This post is certainly bizarre in many ways; I would agree with the 'wince', to be sure. The litany of mechanical errors throughout the post substantially detract from it.
The thing that boggles me the most, though, is when the author goes out to say: "What about something you believe in [...? ...] surely few things could motivate you quite like teaching code to disadvantaged kids or working for a non-commercial organisation to transform something for the greater good using technology." This makes sense: his point is that people want to work on things that matter, and that's why people will choose interesting, fulfilling, and validating projects over employers that pay a huge amount (i.e., quants), or over employers that have colossal benefits (i.e., Google).
This actually makes lots of sense, and resonates with me. The thing that boggles, though, is that he proceeds to drop that line of reasoning on the floor completely; he talks briefly about "contributing to our company", but says absolutely nothing about why the work that he has to offer is at all fulfilling...
The thing that boggles me the most, though, is when the author goes out to say: "What about something you believe in [...? ...] surely few things could motivate you quite like teaching code to disadvantaged kids or working for a non-commercial organisation to transform something for the greater good using technology." This makes sense: his point is that people want to work on things that matter, and that's why people will choose interesting, fulfilling, and validating projects over employers that pay a huge amount (i.e., quants), or over employers that have colossal benefits (i.e., Google).
This actually makes lots of sense, and resonates with me. The thing that boggles, though, is that he proceeds to drop that line of reasoning on the floor completely; he talks briefly about "contributing to our company", but says absolutely nothing about why the work that he has to offer is at all fulfilling...