparently I can't spell either.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I *am* under forty, by a fair bit actually.

I thought that was the case.

However, my poor eyesight often causes people to believe I'm some sort of idiot. In new situations, I can sometimes be slow to act.

<snippage>

You know what the worst part is?

It's actually in my CV.

"Because of poor eyesight, I am not legally allowed to drive a car."

If people would actually READ THE *ramsay* CV instead of looking for key words only, they would have understood from the beginning, and I would not get job offers for which I find out later that a car is actually required.

Maybe I should also add:

"My eyesight is poor, but I can C# enough to do software engineering."

Maybe I should only talk to recruiters that actually understand that pun.

Well, yeah, that's a start (the competent intelligent recruiters, should they exist).

The more I read from you, the more it sounds like you SHOULD freelance. I mean...that would enable you to not deal with jobs that would require driving and the like.

Granted, no idea if the market for C# freelancers in your neck of the woods (and, really, why would you be limited to that, anyway? It's a virtual world) is big enough, but...given that you would NOT be dealing with physical limitations like driving and the like...I dunno. Sounds like something I'd investigate, were I you. And, of course, for all I know, you HAVE, and it didn't pan out.

I am sorry that people are such dimwits, when you bloody well TELL them, in advance, that you have vision challenges.

@Cinsajoy wrote:

You could run into solid walls. Mine is I can't just distance worth a darn.

AH, me too. I have strabismus. Commonly and erroneously called "lazy eye." Mine was (mostly) corrected as a child, through eye surgery, but I never did develop depth perception. I, too, have walked RIGHT into an invisible (it was a fine-screened) door, and bounced off, as you did. I know full well how embarrassing that is. Of course, with glass, it's bloody dangerous, too. I have developed enough "cues" so that I can drive, and somehow (must have been bloody daft), I rode showjumpers as a teen, popping over massive fences, without killing myself, but...yeah. It can be a real issue. It's NOTHING compared to what Kats is dealing with, of course.

Hitch

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

The more I read from you, the more it sounds like you SHOULD freelance. I mean...that would enable you to not deal with jobs that would require driving and the like.

Granted, no idea if the market for C# freelancers in your neck of the woods (and, really, why would you be limited to that, anyway? It's a virtual world) is big enough, but...

It's not big enough. Most companies want to hire someone on premises, as they are very afraid that people tell them "it costs me X hours", while in actuality, it costs them X/2 hours. I for one know that, in 90% of all cases, writing software costs *more* time than you would ever think. There is *always* stuff you can't foresee, or which you have to research, which often costs more time than actually implementing the solution.

given that you would NOT be dealing with physical limitations like driving and the like...I dunno. Sounds like something I'd investigate, were I you. And, of course, for all I know, you HAVE, and it didn't pan out.

I have freelanced as a photographer (yeah, with 35% vision), and I was good at that stuff... until I started getting orders from too far away. I had two choices:

1. Hire an assistant (for which I couldn't pay, and people didn't want to pay extra)
2. Not take the job.

If you do 2. a bit too often, people just stop bothering to even ask. (Which is only logical.) Raising prices to be able to afford a second photographer/assistant was impossible, as it was already hard enough getting comissions, at least after 2009, where aunt Maggie and uncle Pete also had decent digital camera's and could do the job for free.

For some people, 'better' does not exist; only 'pay less money' is what counts, and apparently, aunt Maggie and uncle Pete are 'good enough' nowadays. As a working person, you can't compete with free.

For example, with regard to building websites and stuff... do you *KNOW* how many 'web design agencies' there are around here, with 1-5 employees? They make websites for such low prices that it comes down to "install wordpress, install plugins, frack a theme on top of it, change colors and logo, glue everything together, configure, and done", because otherwise, it costs too much time. They basically need to deliver a website every two days to barely survive.

And 'cheap' is everything that counts. Having something custom made is only possible for big companies (the baker in town balks at a €250 website already), and as I said: big companies only hire on premises.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

It's not big enough. Most companies want to hire someone on premises, as they are very afraid that people tell them "it costs me X hours", while in actuality, it costs them X/2 hours. I for one know that, in 90% of all cases, writing software costs *more* time than you would ever think. There is *always* stuff you can't foresee, or which you have to research, which often costs more time than actually implementing the solution.

Hmmm. I've worked as a pay-by-the-hour consultant, (and not at cheap rates, either) and I have to admit, I never had that issue come up. Ever. That doesn't mean anything--too small of a sampling--but it's odd (to me) that it's so prevalent in your biz. Weird.

I agree, EVERYTHING takes more time, when you are billing hourly, than you ever recoup. No argument.



<Snip the direct photography discussion>

For some people, 'better' does not exist; only 'pay less money' is what counts, and apparently, aunt Maggie and uncle Pete are 'good enough' nowadays. As a working person, you can't compete with free.

For example, with regard to building websites and stuff... do you *KNOW* how many 'web design agencies' there are around here, with 1-5 employees? They make websites for such low prices that it comes down to "install wordpress, install plugins, frack a theme on top of it, change colors and logo, glue everything together, configure, and done", because otherwise, it costs too much time. They basically need to deliver a website every two days to barely survive.

And 'cheap' is everything that counts. Having something custom made is only possible for big companies (the baker in town balks at a €250 website already), and as I said: big companies only hire on premises.

Brother, you are preaching to the choir, there. I deal with that daily. Quoted a woman to do her ebooks. She accepts the quote. Good. We move her into production, and THEN she asks, "do you also do print?" Well, her book was simple enough, so, yes, we do. (We don't do big ornate books. Not our cuppa). We send her another quote.

THEN she comes back and wants to know why we're more valuable (e.g., : more money) than "some local people who say that they will do all of that and more, like uploading my books, getting my ISBNs..."

I had to restrain myself from saying "Lady, you ASKED ME. If you don't think we add value, why are you here?" And that's endemic, in the global economy. There's always some dips**t, either down the street, or in their kitchen, or on their $300 computer, or what-have-you, promising a better product for less money. Or, a slightly-less-great product for free. (Auntie whosie-whatsits.)

I know all too well about the website thing, too. I see that CONSTANTLY. Authors, particularly, telling web dudes (and dudettes, no sexism here), that they "can get a custom website from Wix/GoDaddy/insert flavor du jour here) for FREE!" (or, $1, or $25, you name it.)

Of course, that's not what it means. They can get GoDaddy, for ex. to upload/install hosted Wordpress. But that's a far cry from a completed website.

And I also struggle with that "why are you better" question daily, just about our eBooks. Why are we "better" than Indians doing the same work? Why are we "better" than Mary Sue, who uploads a Word file?

(n.b.: no jingoism here about the good citizens of India, making a living. It happens to be the area of the world that produces the most outsourcers that compete with my biz directly.)

There's a real issue, when you cannot directly show or see the results, and the difference. Same is true, no doubt, in writing C#. The people for whom you are writing it can't see the CODE. Or, rather, don't know what they're looking at. Same here. I coudl SHOW Mary Sue how her Calibre-created MOBI looks, in HTML, but...so what? Her theory is, if she can't SEE the underbelly, why does she CARE?

I concur--pricing for quality work, in a world in which everybody has access to everybody else, is a b***h. It is. I don't have some magic answer. I wish I did (oh, BELIEVE ME). I wish I knew how to make that which is invisible to people, MATTER to them. If I knew, I'd tell you.

I think that all you can do is keep a very detailed and thorough record of what you have accomplished, and use that. We have a boatload of extraneous, somewhat worthless pages on our site, that exist for NO other reason than to show hundreds of books that we've done, to establish credibility. I think that's the ONLY way to fight that "cheap is better" mindset.

Doubt that helps. Wish it would. I don't envy you your uphill battle on this front. (Is there anything--anything at all--that you encounter, in that battle, that would provide a kernel of an idea, for a service or website or..? that would address that battle?)

Hitch

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

There's a real issue, when you cannot directly show or see the results, and the difference. Same is true, no doubt, in writing C#. The people for whom you are writing it can't see the CODE. Or, rather, don't know what they're looking at. Same here. I coudl SHOW Mary Sue how her Calibre-created MOBI looks, in HTML, but...so what? Her theory is, if she can't SEE the underbelly, why does she CARE?

In my field (I normally don't write C#, but embedded software, or backends in PHP), it's like this:

"I have a machine that now does X. Now I'm going to change my setup, and I want it to do Y."

My software:
"OK, I'll just need to change the constants for timer A and B, and then add a small procedure at the end of Task 3. Will take about an hour, maybe 1.5, including testing."

Other software I've seen:
"That can't be done, because I didn't use timer constants, and now have timings splintered throughout the program. Also, I've thrown everything together in one task with procedures named XPTCS() and DRVTLT(), of which I don't know what they do anymore. I'll have to write a new program."

The problem is that my software takes 8 weeks to split up into tasks, procedures, objects, constants, etc... it needs to be designed, documented, and then written.

That other software takes 3-4 weeks to write because it's just pounded out and often tested with trial and error. No design, no documentation.

The customer almost always goes for the cheap software, because he can't see the difference. In the end, the better designed software that costs twice the price brings him *nothing*.

Until he needs to change something.

"Oh, but we don't need to change anything."

In the end, they *ALWAYS* want to change something, somewhere, down the road.

Doubt that helps. Wish it would. I don't envy you your uphill battle on this front. (Is there anything--anything at all--that you encounter, in that battle, that would provide a kernel of an idea, for a service or website or..? that would address that battle?)

I'm a slow coder. To be honest, I'm not good with huge projects that pull stuff from a thousand places with everything changing all the time. Something like a big Wordpress installation hosting 500 plugins all glued together with some custom code here and there sets my teeth on edge. In that regard, I'm not too good a developer.

What I *am* good at is to write small, decision-making software (i.e., embedded software). I design it, document it, and then write and test it, and if given enough time, it *NEVER* crashes. Why? Because one does not simply crash machines in a factory, or a digital billboard or stuff like that. It is also maintainable, and extendable. Why? Because you can't take your factory off-line for a day or two while some dude tries to find all the timers splintered through it (and he will ALWAYS miss at least ONE), or half a month to have some procedures replaced.

That is the one thing I'm trying to get through peoples heads. I'm a software engineer, someone who writes software that has to run and be maintained for 15-20 years, not a code wrangler that slaps something together that will be completely replaced or rewritten every 1-3 years (such as websites).

Therefore, the software I write is more expensive. Yes, you can hire someone who is twice as fast as I am. Easily.

It will cost you less money, but it WILL cost you something else: time when changing something, quality, production speed, uptime, lack of documentation, or whatever. You just can't do the design, testing, verification and documenting I do in half the time it takes me. If one could, *I* would do it.

Everybody wants these:

Good Quality of code/maintainability/docs
Short development time
A Low Price

However, you can't have all three at once. Choose any combination of two, and the remaining one will be opposite. (So short development time and a low price gets you bad quality.)

In short, my selling point, as compared to most people I've seen in the field of embedded software engineering / factory automation is that I write software that can run and be maintained forever as long as the machine exists.

Most people who are writing the software for those machines aren't really at fault, actually. Often, they're the hardware engineers, cajoled into writing the software, by management skimping on software engineers, or they 'tried some programming and it wasn't that hard: it actually worked. So we can do it ourselves.'

I don't even have to write the software myself: I can design self-contained objects, procedures and tasks that can be coded by others, and verified through testing. Then I can put everything together, and it will work. That's because of the simple principle that if you make a correct addition to an already correct system, the result will be correct as well.

Spoiler:

(For the wisecracks: yes, a procedure that calculates 7 + 3 = 10 gives you the right answer, but if you needed a procedure that calculates 7 - 3 = 4, then it's not correct for that particular system.)

[Katsunami]

Now that I think of it: Beats me while a hardware engineer, at least over here in the Netherlands, has a job that seems to mean something, and a software engineer is often just 'the guy who writes the code.' (Except if you work for Google or Microsoft or something like that.)

Maybe it's because hardware can be seen when it's done, and software can't.

Actually, if you get to see the software, it *has been done wrong*, because you'll be looking at a kernel panic or a memory dump or something.