>> As far as job security goes, working for yourself has to be the least
>> secure job logically possible, surely...?
>
> You could say that and on the surface it looks right. But on the other
> hand I wouldn’t rate highly the job security of working in a company
> that does not make a profit

I'm not saying that I have amazingly good job security. I'm just saying 
that anybody who works for themselves has even less than I do. (OTOH, 
it's quite plausible the money is better...)

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 12:12 PM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm not saying that I have amazingly good job security. I'm just saying
> that anybody who works for themselves has even less than I do. (OTOH,
> it's quite plausible the money is better...)

True, the money is generally better or the conditions are. That is you 
can be picky about which assignments you chose or like me at the moment, 
take a lot of time off work. Also true is that there can be lean periods 
where there is little contract work available. Being an independent 
contractor is not for everyone and I would not recommend it for you. But 
my point is that when you are a permie even if you think that you are in 
a secure job it is not always so. Almost 20 years ago I was made 
redundant from a permanent position with an oil company. I was very 
surprised as I thought that my job was safe as I was one of the better 
people in my department. Who knows what criteria they used for selecting 
who was to go. I’m sure that it was not merit as some of the people they 
kept on were real duffers. ;-)
Anyway, it turned out to be the best thing that has happened to me in a 
long while.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:21:00 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Personally, I'd prefer job security. But apparently that's just me...
> 
> (Did you know, there are people who actually work FOR THEMSELVES? Crazy,
> crazy people...)

Even crazier, here in the US, if you work for yourself, your options for 
reasonable health insurance are quite limited.

I know, I currently work for myself.  Not necessarily by choice, but in 
this job market, finding something permanent has been more challenging 
than I anticipated.

But the contract pay's not bad. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:21:50 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> On 18/11/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/11/2011 9:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> (Did you know, there are people who actually work FOR THEMSELVES?
>>> Crazy,
>>> crazy people...)
>>
>> I've been doing that since 1997 and maybe you are right.
> 
> As far as job security goes, working for yourself has to be the least
> secure job logically possible, surely...?

Depends on if you have skills people want to pay for.  I know some who 
have worked for themselves for most of their working lives and they've 
always been in demand.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/18/2011 1:21, Invisible wrote:
> By this time next year, it will essentially be a
> very expensive doorstop. It must make accountants' hair tingle!

I wouldn't go that far, unless you're an accountant. :-)

> Personally, I'd prefer job security. But apparently that's just me...

It's not just you, no. You can go to a company big enough to probably still 
be in business in 5 years, tho.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 19/11/2011 06:41 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 1:21, Invisible wrote:
>> By this time next year, it will essentially be a
>> very expensive doorstop. It must make accountants' hair tingle!
>
> I wouldn't go that far, unless you're an accountant. :-)

Random fact: Everybody thinks that accountants are boring old men in 
suits. The kind of people you'd hate to meet at a party. But in fact, 
every accountant and financial auditor I've ever met has been a) female 
b) beautiful and c) friendly. GO FIGURE!

>> Personally, I'd prefer job security. But apparently that's just me...
>
> It's not just you, no. You can go to a company big enough to probably
> still be in business in 5 years, tho.

Any company can fail. I guess the difference is that if a big company is 
going to fail, you'll know about it sooner before it happens...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-11-19 01:41, Darren New a écrit :
> On 11/18/2011 1:21, Invisible wrote:
>> By this time next year, it will essentially be a
>> very expensive doorstop. It must make accountants' hair tingle!
>
> I wouldn't go that far, unless you're an accountant. :-)
>
>> Personally, I'd prefer job security. But apparently that's just me...
>
> It's not just you, no. You can go to a company big enough to probably
> still be in business in 5 years, tho.
>

Difficult to see.  Always in motion is the future.

For example, a year ago or two ago, no one would have refused a job at 
RIM.   Today, I don't think many people would want to go there.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/19/2011 5:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Any company can fail. I guess the difference is that if a big company is
> going to fail, you'll know about it sooner before it happens...

Yep. That's why I'm always amused when people tell me Linux is better 
because "what if Microsoft stops supporting Windows?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 11/19/2011 5:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Any company can fail. I guess the difference is that if a big company is
> > going to fail, you'll know about it sooner before it happens...

> Yep. That's why I'm always amused when people tell me Linux is better 
> because "what if Microsoft stops supporting Windows?"

  I actually fail to understand your reasoning.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/19/2011 9:57, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 11/19/2011 5:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Any company can fail. I guess the difference is that if a big company is
>>> going to fail, you'll know about it sooner before it happens...
>
>> Yep. That's why I'm always amused when people tell me Linux is better
>> because "what if Microsoft stops supporting Windows?"
>
>    I actually fail to understand your reasoning.

It amuses me because they fail to take into account the extra pain caused by 
writing for something like Linux instead of Windows, in those situations 
where it matters, which is usually where the argument comes up. "You should 
avoid DirectX, and only use libraries that run on every platform, because 
Microsoft might stop selling Windows one day!"  There may be lots of reasons 
to avoid Windows, but the thought that Microsoft will fail before your 
company does is not one of them. Right up there with "we should avoid SQL, 
because what if we get so many customers that the sort of technology that 
runs AT&T's billing and Visa's credit card processing can't keep up with the 
demand for *our* product?"

Of course, in other situations, Linux is superior. But not because Microsoft 
might go broke.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message