Whoosh....The whole concept went over your head and you focused on the most insignificant part.

As a practical matter, an agent would need to focus on those individuals that would be worth their time and effort. A reasonable cut off would be $100k+. Some agents would work just with elite programmers ($250k+) and some would cover a broader range. There is no reason that someone making $100K+ should not have an agent.

By the way, I have over 20 years experience in the industry and am well in the elite range so the Dunning-Kruger effect does not apply. Dubious comments by AC posters do not further the dialog.

I read about 30 magazines a month. My top picks are:

Scientific American
New Scientist
IEEE Spectrum
Circuit Cellar
Elektor
Nuts and Volts
Servo
Runner's World
Running Times
Inc.
Entrepreneur
Wired
Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities
Linux Format
Linux User and Developer
Racecar Engineering
RaceTech
Some Trade magazines
Some Fitness magazines
Some History magazines

I had this same idea back in 1999. Why shouldn't top software programmer/developer/engineers have agents similar to sports agents or hollywood agents. They would be constantly looking out for a better position or your next position if you are coming off of a contract. They would also negotiate the best contract for you. They would know the market rates for your skills and would tell you how to be more marketable. They work for you and that they get 10% of you salary. Companies would love them because they don't have to pay the placement agency the finder's fee or the higher bill rate for contract positions. Programmers would love them because they get better jobs at better salaries or a higher percentage of the bill rate. Agents could have many programmer clients so they could earn a decent living too.. A win, win, win situation.

You are probably thinking that is what recruiters today do. WRONG. Recruiters act as the middlemen and only get paid if you take the position they have available. They don't work for you. I am talking mostly about contract positions here. Consider what a recruiter will say, if you desire a higher rate then what the company is offering. They will try and talk down your rate. If you don't take the position, they make nothing, if you take a reduced rate, they at least make something. Also, consider if you want a higher rate after being on contract a while. A recruiter will never tell you to leave the job and find another position. They don't work for you.

Top programmers (100K+) should have agents. The 10% you paid the agent would be worth it just to negotiate better starting contracts and raises. This does not count the value of their services of always being on the lookout for that ideal job. How many of us spent time looking for a better jobs when we are employed?

Gestapo.....The grammar Nazis are going to get me for that one.

I am sure the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestpo too, would have loved this but it just didn't exist at that time.

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?
 
This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

When I went to university we didn't even have 77 fields of study.

Now, you kids get off my lawn.

Justin Bieber

I used to live in Phoenix for a long time. Like any big city it has its good points and its bad points. As a hub for high tech, it has a ways to go.
Intel has a huge presence there, so does, American Express, Honeywell, Paypal, Freeport-McMoran. Freescale used to. Phoenix is more high tech than most people know.

The good:
- Good weather 9 months out of they year. That is opposed to most places that have maybe 6-7 marginally passable months.
- Reasonably priced housing.
- Talented technical subculture
- Salaries in the midrange.


The bad
- There are those 3 months out of the year.
- Talent pool is good but not huge like Silicon Valley


The ugly
- Almost no venture funding. If you want funding, you have to look out of state.

I'll take mine with a Minigun and Hydra 70 rocket launcher.

Wait until my neighbor's dog sees me coming.

I worked for IBM for 3 years so I have first hand knowledge how bad their tech support is. IBM staff has to use the same tech support that their customers use. Eating your own dog food they call it, or dog shit as the case may be.

Let me briefly describe the process you have to go through, Call in, work you way down 5 layers of automated phone messages and finally get a live person. That person barely speaks English and really hates their job. This is Tier 1. They ask you a few simple questions and to describe the problem. Lastly, he or she asked what priority you want to make it, Level 1 - call back in 24 hours, Level 2 - call back in a week, Level 3 - call back in ???, hell, I don't know, never made any level 3. You have to make it a Level 1 or you will won't get anybody to look a it for a week. Every help ticket is now a Level 1.

So the next day, you get a call from Tier 2 support. Really, this is a Tier 1 person, who has had a month's worth of training. He goes down a script of all the typical problem, tell you what you need type. Oh course, you have already done this because the those are all online. He then waste another 15 minutes of your time fumbling in the dark and then gives up.

Another 24 hours pass, then you get a call from Tier 3 support. This guys has a year or more experience and is familiar with all the features of the product. He listens to your attempts, then asks you to do something and actually fixes the problem in about 5 minutes. He is the rare bird in IBM Tech support. Also, he is so overworked because Tier 1 and 2 are close to useless that he burns out and moves to so other division just as soon as he can.

That's it. That's how IBM tech support works..


Sincerely, Ex-IBMer

Anyone who thought a tsunami hitting Japan was one in a million need to have there head examined.

Or as least, have their math examined. This was just a issue of bad statistical calculations, along with bad disaster planning.

Shouldn't they be calling the the 'Screw Everyone' plan instead of 'Share Everything' plan.

Could be used to observer history... or to change it.

This should be a study of how the bad design of a nuclear reactor can negate disaster planning.

Q: How did this reactor overheat?
A: They could not get power to the cooling pump because the diesel generators were flooded.

YOU HAVE A WHOLE F***** POWER PLANT. Route some power to the pumps. Who is the idiot that designed this.