Optimistic domestic headhunters

Many of my American friends have recently noticed a surge in headhunting activities in China, particularly targeting overseas candidates. This is partly related to the current situation in China. But today I want to discuss another issue.

I think many people have had similar experiences—a classmate earns nearly 1 million yuan a year, or a recent graduate earns 500,000 yuan a year right out of school. These incredible rumors have become increasingly believable as the government continues to loosen monetary policy. Undeniably, some people do reach these levels, and with company shares and other benefits, their gains may far exceed that. However, it's incorrect to generalize about the national energy sector based on isolated cases; most people are likely still living on 200,000 yuan or even less.

I imagine many people will disagree with me at this point, since a significant portion of people do indeed earn very high annual salaries. To clarify, I'm referring to the salary stated in the contract, excluding indirect benefits like extra months' pay, year-end bonuses, and stock options. Recently, a headhunter asked me about my expected annual salary. I casually quoted him 500,000 yuan, and he told me that was about right. But when I mentioned my December salary, he immediately became impatient, saying I didn't understand the situation in China.

I wanted to argue, but then I thought better of it. I might indeed "not understand" the situation in China, but I'd like to share my thoughts:

From the reform and opening up to 2010, the country developed rapidly, a development that is evident to everyone, with lives changing dramatically. Starting in 2011, the country continued to develop rapidly, but a major reason behind this was massive monetary easing; the government printed trillions of yuan, a form of advance consumption. However, this monetary easing was not well-managed. Most of the money ended up in the hands of oligarchs, as evidenced by soaring housing prices. It didn't benefit those who worked diligently. Private equity firms proliferated, with concepts like big data, "Internet Plus," and the sharing economy emerging one after another. Any haphazardly launched project could raise tens of millions in funding, but how many of these projects were self-sustaining? Most were simply raising funds for development purposes; once funding dried up, they couldn't survive. Naturally, a few large companies had more opportunities than others. When projects attracted investment, the problem became "where are the workers?" Attracting and retaining workers, and paying higher wages, wasn't a high cost.

When the economy is booming, stock incentives, extra months' salary payments, or even dozens of months' salary payments—the methods for increasing wages are endless, since it's not their own money anyway. But is the economy truly booming, or is it just an illusion created by loose macroeconomic policies?

For example, a person earning 10,000 yuan a month wants to buy a 1 million yuan house. The bank sees this person as having excellent credit and that the loan would generate interest, so they directly grant them a 1 million yuan loan, to be repaid over 30 years. The person pays 5,000 yuan per month (including interest, taxes, management fees, etc.). At this point, they own the 1 million yuan house and have 5,000 yuan left over each month. This person might feel they have 1 million yuan in assets, but in reality, this house is only their asset if there are no problems for the next 30 years. If they lose their job and can't repay the loan, this asset disappears.

In fact, the situation in China is roughly the same. Everyone has already been squeezed to the limit (overtime, mortgage payments, etc.), and further injections of liquidity are unlikely to be effective. It's like someone who has survived after receiving many antibiotics; further injections are no longer useful. And this liquidity injection is difficult to stop because so many people are living off it. A slow reduction might be the best solution. After all, like boiling a frog in lukewarm water, the frog won't resist much, but some clever frogs might realize the problem and have time to save themselves.

That headhunter might be new to the workforce, and after a few years of massive monetary easing, he thinks this is how the world is supposed to be. But if this is how the world is supposed to be, why not just include the extra months' salary in the base pay? Capitalists aren't stupid; flexible wages are most advantageous to them. Monetary easing won't last forever; the illusion will eventually be exposed.

A Glimpse into Top-Down "Lazy Management" Through the "Signature" Requirement

This has happened several times before, and this time I finally have time to write down some of my thoughts.

China's big government management model has become increasingly exaggerated in recent years. Except for some profit-making sectors that have opened loopholes for "insiders," almost every industry is shrouded in "disgusting" management.

A large government isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, the current level of public awareness is such that everyone is looking for loopholes, and without regulation, chaos would ensue. Besides, supporting so many civil servants means fewer jobs if some "management functions" aren't implemented. However, with an aging population, the disappearance of the labor dividend, and other special circumstances, the proportion of civil servants will continue to rise, potentially leading to the spectacular situation of multiple people managing a single individual. While this isn't the topic of today's discussion, it's a rather absurd fact.

Over time, a large government can negatively impact all sectors. Once being regulated becomes a habit, various sectors are forced to follow suit. I think everyone, whether at a bank or elsewhere, has encountered the same situation I'm describing today: please sign in block letters. With rapid societal development, more and more people want to get rich quickly, leading to increasing restlessness and a desire for shortcuts. This results in many people "breaking the rules," making things that should be easily managed extremely complicated. For example, the outcry a few years ago about proving you are you, proving your mother is your mother, and so on. These ridiculous requests for proof stem from both laziness on the part of administrators and highlight societal problems. While the phrase "this generation of people" is a joke, it's not entirely without merit.

The same applies to signatures. A signature is meant to identify someone's uniqueness, much like a fingerprint. So why insist on "regular script"? Is it about who writes the best? Or who writes the clearest? Shouldn't more complex shapes and more diverse fonts make it easier to distinguish different people's signatures? This is clearly laziness on the part of managers. Even if someone writes in regular script, they can't confirm it's the person; they just feel reassured because they can read the handwriting and it matches their name.

If the upper beam is crooked, the lower beam will be crooked as well.

Outsourcing experience

There's been a new update on our previous discussion about outsourcing. We've been reflecting on some social issues.

I have several "go-to" teams, and I haven't used QQ groups or Taobao to find other outsourcing services for about four or five years. But this experience seemed to awaken a long-forgotten understanding within me.

I tried two small projects this time, both involving defining the requirements and framework myself, having the other party write modules according to my definitions, and me providing various documentation and APIs. This should be a relatively easy task for a programmer. However, they gave me two completely different experiences.

Experience 1

After working on some parts of the project, things started to drag on. I don't know if it's a genuine lack of time or a decline in ability. This week it's next week, next week it's the week after, only replying to one message a week, never admitting it won't be done, just dragging it out. Where is his sense of responsibility? If he can't do it or has something else to do, he can just say so. Ending the collaboration won't cause him any loss, since there's no such thing as compensation. But knowing it can't be completed and still procrastinating is a matter of character.

Experience 2

He initially said he understood the requirements, then a week later (he said he'd finish in two weeks), he came back to discuss them with me again… only to find that his understanding was completely wrong. Then he started saying this wouldn't work, that wouldn't work… As I understand it, he's looking for ready-made templates to use, and he probably doesn't know much about development himself, only how to modify other people's work. Once he can't modify someone else's, he rejects the requirement. He's simply a charlatan.

Summarize

I believe this is only a portion of the developers, and belongs to the lower-quality group. But it made me feel like I was back in society.

Credit is the cornerstone; not prioritizing it in business is shortsighted. However, it's undeniable that the Chinese market is so vast, with so many people, that you could easily survive a lifetime by scamming one group and then another. Even just getting by is enough.

I probably won't be outsourcing to anyone outside of my own team anytime soon; a chaotic market breeds problems. Now I understand why so many people complain about outsourcing.

A chaotic market isn't without its advantages; it allows you to better appreciate the value of high-quality teams. However, the challenge lies in making qualified, high-quality teams known to the public. Another problem with this market is that some will inevitably spread misinformation. When integrity and character become cheap commodities, the market can no longer function properly.