←back to thread

Ask HN: Any jobs that don't force you to always be advancing career wise?

108 points throwaway929997 | 4 comments | 14 Mar 25 14:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.696s | source

(Throwaway for hopefully obvious reasons) I’m a software developer (web, fullstack) that’s been in the industry for about 10 years now and I’ve gotten to a point where I don’t care about advancing my career. My current title is Senior Software Engineer and, if I had it my way, I would be happy to keep that title for the rest of my career. I tried being a manager for a bit and hated it, and, in a similar fashion, the increased responsibility and scope of going down the road of Staff+ engineer holds no interest to me.

My only issue is that my current job has a very strong “up or out” mentality that I’m starting to push up against. And most other places I’ve worked at or talk about with friends seem to have similar attitudes toward career progression. I just want to do my job well, learn new things, and contribute to the businesses success. I don’t want to have to try and figure out with my manager what projects I should work on to make myself look good and be able to work my way up the ladder.

Has anyone worked somewhere that they felt they could just do their job without worrying about the career advancement aspect? I’ve contracted a bit and know that this would align well with this goal, but I enjoy having health insurance and not having to scrounge for work all the time.

Show context
PaulHoule ◴[14 Mar 25 14:21 UTC] No.43362894[source]▶
Personally working in smaller companies, startups (the scene probably ends somehow in 1-3 years) and academic organizations (professors have a career path, staff not) I find that no advancement is a norm.
replies(2): >>43363053 #>>43363075 #
NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[14 Mar 25 14:38 UTC] No.43363053[source]▶
Startups though, ugh. Maybe tomorrow you will end up a millionaire with stock, or you're eating catfood and hoping the grocery bill difference will be enough to pay the mortgage next month while you desperately look for a job in the worst economy since 2008. If there's an in-between, I've never seen it personally.
replies(4): >>43363116 #>>43363338 #>>43363372 #>>43365041 #
CaffeineLD50 ◴[14 Mar 25 14:45 UTC] No.43363116[source]▶
You'll work 60hrs a week "hardcore" for a Musk type for stock with a blackout period and multiple risks of massive dilution in any or all funding rounds.

Most startups will fail or "exit" with a sale that profits only a few key investors and insiders.

But eating catfood is always an good idea no matter your net worth.

replies(1): >>43363275 #
ajb ◴[14 Mar 25 15:00 UTC] No.43363275[source]▶
As a cat owner I'd suggest that dog food is likely closer to a complete diet for humans. Cats are obligate carnivores, dogs are omnivores like us.

Also, most cat food smells pretty bad

replies(1): >>43363638 #
1. toast0 ◴[14 Mar 25 15:35 UTC] No.43363638[source]▶
OTOH, if you're barely able to afford food, if they're the same cost, high protein might be a good thing.
replies(2): >>43363774 #>>43364009 #
2. PaulHoule ◴[14 Mar 25 15:48 UTC] No.43363774[source]▶
Rice and beans are cheap and combining them, your body can use the protein.
replies(1): >>43364456 #
3. ajb ◴[14 Mar 25 16:09 UTC] No.43364009[source]▶
Completeness is more important than optimal balance. For example, a high protein diet is no good if you get scurvy because cats produce their own vitamin C and you don't (although dogs also don't need vitamin C, which suggests that a pet-food-only diet needs to include at least some guinea pig food)
4. CaffeineLD50 ◴[14 Mar 25 16:49 UTC] No.43364456[source]▶
Its less humorous to advocate a healthy low cost vegan diet than to suggest people eat cat food.

But I totally agree!