Tech Work for 20+ Years

 I've had a "tech" job since about 1997. That's the year I jumped into full time software development from my first after college job in physics.

I generally enjoy some aspects of work in "tech", like solving problems and learning sometimes interesting and clever things. There are two things about it that I can't stand.

One is, tech is really a giant parasite, as depicted in "The Matrix" movies. That hollywood depiction is a fanciful over the top depiction of how it really functions. I write about this in probably 25% of the blog posts I do, so I won't belabor the point. All the tech stuff requires human time and energy to function and maintain. It's been the same story ever since the very beginning of "tech" when men settled in cities and sought to "free" themselves from the cycles of nature.

The other one is more of a complaint about tech work. It's gotten pretty standardized and formulaic over the years, and there's been a steady growth of overhead in doing any tech work. Now there's essentially "paperwork" (the electronic version) straight out of "Office Space" associated with doing any tech project, except at small companies, or when I do projects myself.

That phenomenon is pretty interesting.

In theory, corporate America is all about "efficiency", but in reality it's always wasting time, money, and people's lives especially on paperwork, or the electronic equivalent. One of the popular revision control systems (where software source code is stored) is "gitlab". It produces many Office Space style "TPS Reports". It's possible to use a minimalist set of the functions of a program like gitlab and avoid the electronic paperwork, but many corporations like to have all the paperwork done.

What's the net result of all that paperwork? It just takes much longer for anything to be finished. The idea is with all the extra paperwork, there's more "control" over what's in the source code repository... but that doesn't even happen. It's possible for the code to be a mess and dysfunctional and broken with all those TPS reports attached.

Why do people do that, then? If it doesn't really work, why do people put time and effort into it?

The short answer is people are docile sheep and just go along with trends and fads. Somebody sold gitlab, people bought it and regurgitate whatever the original sales pitch was.

Debt Mirage

 My 2008 Honda just "died". I could repair it, but there's no point anymore. Everything on it is rusted from winters and road salt. I did the total cost of ownership calculations on it a few months ago and it was pretty shocking. I spent an average of $300 per month since I bought it on gas, insurance, depreciation, etc... It's a "cheap" car too. I paid half the sticker price in cash, then financed the rest for two years, I think. I don't remember exactly since it was such a long time ago, but I haven't had a car payment since maybe 2010 or earlier.

Used car prices are quite high now. I planned to get a truck once the old car gave up the ghost, but a 10 year old truck with ~80k miles is about $15-20k depending on the model. Plus trucks take up a lot of space, and are expensive to operate. I also learned I don't really need one since I bought a farm truck a few years ago. I drive it so infrequently the tires get a flat spot and I need to recharge the battery prior to use. Almost anything I want to buy can be delivered for a modest fee, so there's no point in paying a premium for convenience of ownership.

Anyway, the tempting thing to do is get a car loan instead of paying in cash. It's kind of painful to take $20,000+ out of my savings account, because I know how long it takes to replace that money. Plus that $20k earns around $80 in interest per month in a FDIC insured bank account right now. Also with a car, unlike a productive asset, that $20k just starts burning up with each use of the car.

The loan gives a person the sensation that they still "have" $20,000 in the bank, even though there's typically fees and interest and over the life of the loan, they'll be out more like $25,000 or more. It makes them feel like they'd be able to cover an emergency more easily, etc... If the interest expense on the loan is $0, maybe it does make sense to keep the money in the bank instead, although, that's almost certainly an illusion because the interest will just be charged in the form of fees and markups... You really can't win with a car purchase. It's just a game of limiting losses.

Anyway, that's what I'm going to do now, just keep the expense as low as possible and pay in cash. I hardly drive anymore, now that I work remotely 100% of the time. I can't imagine getting a car loan for $50,000 or more like my peers do to get a Lexus, or a big fancy truck, or a Tesla, or a Bronco. It boggles my mind that so many people are willing to part with ~$1000 a month on car expenses. I don't even really know what the minimum is. Reliable sedans and small cars can be had for $10-15k. The monthly TCO is probably still roughly $200 due to insurance costs and gas and the like. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how cheap I can go and still have a decent reliable vehicle.

The US Federal Government is Retarded

Battery powered semi trucks are one of the dumber ideas being pushed by the clods in charge of the US. The federal government is pushing them heavily as are some state governments like California.

There are two killer problems with battery powered trucks now. The batteries weigh too much, so more trucks have to roll to carry the equivalent goods. They take a long time to recharge, so the duty cycle of the trucks is significantly worse than an equivalent diesel powered truck, which means more trucks are required to carry the same goods. All that just means more resources are required to move goods around. A related problem is the cost to charge the trucks is higher too, because heavy duty infrastructure is required to do that.

If the batteries improve significantly, battery trucks are feasible, but currently they aren't up to the task and there's no reason to believe they will be any time soon.

The feds want to regulate petroleum powered vehicles off the road, but there's no replacement. So what happens when the regulations threaten the basic function of the economy?