alt Hacker News> Big companies know that treating engineers as fungible and moving them around destroys their ability to develop long-term expertise in a single codebase. That’s a deliberate tradeoff. They’re giving up some amount of expertise and software quality in order to gain the ability to rapidly deploy skilled engineers onto whatever the problem-of-the-month is.
And also to "keep the balance of power tilted away from engineers and towards tech company leadership." The author touched on that and forgot about it. You don't want key projects depending on a group of engineers that might get hit by a bus or unionize or demonstrate against Israel or something. Network effects and moats and the occasional lobbying/collusion mean the quality of your product is less important.
Replies
Has it been many people's experience that big companies intentionally remove experienced engineers from your team to something unrelated, in the name of fungibility? I've surely seen efforts within a team to make sure that there's not a single person who's necessary for the team to reach full productivity, and I think most would agree this model does not make for resilient teams. But many of the best engineers I know have had much more energy invested in getting them to stay than to leave
Software engineers themselves curse each other out if only "Bob" knows "his" code. So it's not only management.
[dead]
Yeah, this is a deliberate choice to make labor less powerful. Capital is willing to be less efficient for that. He does touch upon this by saying that Capital wants every worker to be replaceable.