Can Full-Time Tech Workers Survive the Gig Economy? (dice.com)

Nerval's Lobster writes: By some measures, more than 40 percent of U.S. workers will be independent in 2020. Today, that number stands at 34 percent, according to the Freelancer's Union. By all accounts, the trend seems widespread enough to indicate that tech pros should prepare themselves for the dynamics of a world that depends more on contingent work. The question isn't whether the tech world will see an increasing prevalence of 'gigs,' rather than full-time positions; it's whether those in full-time positions can easily keep their jobs when there's pressure to farm it out cheaply and easily to freelancers. Or will the need for people who can see projects through the long term prevent the 'gig economy' from radically changing the tech industry?

Comments

Look at the bean counters for your answer

[BarbaraHudson]

Permanent staff are seen as a burden. They will look for any way to reduce that, so long as their (or their bosses) jobs are not the ones affected.

Institutional Knowledge

[The Raven]

On a site that frequently ridicules the short-sighted behavior of eliminating experienced employees to bring in fresh (cheap) college graduates, it seems out of place to have a positive outlook on pervasive outsourcing.

If everyone is a contract worker doing works-for-hire, then nobody has extensive institutional knowledge. You are constantly explaining and re-explaining how your business works, and bugs are repeatedly entering codebases because the developer hasn't spent years understanding the business and its workflows. It doesn't matter how well documented your business is, developers will make mistakes when they are unfamiliar with your processes. When they can't look at a workflow or data structure and go 'that's not right' because they have spent years at the company learning how things work.

Experience has value; not just experience coding, but experience with the company understanding how it works. Systems are rarely generic... they are embedded directly into the business logic unique to each company, and the less you need to learn and relearn the requirements of every system the more productive you can be.

Re:Institutional Knowledge

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Experience has value; not just experience coding, but experience with the company understanding how it works. Systems are rarely generic... they are embedded directly into the business logic unique to each company, and the less you need to learn and relearn the requirements of every system the more productive you can be."

Everything you wrote is spot on. I recently witnessed this very thing happen. A company I know of was outsourcing their development to an eastern block company and they just couldn't do it. It should have been obvious, as the system they have is literally infested with custom business logic, and that business logic is by no means standard, typical, or intuitive. In this case the intent was to develop some in-house software further by outsourcing to people with no understanding of the company, and they thought it would work, because Agile! Seriously! It is sad that such a large section of today's software development community seem to lack an appreciation for having a forest, tree, and root perspective on the product(s) and company, and actually thinks Agile is a viable Engineering methodology. It's pitiful.

Re:Institutional Knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

It is sad that such a large section of today's software development community seem to lack an appreciation for having a forest, tree, and root perspective on the product(s) and company, and actually thinks Agile is a viable Engineering methodology. It's pitiful.

I think it's important to emphasize that almost without exception it's the management, and not the engineers, who fail to understand this. It should be simple, but apparently the MBA brain has great difficulty wrapping itself around it. Personally, I think that business schools, which promote the idea that any business can be understood according to simple "universal principles" (aka the 10 minute manager) without recourse to critical thinking or real world experience, are a big part of the problem, but I digress. With regard to outsourcing, I like to put it to MBAs like this: If the core of your business (aka the "secret sauce") can be outsourced then you don't really have a business that's special or even worth doing. At that point you're just a price taker in competition with other me-too firms for the lowest bid and that's not a business you want to be in. Instead, you want to be in the business of selling a unique and high value product or service, one which cannot be easily imitated or substituted, and doing it better than anyone else. If such a business could be outsourced then everyone would be doing it and it would no longer be unique, special or profitable.

Personal experience, rough on families

[Tablizer]

I used to "gig around" a lot, and found it difficult to co-raise a family under. If you are single and can hop all over the country and/or globe, that's great! But it's hard on families.

During good times you may be able to stay mostly local, but good times rarely last. The boom/bust "business cycle" of capitalism has been going on long before the USA existed, and has yet to be solved.

If gigs paid very well, then perhaps one could live with more gaps by saving up. But I have not seen a significant lasting pay advantage, especially during recessions.

Maybe a few "elite" workers with speedy eyes and eidetic memories can pull it off and come out ahead of traditional salaries, but by definition, most of us are not elite.

But I don't want to be an employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust some entity to be my only source of income? No thanks. I'd rather have 2-3 income streams... they're not likely to shut down all at the same time.
If you like your employee status you expose yourself to the whims of MBAs. Not a good idea.