Entries Tagged 'Silicon Valley' ↓

Today I read the story of Terry Childs, a bonafide BOFH of the City of San Francisco. Apparently he was disciplined for poor performance and so he took matters into his own hands and changed everybody’s passwords on the system. Now San Francisco’s networks are in his control even though he has been arrested and the city has set a $5 million bail.

First of all, I find this whole story bizarre because since the perpetuator is in jail and the city has physical access to the machines then they are able to reset the passwords or reinstall the systems. Second, what the hell were they doing by giving this guy so much power over the network? It doesn’t even seem like he was the IT director from the report. Third, I find the city’s reaction to this mischief to be quite overblown. The network is still running, but other admins cannot access the system. This shows that perhaps the other admins ARE more incompetent than Childs. They could have resolved the matter in a more civil manner than arresting the guy. That probably just pissed off the guy more.

Anyway, this guy was paid $150k last year, and since he has pulled this stunt I doubt he will be getting any new job offers soon. I don’t know if he did this to spite his employer or to keep his job, but it is safe to say that he probably would be fired soon enough.

Instead of doing this, he could have just told his superiors the security flaws and problems he sees at work. If they don’t listen, then there are other jobs out there he could apply for. If I were really angry at an employer I would just pack up and leave. I have left jobs before where someone or something pissed me off, but I just don’t think it is worthwhile to plan some kind of revenge. Terry Childs may have embarrassed his employer, but he also embarrassed himself by being so unprofessional.

Share This

Today I read an article in BusinessWeek titled Taxing the “Not So Rich” Rich. Basically, it talked about how Senator Obama is proposing raising taxes for “rich” families with incomes of $250,000 or more, and how some families feel that they are just middle class with that kind of income.

As the article pointed out, it really depends on where you live since the cost of living varies wildly around the world. My husband and I don’t make anywhere near $250k a year, but we would be considered extremely well off if we lived in China. We may be upper middle class in a lower cost state like Texas since we could afford a house there and send our future kids to private school. However, in the Silicon Valley, there is no way anyone would considered us to be rich. Personally I feel that “rich” in the Valley is probably someone with assets in the hundred-million to billion range, and I am realistic enough to say that I probably will never be rich here.

I think a lot of the angst in the article comes from people who have good incomes that live in expensive areas of the country. The fact is, the tax system doesn’t adjust for cost of living. So even though people in high cost areas like the Bay Area are compensated well, our real capability in saving money is vastly diminished. It is tough to equalize this situation, and adding more taxes to high income families will probably just make it tougher for families with children who need that income.

Personally, one thing that really annoys me about all of this isn’t even about taxes.  I feel that with every speech about raising taxes on the rich, the politicians are implying that there is something wrong with having good incomes.  It is as if it is a sin for a family to make over $250,000 so that they need to be punished.   Most people I know here in California who have good incomes are hard working and honest people who did nothing to deserve the ire of people who have less than them.  They are professionals who contribute quite a bit to the society just through their work.  Why is there a need to take away more from them?

One thing is for sure, taxes will go up after the Bush tax cuts expire in two years. I highly doubt that the tax cuts will stay with a Democratic majority in the government. The sting will be especially painful for dual income couples like us because the marriage penalty will probably go back in full force again and our tax rate will rise dramatically. It will probably cut into our savings rate, but we are socking away as much as we could now before that happens. Ultimately, I think the government should find more ways to cut spending rather than squeezing more out of married couples and the “rich”.   I also don’t believe for a second that they will draw the line at $250k.  So brace yourself for more taxes everyone!

Share This

Recently I have seen a few blog posts about this article stating that women have a pretty tough time working in science and technology due to a “pervasive macho environment”. Ironically, this article was published in the “Fashion and Style” section of the New York Times, and that raised the ire of some more women. The article stated that 53% of the women surveyed said they have to “act like a man” in order to succeed and that 63% of women experience harassment on the job. Sadly, as a woman working in technology, I have to say that this really isn’t news. Here are some of my thoughts and experiences surrounding this issue.

I have to say that I am pretty used to “acting like a man”. When I entered the EECS program at UC Berkeley, my class was only 18% female and I remember that in one particular class there were only two girls. Consequently, all my friends and project partners ended up being guys. I think one thing that makes being a man easy for me is my name. You can’t really tell whether I am male or female from the name Xin (in Chinese it’s a name appropriate for a man or woman). It is funny to me when people assume that I am male from my resume, though. One time a recruiter called me and I answered, “yes, this is Xin”, and he actually said, “Oh, I’m pleasantly surprised that you are a woman”. I think my name makes people who read my resume and emails comfortable because they generally assume that I am another faceless immigrant man working in technology.

Another thing that helps me is that I am pretty immersed in the geek culture so I have common interests with the guys and I know how to communicate with them. For example, at my first company I met guys that watched the same SciFi shows as I did and played the same games. Then I made friends at work at the second company I worked for because I posted a list of games I liked. Suddenly some engineers that never spoke to me before started to talk to me. It has been my experience that most women are not as nerdy and dorky, though, so they tend to be outsiders in a majority of game loving and young hackers and alienation is never a nice feeling. For most of my school and career, men have treated me like one of the guys, and I am pretty sure that has spared me a lot of harassment. So once again, I think I am validating the original article’s point that you need to be like a man to be accepted in a man’s world.

Finally, another point in the article that I have thought about a lot is the attrition rate of women from science and engineering jobs. I wrote in a previous article that female engineers with children are somewhat disadvantaged because they are supposed to work the weird hours like everyone else, but their kids don’t allow them to, and as a result resentment brews. Just as the article pointed out, a lot of women drop out of science and technology between the ages of 35 to 40 because these women don’t have the luxury of a wife that takes care of the kids. This is actually one of the reasons why I want to make enough dough in seven years and quit working full time in the tech industry.

Right now I am actually in a pretty good company where approximately half of my team members are female engineers. The company seems to be really supportive of its employees in taking care of their personal issues.  When a teammate went through a personal tragedy everyone allowed her to have as much time as she needed to recover.  I find this quite rare and somewhat endearing. It gives me hope that perhaps I would stay a long time here and more companies will work on retaining their female talent with flexible schedules and moral support.

Share This

I haved lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for almost 11 years now, and the number one reason I hear from people as to why they love this place is “the weather”. The Bay Area does have a pretty unique weather profile that mirrors the mediterranean and it is usually fairly comfortable all year. However, I wonder if the weather is really what keeps people here, and if it’s really the foremost reason why they are willing to pay such a premium to live here. I think for me, weather is not the most important thing in the place I live, and here is why.

When I lived in China as a child I lived in Yangzhou. This was a city with very clearly marked seasons. Summers were scorching hot, and snow fell in the winters. I have pictures of a younger me in a thick winter coat and a stinky coon hat crouching proudly next to a snowman. In the summers I went out and captured tadpoles and butterflies for fun. I loved that place, and it didn’t matter that it was possible to get heat strokes in the summer and icicles as big as myself hung from the roofs in the winter.

Then I moved to Hawaii, and I got my first sunburn from the penetrating tropical rays. My hair was bleached by the sun to almost a light brown and most of the time it was 85 to 90 degrees. Sometimes there were monsoon like rains that triggered flash flood warnings and painted the sky with multiple rainbows in their aftermaths. I really enjoyed living there despite the fierce sun.

Finally I ended up in the San Francisco Bay Area during the first year of high school. At first I actually hated the weather here because it felt cold compared to Hawaii. I can only describe the weather here as muted as compared to the places I have been and that is probably why it is so attractive to many people. However, I think I still prefer Hawaii’s weather more.

Since I lived in these three distinct biomes, I can safely say that weather is really not the most important factor in how much I love living in a place. I think the main reason people move to the San Francisco Bay Area is simply money. This is a high paying area with many jobs, and the reason why we relocated here from Hawaii was just that. My parents were able to find employment here and build a financially stable life in the past decade. For me, the one thread that made me love and enjoy every place I lived is family. A stable family and support system could make any place bearable regardless of the weather. Ultimately, when you plug yourself into a community, it is harder to uproot yourself and move to another place. So even though I gripe about the expenses and traffic involved with living in the Bay Area, I know I have people who love me here, and that’s probably worth more than anything and could prevent me from leaving.

If beautiful weather is really the only thing that’s keeping you in a place you can’t afford, then perhaps it is not worth it. I really think that humans are highly adaptable and social creatures that could grow to love a place as long as they are not alone. Though I guess in casual conversation it is much easier and neutral to say, “I love this place because the weather is great”. So what do you think?  Is the weather the number one reason why you live where you live?

Share This

Well, I have been working for almost three years, and I am on my third job. Some older family members have warned me about being a job hopper, but I don’t think it’s such a bad thing, and here’s why.

When we are in school we are trained to learn new things every semester. We also get new teachers and sometimes new friends. So in a way we are trained to change our environment constantly for 12 to 16 years. It is pretty jarring when you get out of school and you are expected to stay with one company for a very long time. In my case I stayed with my first two companies for more than one year each, and I thought that was a pretty long time at each job, but apparently some people I have met still think you should stay at a company for at least five years, or for life. I think that’s just silly because I really think that if I didn’t change jobs, I wouldn’t have learned as much as I did. I started in a pretty great company with a bunch of extremely smart people, but after testing one application for over a year, I was pretty sick of it. It was possible to move into another part of the company, but I would still work with the same product, and I decided it was time to move on. At my next company I learned a lot more about web technologies and picked up more useful skills. However, after a year and half of the same work I felt that there was not much more to learn.

Another thing I have written about before is that there is really no loyalty towards employees these days. Companies can fire us whenever they want, so why are we expected to give our lives to one corporation? I think in today’s society, blind loyalty to one employer is pretty foolish. When you put yourself out on the market more often you learn what skills are needed in your field, and you can improve yourself accordingly. When your skills are updated and transferable you will not be afraid of a situation where your employer decides to shed you like last year’s fashion.

Job-hopping also builds up your network faster than if you would have stayed in one place. I think making just one friend in a workplace is a great thing, and if you go to more places you are more likely to make business connections that could be tapped later. It is definitely possible to find people you can get along with in almost any workplace. I still keep in touch with quite a few ex-coworkers and it’s fun and informative to discuss our jobs and lives we no longer work with each other.

Finally, when you change jobs more often you are more likely to get great raises from job to job. I think if I had stayed at my first company for 3 years I wouldn’t have had an over 50% increase in my salary in that amount of time.

I feel that in the Silicon Valley job hopping isn’t really looked down on as much because companies are dying and rising all the time here and people shift accordingly. Nearly everyone I know have had a job for less than two years. Right now I feel like I could stay at my current company for quite a while, because I still have a lot to learn after working there for six months. I am pretty sure I won’t stay for life, though, but a tenure of a few years is likely.

I am curious, though. What do you consider to be job hopping? Is changing jobs every year considered job hopping? How about changing jobs every two years? Do you think it is bad or good for your career?

Share This