>This confuses me, because its as if the author tries to force his valuation of the opportunity onto all prospective applicants.
Perhaps it's rather as the author believes in an objective reality, where there is one true valuation of a thing, and he's not so much trying to "force his valuation onto all prospective applicants" as trying to "communicate the real valuation to all prospective applicants".
>He recognizes that a position at Penny Arcade has a level of cachet, but doesn't recognize that that level of cachet is transitive: if someone "can work somewhere “cool” and feel like a part of something big", then good for them.
Perhaps he recognizes that what some people perceive as "cachet" is actually BS and can be bad for them, regardless of what they believe, in the same way that a teenager wanna-be rockstar that thinks heroin is cool and an early death is "romantic" needs to be told otherwise...
Perhaps it's rather as the author believes in an objective reality, where there is one true valuation of a thing, and he's not so much trying to "force his valuation onto all prospective applicants" as trying to "communicate the real valuation to all prospective applications".
I strongly disagree with this, though. I'm young, but I'm confident people can have different experiences at the same position -- I have friends who would happily take a salary hit to work at startups or smaller businesses. They value the opportunities and cultures of those jobs to be worth more than the additional $X,000. That doesn't mean they disagree with a "one true valuation" -- it means their valuation has different factors and weights.
I took a pay cut of $20k/yr to work at my current job. I'm glad I did. I made a shitload of money before, and even if I'm sometimes discontent with my current position due to the occasional fit of stress, it's much healthier of an environment for me to be in.
Actually, looking at the job post for PA:
- 'Code in multiple front-end and back-end languages' - well, I can do that. In fact, I do a lot of backend work at my job, and am forced to do front-end work for it as well because we don't have web devs on staff.
- "Maintain servers and other hardware including load balancing and database admin" - Yep, I do that. It's part of my core tasks.
- "Do general office IT" - Don't need to do much of this, because we're almost entirely a Mac shop.
- "Manage your own projects" - I suck at this, but It's part of the job.
- "Be on call 27/7 though we hope not to bug you too much in the middle of the night" - Yep. I once got a phone call at 3 AM and had to get up and refactor some code because it wasn't displaying data properly. Not even business critical, that's just how it goes.
I could make more elsewhere, and have on several occasions. I could make twice as much consulting, for example. The perks, however, are great. I get to set my own hours outside of our core hours, I work with really smart people, we have neat company events, and all in all it's a great place to work.
So for everyone who thinks that I'm being 'exploited' the way these PA guys are: I really, really like my job. I have a great team and a great boss, and I'm happier here than I've been in my entire working career, but if someone broke it down to just these bullet points, it might sound shitty.
Personally, I think it would be a great opportunity to work at Penny Arcade. They're a huge company in some ways, and they have a lot of visibility. It's also a fun office environment (ping-pong tournaments? prank wars? video games?) if you're the right fit. I'd apply if I were willing to move to the US (and if I were, Seattle would be a good pick).
It's not all about money. If you're getting paid enough to live comfortably at home, the next most important thing is to live comfortably at work.
We have no idea what your office is like or how much they make. We do have an idea how much PA makes, and it's enough to hire at least two people to handle these tasks.
Assuming there's enough work across all four that needs doing.
Keep in mind, all of these tasks are already being done by somebody. It's possible that the majority of the tasks will be additional projects (e.g. set up an office fileserver to optimize the art workflow, automate common tasks, fix minor bugs in the CMS, etc).
My point is: there's a ton of things we don't know about this job either; for example, their 'we're not going to pay you lots' could mean $100k instead of $120k, which would be fine by me for living in Seattle, but the way people are complaining about it makes it sound like it's $35k/yr and you have to buy your own office equipment.
Quite. Imagine you are a hiring manager (or perhaps you don't have to imagine). Would you make a candidate a higher offer seeing Penny Arcade on their CV? Then what is the cachet exactly?
Either way, I would think that having Penny Arcade on a resume would be an interesting story but other than that I can't imagine their infrastructure being anything that would help a career. Penny Arcade is probably only slightly above a real estate office for complexity.
Me thinks you have not seen the scope of their audience. This would be akin to having no respect for the Humble Bundle developers because it is just a tiny shop. I mean, only a few games every few weeks. :)
The scope of their audience is somewhat irrelevant. I'm not criticizing their comic here - other than a somewhat simple blog(ish) design, they just need to handle a lot of users to their semi-static site which is a solved problem. Maybe deal with a ton of users on their forum - once again a solved problem. Otherwise, like I said, most of it is office IT stuff for a handful of people working in an office.
I'm not sure how that is any more impressive than many other businesses that aren't known in the geek world.Their other endeavors (Child's Play, PAX) are more business and logistics and light on the IT. From what I've read most of that stuff is outsourced anyways so that PA can focus on the content and not the tedium.
I'd love to have it explained if it wasn't a sarcasm.
I'm not trying to challenge you, but as an employee I'd always thought that a tech company that supports the infrastructure would look better on resume than one that depends on it. I'd like to hear why.
I can't answer for jblow, but in that position I would hire someone with a history of choosing to work on something they cared about rather than someone with more technical experience in a second.
People who are 'switched on'^ are astonishingly more valuable than people who come to the office and manage to passably succeed at the daily task list they're assigned.
^ <-- This is an arbitrary term I use for people who come to work and care about what they do, engage with other coworkers and generally involve themselves in doing the work because they care about the work, rather than having a 'home life' of things they care about, and not caring about work at all, other than to get money. ...it's easy to tell in person when you work with someone, but much harder from an interview or resume. A history of working at places you cared about is a good indicator in my experience, limited as it is.
More valuable in the sense that you can get more work out of them for less pay< i assume you mean. What's wrong with market rates + overtime? unless you"re pocketing it yourself!
>Perhaps it's rather as the author believes in an objective reality, where there is one true valuation of a thing
This just annoys me to no end. Even in an objective reality, valuations are subjective; e.g. I value having a high-end computer at my home and a rink-a-dink laptop on the road, whereas some of my friends will never own a desktop again because they find no value in it. To be cliche, different strokes for different folks. There is no real valuation of anything, but simply a choice between alternatives which offer some or all of the things that someone chooses to value.
Since not everyone is objectivist, the first is sort of contradictory.
The second point is lost on comparing the job to illicit drugs. This is more like comparing it to an intern where you may not get as high of a salary as you could possibly demand, but you will get to work with people you likely view as celebrities. Would be closer to a roadie position with a very established band. Probably not the most lucrative position ever, but is it really comparable to heroin?
The contradiction was "the author believes in an objective reality" but might not be trying to "force his valuation" on others. My point is that not only is this forcing a valuation, it is assuming an objective view on things in order to do so.
And there is a huge difference between heroin and "just an example of a tempting but harmful habit." I mean, sure I can see what you are getting at. But I go back to saying it is a terrible rhetorical style. Any point there is lost by it just being off in scope.
It assumes that being subjective blocks objective arguments
Take this as you will, but I would (subjectively, natch) contend that the only objective argument is that objectivity doesn't exist. There is always selectivity in play when making an argument, both by what is included to support the argument and by what is not. So, subjectivity itself blocks objective arguments. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.
Perhaps it's rather as the author believes in an objective reality, where there is one true valuation of a thing
Wait, are you proposing that this is actually the case? That all things have one true real value? That if the entire world likes pistachios but I don't, my perceived low value of pistachio is somehow objectively wrong and needs correction?
People value things differently. Whether its because of individual preference, or just different circumstances, the fundamental proposition of commerce is that people want different stuff.
If I have a banana tree and you have a goat, one banana is worth less to me than a cup of goat milk. Meanwhile, a cup of goat milk is worth less to you than a banana. We exchange and now we're both better off. This is the whole reason commerce works: because it's a non-zero game.
people perceive as "cachet" is actually BS and can be bad for them
I'm just flummoxed here that someone can just flatly declare that another's perceptions of their own preferences are bullshit. "No, dude, you really hate chocolate. Trust me. Yeah, that feeling of satisfaction you have right now. Not real. Don't smile like that. It's a fake smile! You hate it!"
Perhaps it's rather as the author believes in an objective reality, where there is one true valuation of a thing, and he's not so much trying to "force his valuation onto all prospective applicants" as trying to "communicate the real valuation to all prospective applicants".
>He recognizes that a position at Penny Arcade has a level of cachet, but doesn't recognize that that level of cachet is transitive: if someone "can work somewhere “cool” and feel like a part of something big", then good for them.
Perhaps he recognizes that what some people perceive as "cachet" is actually BS and can be bad for them, regardless of what they believe, in the same way that a teenager wanna-be rockstar that thinks heroin is cool and an early death is "romantic" needs to be told otherwise...