21–30 of 34 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's me saying "this crowd" like.. you guys... and you guys are pushing back... heh should have left the typos in
Sorry, but gaslighting others that you haven't used an LLM to write your comments when you obviously have is incredibly dishonest.
Dividing profits by employee count and calling this "fair share" is ludicrous. It exhibits a childish understanding of the world and the economy. If you believe that you're cheated, and you are creating significantly more value than you're paid, start your own single-person company and sell your services to others. The truth is that by working for a company, you get access to environment that makes you much more prod…
I agree, if you think you're being cheated you should thinkg about starting your own company. Startups are much better on this. I definitely disagree with the idea that workers don't take on the risks. Workers get fired, relocated, their compensation gets changed, etc etc.
When $employer beats or misses targets, that affects my bonus (which is formalized for only the higher pay bands, probably on the theory that we can actually have some individual impact somehow) but not my base salary which is actually the vast majority of what I'm paid.
Risk isn't zero, but it's far less than what the equity holders see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but gaslighting others that you haven't used an LLM to write your comments when you obviously have is incredibly dishonest.
oh sorry to be unclear. u highlighted something i said. but to clear, i def use LLMs to help with bad writing and code. i am all for people using tools that help them. ill try to be cleaner about it
Dividing profits by employee count and calling this "fair share" is ludicrous. It exhibits a childish understanding of the world and the economy. If you believe that you're cheated, and you are creating significantly more value than you're paid, start your own single-person company and sell your services to others. The truth is that by working for a company, you get access to environment that makes you much more prod…
I'm all for unions and collective bargaining but I'm not a fan of manipulated dissatisfaction.
Access to many of the companies I worked for allowed me to support their monopolies just like desktop bundling (MS), pay store fees(AAPL), search advertising (GOOG), and so on. I guess you could call that "more productive"?
I thought the labor theory of value wasn't much of a thing any more?
Dividing profits by employee count and calling this "fair share" is ludicrous. It exhibits a childish understanding of the world and the economy. If you believe that you're cheated, and you are creating significantly more value than you're paid, start your own single-person company and sell your services to others. The truth is that by working for a company, you get access to environment that makes you much more prod…
Implying people are cheated is a nice way to increase dissatisfaction, if the goal is to produce resentment. I'm all for unions and collective bargaining but I'm not a fan of manipulated dissatisfaction. Access to many of the companies I worked for allowed me to support their monopolies just like desktop bundling (MS), pay store fees(AAPL), search advertising (GOOG), and so on. I guess you could call that "more produ…
The same is, of course, true about Google or Apple. Working at Apple will make it much easier for you to be productive than working at your own company. The nice thing about our industry is that the latter, while more difficult, is actually possible -- unlike steel mill workers, software engineers don't need as much capital investment, and can run highly successful companies that employ just one or a handful of people. It's just hard and risky to try that, hence people prefer to pretend that the productivity enabled by working as part of established, successful company is entirely due to their own merit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implying people are cheated is a nice way to increase dissatisfaction, if the goal is to produce resentment. I'm all for unions and collective bargaining but I'm not a fan of manipulated dissatisfaction. Access to many of the companies I worked for allowed me to support their monopolies just like desktop bundling (MS), pay store fees(AAPL), search advertising (GOOG), and so on. I guess you could call that "more produ…
It's probably easier to understand this concept if you forget about tech, and think about something like steel mill, or a mine. If you want to make money as a worker making steel, if you just start doing it in your backyard by yourself, you'll produce very little steel in an hour of your labor. If, instead, you obtain access to enormous, capital-intensive machinery, by joining a pre-established company that owns a bl…
Both Capital and Labour invest in the company, in different ways. It's not at all clear to me that the optimal arrangement is that Capital reaps the bulk of the return from those investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably easier to understand this concept if you forget about tech, and think about something like steel mill, or a mine. If you want to make money as a worker making steel, if you just start doing it in your backyard by yourself, you'll produce very little steel in an hour of your labor. If, instead, you obtain access to enormous, capital-intensive machinery, by joining a pre-established company that owns a bl…
On the other side: without the workers, those large capital investments are useless lumps of metal. Both Capital and Labour invest in the company, in different ways. It's not at all clear to me that the optimal arrangement is that Capital reaps the bulk of the return from those investments.