Job Hacking

Seattle v. Silicon Valley

One of the recent start-up memes has been the Seattle v. Silicon Valley so-called battle. All sorts of reasons have been put forth about why one spot is better than the other. And, to one degree or the other, they are all true. Sort-of depends on one's world-view.

But, if you are really concerned about building a long-term company, as opposed to a startup with a high potential of a 10x return to the investors, maybe any city in California is a bad place to be (and Washington is not so good, either). How about Austin or Salt Lake City?

Will Business Lead the Way?

The U.S. is in the midst of the Great Recession, and there has been some signs of renewed growth, but it sure as heck ain't that vigorous. 

We also have a bunch of folks who like TEA a lot, and they seem to think that reducing government spending, and bringing the U.S. debt down is the way out. The idea being that if taxes come down, business investment will increase.

Based in this post, they seem to be saying that business leaders are somehow different than they were in the 20th Century. Put another way, business investment tracks VERY closely to unemployment. Get people more jobs and business investment will increase.

My guess: Since our Federal Government seems likely to either not change or reduce spending, that is, they sure as heck aren't going to be adding jobs, nor are they going to be doing much to increase hiring. In other words, neither the Leadership of the Federal Government, nor of Big Business is going to lead us out of the Great Recession. So, with the exception of Software Developers, the market for talent favors the buyer, and salary increases will be modest at best.

re: You Better Not Pout, I’m Telling You Why

Megan Stanish has a GREAT post on ERE about the turn in the job market. Now, her numbers are fairly broad-based nationally so it's tough to see exactly what's happening in Washington State, or the tech sector overall, but my gut says that her article is true, and even more so for firms doing the technology thing. 

ADP's 297,000 New Jobs Report

Heard this news over NPR this morning, and was rather shocked because this number is about 3x more than predicted. Of course, there's more to this than meets the eye, and this article by John Zappe tells you why.

Still, I wonder what the employment numbers are in Washington State, and King Co. specifically, ESPECIALLY in the tech sector. 

Which brings me to my next post - You better not pout, I'm telling you why.

You want me to comment on Penelope Trunk?

One of my readers, yes someone besides me reads this, wanted me to comment on a blog post by Penelope Trunk. To me, this is remarkably funny. She's a good, engaging writer who is willing and able to write remarkable posts about her family and sex life in addition to thoughtful, pointed and helpful career advice. I'm working on it. Except for the part about writing about my sex life. 

I think this request came about because of this blog post, or maybe this one which was Penelope commenting on this Atlantic post.

Short answer, yup, she's right.

And, 2.75 years after the original post, as we claw our way out of the Great Recession, worst since '29, there's more to be said because the situation is continuing to evolve.

At face value, yes, you're going to be changing jobs fairly frequently (avg every 2 years) by contrast to the world that existed up to the Great Recession (to be fair there has been steady reductive pressure on working at one company for your whole career, staying in one field, etc. for decades). And, that's not a bad thing because it will force you to take charge of your career development.

The subtle part about these two posts, and this new fact of work life is that the selection criteria used to define where you will work has been forever changed. The notion of who you will be working with, and how you impact these folks is going to be much more important than the brand you co-opt in working for a given firm as your work-life moves forward in time. In this new world, you simply cannot waste your time working with people who are not fun, do not bring out your best, or don't get the fact that everybody needs to be pushing hard & smart to move things forward. 

But that's not the most curious part in this new world. How has this recession affected how Angels, Super-Angels, Investment Bankers and VCs of all shapes and sizes approach their investments, and by that, I mean the companies they fund which you work for? As we come out of this recession, I'm wondering if the rules, the methods these firms use to make big returns are changing.

For example, will the B round raise be the last for most firms, leaving them to die an untimely death? (Think about it in this very simplified way, let's say you had a pile of money to invest, and you figure that 1 or 2 in 10 of the companies you invest in will succeed. Succeed by when? Is it possible to cover more potential investments over a 10-year window if you are crisper about divesting yourself of those who are likely to languish and suck your monetary and time resources away from other opportunities? If you play this right, there are not just 10 investments, but maybe 20 or 30, which will improve your odds of at least one big payout greatly, not to mention the reasonable payouts.) Are some Angels going to start exerting more influence on the companies they invest in, and start serving in longer-term CxO roles for those ventures which are started by those without Sr. Executive experience?

Let's say both are true (and there are probably others). In any case, if you know the company has an 85% chance of shutting down or experiencing drastic layoffs 2 years after you start, wouldn't you structure your job objectives differently than if you are fairly confident that the firm is going to be around for an indefinite (more than 2 years) period of time? Or that your chances of a reasonable payout for your work is only 10%, or maybe more like 5%, but that you'll know this in a relatively short period of time wrt your overall working career? Or, maybe that you should structure your own startup without raising Angel or VC funds, and maybe taking a much longer time in the sweat equity stage makes much more sense?

Regardless, Penelope Trunk is right. You are living in interesting times.

re: Quarter-Baked

Tom Peters goes out on a limb and proposes action, looking at the Gulf Oil Disaster as the Canary in the Coal mine. 

Ever play 3-card Monte?

Tip of the hat to David Brin for pointing out this fascinating paper on how 'Control Frauds' (Fraud conducted by a CEO or the Head of a Nation) cause economic stagnation and collapse. Because sometimes you need to know how the game is played.

About that Economic Driver, and history in the making

Small businesses, and startups generally fall into this category, are where our economic recovery will be founded (is founded? it's hard to know when an economic recovery starts when you are close to it, time-wise).

Which is why Paul Krugman's latest piece, Why We Reform, is so important to startups. Here's the point, "...employment-based health insurance, which is already regulated in a way that mostly prevents this kind of abuse, is unraveling. Less than half of workers at small businesses were covered last year, down from 58 percent a decade ago."

One thing for sure, this is going to be a weekend for the history books (and no, it's not about the Huskies and March Madness). I vote for the decision that puts our economy on better footing.

Is your life a science experiment?

What is the National Debate regarding health care legislation about?

Health Insurance, not Health Care.

Health Insurance, not improving businesses bottom lines.

Health Insurance, not our Diet.

Issues framed as 'National Debates' are usually about Political Parties and/or News Organizations trying to get you to buy into their product. What they are not about is getting you to do something about the core problem.

I just read a nice little book review in the NY Times, Rules Worth Following for Everyone's Sake, which is about the book Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual, by Michael Pollan.

Two items from this article puts the whole 'National Debate' into stark relief.

"Two fundamental facts provide the impetus Americans and other Westerners need to make dietary changes. One, as Mr. Pollan points out, is that populations who rely on the so-called Western diet — lots of processed foods, meat, added fat, sugar and refined grains — 'invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.' Indeed, 4 of the top 10 killers of Americans are linked to this diet."

4 of the top 10 killers! Notice how these four causes are usually health-care intensive ways to die.

The article continues, "The second fact is that people who consume traditional diets, free of the ersatz foods that line our supermarket shelves, experience these diseases at much lower rates. And those who, for reasons of ill health or dietary philosophy, have abandoned Western eating habits often experience a rapid and significant improvement in their health indicators."

Thus, it follows that if we all started eating a diet comprised of more fresh fruits and vegetables, and far less processed food with trans-fats, sugar, and refined flour, we all end up healthier, and significantly reducing our medical needs. Fewer stops at the Doc means that our overall medical bills go down. Then, our Health Care insurance rates should also decline.

Now, there are probably all kinds of weirdo conspiracy theories one could cook up as to why our legislators would not promote our eating a better diet. And more importantly, given their ability to get anything done, why wait around for them to react when you can do this on your own without their help?

Here's what you can do to change your health, and later, national health care costs, starting today:

1. Change your diet.
2. Go out and exercise for 30 - 60 minutes a day

Because it's your experiment, not theirs.

But everyone says that...

There is a line of economic and political thought that goes like this: Gross Domestic Product is tied to Energy consumption. The more energy used in the pursuit of economic improvement, the higher Gross Domestic Product.

Then, I read this, "since 1990, Denmark has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent. Over the same time frame, Danish energy consumption has stayed constant and Denmark’s gross domestic product has grown by more than 40 percent." 

First, this is an amazing statement, and an even more amazing accomplishment. Second, it makes me want to go visit Denmark, the country of my Grandfather, even more. And third, it's a great example of how wrong commonly accepted wisdom can be.

Question commonly accepted wisdom. Your job hunt, your recruiting work, and indeed, your business need you to think differently than those who have gone before, more now than any other time in in the last 6 decades.

BTW, the source of this quote is The Copenhagen That Matters, and thank you once again Mr. Friedman!