Who would YOU think is more valuable - someone who stayed in the same job for 10 years, made 4 or 5% wage increases every year, or someone that drastically increased their income every few years. So lets take 2 people who both start at making $60,000. One of them stays in the same job and gets a 4% increase per year will make and at the end of 10 years will be making $85,398 per year. Meanwhile, person 2 switches jobs every 2 years and has 5 jobs during those 10 years, but each one new job he or she makes a lot more money at the job hire. So he (or she) like the first person also starts at $60K and does that for 2 years, then gets another job for $80K, and another 2 years gets another job for $95K, and 2 years later gets $115K, and 2 years after that makes $125K. People get hired at one rate, but as soon as they are in the system, people are more or less locked into the 4% raise per year. No company will pay a current employee as much as they will a new hire. So anyways, which candidate is more interesting to the average hiring person? The one who keeps making more money every 2 years, and switching jobs. Why? Because, wow, that person must be really worth it and companies are fighting to hire a person who most likely is a top performer, so they think. Why would someone keep hiring him at higher and higher salary if he or she is not worth it? I'm not saying that this thinking is correct. I'm not saying that there are not companies out there who still look for people who want to stay a long time. But most companies will want to hire the person who changes jobs a lot, because there is a competition that develops. Also, throughout one's 20's, people really don't expect someone that age to settle down. Once one reaches 35-ish years old, they might expect a longer stay at a company.
But, ALWAYS go for more money, all things being equal.
It reminds me of the dot com bubble in 2000. I remember clearly walking around in San Francisco, and every younger person that I saw had a scared and stunned look on their faces, realizing how most of them either were, or were going to be, screwed.
Lots of schadenfreude on my part, I must admit.
The whole conqueror of the world attitude bugged the hell out of me, when it was reallly just luck that the picked a good profession and happened to be at the "right" time to see a 400% increase in the NASDAQ, as if it was all them. I was in tech also, but it just bothered me to no end.
So of course, I see a lot of parallels, although tech workers don't seem to be quite a full of themselves now, even with the monster salaries. Emphasis on "quite."
Totally agree with Grimburger - get an office at an executive suite, or some place like that. Regus is really nice. Always in Class A buildings, totally well-appointed. Kitchen, fridge, internet. You can start working the same day you sign your lease - everything is ready to go.
You can do month-to-month to start to see how you like it.
Depends now how actually talented the raw talent is.
Tom Brady, Wayne Gretsky, Michael Jordon, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Joe Montana, LaBron James. Actual top-of-the-line talent drives everything. Sure, Kobe Bryant would not win against another team if he was the only person on his side - 5 against 1, but that is not the case. While total talent is great in all positions, the super talented can't be over-estimated. Mozart. Beethoven, Einstein. Raw talent is not nothing.
>Consider that for most top law firms, if you're not coming out of the top 3 law schools they're not interested.
Yes, and this is certainly not a new phenomenon. I used to work with a recruiting department at a large upper-end law firm. They only took new associates from the top 10 universities. This was 35 years ago. So there's nothing new under the sun.
I was driving on a highway once here. And pulled off to get some gasoline. At the gas station, there was a semi truck with a huge object on it, and two military people were filling up the truck. I asked them what it was and they said that it was the cannon for the Warthog and we talked about it. I asked if they were not scared that someone would steal it from them. They laughed and said take it, that's ok. But it needs special depleted uranium rounds, so unless you can get them, how are you going to fire it? And secondly, how are you going to maneuver it around to actually use it? I asked him, in jest, that I could just strap it onto the top of my car to use it. They started laughing. They said that if you fired it, your ca would be going backwards at a high rate of speed.
My friend and I spent about 5 minutes talking to them after that.
We have actually been seeing this happen to a lot of people who are now moving over to us. https://swarmify.com
We provide automatic import from Vimeo and conversion of the embeds as well with just a javascript snippet. And our pricing ends up being about 10-50% of the cost of what Vimeo is trying to push.
One of those time where having the right features at the right time has made it easy for people to get out of this Vimeo battle against their top customers.
- Custom js player ("soft" hls with videos split as chunks which enables dynamic bandwidth/resolution change)
- videos encoded as these chunks in any cdn you find a good deal. I am using Bunny CDN and it's working quite well (but don't use their ftp 'home' storage, host on S3 and serve it from there since their ftp has abysmal upload speeds -- but if it serves you try it tho, their local storage for content is as cheap as 0,01USD/gb in the Falkestein zone)
But then you have to code up a video platform. Which isn't too bad given the <video> tag, but that becomes yet another thing to manage. Vimeo (and YouTube, if it were amenable to this use case) is a finished product for end users to interact with.
>On the pricing page Vimeo claims unlimited bandwidth for the $50/month Business plan:
I hate, hate, hate it when companies claim this, including mobile phone companies. Unlimited means unlimited. The who "Subject to fair use" is just a bullshit way of trying to say that the usage is actually NOT unlimited.
It's like getting a job at a company and they say that they will pay you $500,000 per year. But then they say that the compensation is subject to fair use, and then they start paying you $40,000 per year.
I have been a devoted follower of firefox for a long time.
However, recently I have run into a lot of situations where foxfire does not work with some of the apps I need, and chromium based browsers do work. These apps are vital to what I do, and while I prefer firefox for all the usual reasons, I cannot use it. Sad really.
??????????????
Alrighty then.