I had a long and intresting conversation with my therapist just now. I'm not comfortable sharing exactly what we were talking about but I can rephrase it: basically I was complaining that tech companies don't want to innovate.
I've been trying to bring new technologies to my boss because I thought it would give him a better opportunity to realize value from the products I'm creating/maintaining for him. That's what I understand is my purpose in the workforce. I'm a programmer not a salesman I can't go out to the market and get him the money so he can pay me with something, I can only make things put things in his hands for him (or hire someone to) to go out and collect the money we deserve (deserve within the limits of market demands and the nature of the product, not the labor invested). But he doesn't want them... well he does when he needs them but I miss way more times than I hit which is making my professional feelings feel less valuable. And if I'm not valuable enough then I can't work doing what I love.
When I started working I went in with a plan to upgrade and modernize everything I touch. I still believe that to be the case, or like... my "purpose"(as an employee not a person). But every company I've worked for so far has been running old ass shit. Springboot apps, create-react-apps, codebases in c and c++, no kubernetes, little to no cloud. And it feels like everything that tech companies want me to do is maintain and expand old existing codebases. And I understand why, I know that its expensive to rewrite entire code bases just for a 20% efficiency boost and to make it easier to add upgrades every once in awhile. But noone is taking advantage of innovative technology anymore and that's what's concerning me.
In my therapist's opinion he thinks we as a soceity are not taking 100% advantage of technology we have. I can't go into too many details bc our conversations are private but at the end I agreed with him. I'm seeing it now in my working day but he convinced me that it's everywhere. Are people actually benefitting from technology enough such that nobody actually needs to work to maintain a long and healthy life?
Lets say that no, technology is underutilized in our soceity. Does that mean that if we use technology more we'd have enough value in the economy to pay everyone a UBI? Could we phase out the human workforce to some extent? Or do we actually need more workers to do work to make the value, in which case we can't realistically do UBI because people need to get paid competitivily to do the work.
Lets say that yes, we are taking all advantages of technology. If so than there should be enough value to pay a UBI. But we don't have a UBI, so why? If the value exists than where is it? I don't believe its being funnelled into the pockets of some shadowy deep-state private 4th branch of government. If it was than there'd be something to take, is there? Are we sure that its enough?
Basically I don't know if technology generates value.
Think about it like this
If its cheaper to use technology to grow an acre of corn than to use people, is that subsequent output of corn more valuable or less valuable because of the technology. And if you believe that scaling up corn production to make the corn just as valuable as if we didn't have technology then you agree that the corn is now less valuable. If self-checkout machines are replacing cashiers, does that mean that the cashiering work being done by the machine is more valuable to soceity or less?
This is basically end stage capitalism. We need to recognize if the work we do for soceity (whether you derive personal fulfillment or not) is actually adding to soceity or not. I'd rather not give up my job as a programmer just so I can do something more valuable, but I might have to if that's the case. And I feel like most people in the world are thinking like that too. Is soceity trying to hang on to the past, or do we just not understand the future?
Sorry for the wall of text. I feel like this might be to philosophical for this community but I couldn't find a better place to post this. If you know of a better community for this discussion to take place then I'll consider moving this post based on the comments already posted. Thank you for reading this and I'd love to answer any question you'd have about my opinions/feelings.
Thank you for your perspective as a product manager. You gave me some insights that I have seen happen to me, but I never really understood why. I wish I had more visibility over my company so I can understand some of these things, it would be better than just accepting it as "boss knows best".
I'm gonna take some notes from you before I try to convince my boss of a really cool idea I have for my company.
Ehhhh IIIII wanna defend my guy. My therapist is the greatest conversationalist I've ever had. All of my sessions revolve around me asking him to convince me of whats right in the world. If I agree that he's right I make a change and more than 80% of the time I see a clear benefit. He's not trying to convince me that he's right because I asked him too, because when I did try that he'd refuse or just wouldn't, and I'd count that as a loss from his end. He can't always win for me but when he does, its a real good win. So I guess the word "convinced" might not be as accurate as saying "we walked through this conversation until I got to a place of understanding".
I say this to my junior Product Owners a lot, don't go in to that conversation with the view you are having to convince/pursaude them of anything. It sets it up as combative, has the implication that you are right and they are wrong, and that something in their plan needs to change. They will sense that, and will be much more defensive.
To be clear, I'm not talking about literal code changes here, but the current initiatives / projects / bets (whatever word you want to use) the company is planning on doing.
Instead you should demonstrate how your idea fits in with the current strategy of the business. Show them that you know where they are wanting to get to, and show how this idea gets them there. Go in to that conversation with a sincere intent of collaboration.
That way you don't need to convince anyone to change anything because they are still getting to the same destination, and you're showing them a quicker route through the bushes.
If they say no, ask them politely to explain their reasons so you can be on the same page. Do not argue, just listen to what they say. They will be telling you what is most important to them and the business in that reply. It literally doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, they are telling you the constraints you need to operate in.
After the meeting, use that knowledge to reassess your proposal, and think of ways you could modify the idea, or what information you presented alongside it, to get it accepted. If you still don't understand, then ask further questions about that bit.
Remember, it's about collaboration.
I'd argue the same applies in therapy too. It may be worth exploring why you seem to have a pretty darwinian view of thoughts / opinions being demonstrably right or wrong. In my experience the world is much greyer.
I am glad however that your therapist is doing something that has been requested, rather than anything else (even if it does seem to be rather atypical).