Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zucktown, USA

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

Re: Zucktown, USA

#41

Post by da3mon5 »

michaelt wrote: post #31
tanilama wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. The bus thing is not the only example those people are contradictory against themselves. They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, which to certain degree is justified. But at the same time they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation, blaming the company for destroying the neighborhood culture, talking about the good old days with orchards and trees. I think what is really…

They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, [...] they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation My theory is there are three parties in this discussion. Renter Roy can't afford a house, and thinks tech companies' money is bidding up prices. Homeowner Harold has lived and worked in this neighbourhood for 40 years and doesn't want its character to change and his house's value to fall. Techie…

> Any pair of Roy, Harold and Tammy can get on OK - but it's just not possible for all three of them to get what they want.

But this is a dilemma (or in this case a trilemma) only for individuals, "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#42

Post by humanrebar »

chis wrote: post #13

The linked anti-union article is more interesting than the original article IMO. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/silicon-valleys... I would tend to agree with the tech-ie opinion that unions are becoming obselete in the US. Unions existed to protect workers who were unskilled and interchangeable; the endgame of tech is to automate all those jobs. But obviously I’m not a labor scholar and this is just an…

> ...unions are becoming obselete in the US...

They don't make sense for knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are rarely interchangeable, so standardizing contracts, job titles, pay schedules, working conditions, etc., makes little sense. There is also the chance for protectionism (closed shops) that runs counter to the freelance culture in tech.

Some sort of worker-administered group could make a lot of sense. But maybe a guild or cooperative instead.

Services that would be useful, especially (or only) if employers weren't paying the bill:

* Personal negotiation agents

* Career consultants. Lots of engineers are very underpaid and need some help holding their boss accountable. Or finding the next job.

* (Re)training. Engineers shouldn't specialize themselves into early retirement.

* Lobbying and marketing. Do you want BigCo telling your congressman what you think?

* Independent research and reporting on work environments. Some push back on penny-wise, pound-foolish facilities decisions.

* Charitable technology work not under a corporate brand

* Insurance, modulo whether competitive tax advantages can be arranged. Setting up pools for disability and life insurance, at least. Maybe healthcare if the tax advantages can be worked out.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#44

Post by TeMPOraL »

eru wrote: post #37
TeMPOraL wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not gonna last forever this way. Unions are not very useful for developers now , but you might want to have them already in-place by the time they become needed.

Unions are mostly there to keep out newcomers and non-union members. Eg strike breakers. I'm internationally mobile, so I'm often the newcomer. (And from a philosophical point of view, programmers are so well paid that even taking that down a nodge to the benefit of the general public would be fine. What we have to make sure is that forming new tech companies becomes easier and easier---so that any general cheapening…

> programmers are so well paid that even taking that down a nodge to the benefit of the general public would be fine

The problem is, taking that down a nodge will not benefit the general public. All the surplus will be eaten up by the companies.

I suppose there are two ways to view this - putting up barriers to entry vs. preventing wages from being driven down by encouraging everyone and their dog to become coders. At this point I sort of see it as both at the same time.

The reasons unions could be useful in the future is both to preserve a reasonable standard of living for tech employees and to help oppose unethical demands from employers. Right now, tech employees have some leverage over their bosses. Without unions, this will eventually end.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#45

Post by TrickyRick »

humanrebar wrote: post #33
avar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is a badly written opinion piece that meanders through various topics, but your critique of it is beating a strawman. It's not making the "you can't win" argument that tech companies should be critiqued whether or not they build housing. Rather, it's that they're supposedly constructing "company towns" in the sense that the housing stock they build won't be for sale, and presumably only rented to employee…

> If you get fired you also get evicted. If you get fired, you basically lose your healthcare, which in many cases is much worse. Though quite a number of Americans seem fine with that arrangement for some reason.

If I'm a healthy individual then the risk that I need my healthcare insurance are low (But it has a big impact on my economy if I do need it). However the risk that I need some form of housing is 100% and the impact of not having it is huge which to me makes it a bigger risk. However YMMV depending on your situation.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#48

Post by [deleted] »

avar wrote: post #26
apsec112 wrote: post #2

This article's main topic is just "tech companies are building big offices", dressed up in some purple prose. And they're also to blame for high rents. But if they build apartments to help ease the housing shortage, that's a "company town" and we can't have that either. And Amazon is a "commandeering leech" which "suck[s] up our resources and refus[es] to participate in daily upkeep", but when Google offers Mountain…

The article is a badly written opinion piece that meanders through various topics, but your critique of it is beating a strawman. It's not making the "you can't win" argument that tech companies should be critiqued whether or not they build housing. Rather, it's that they're supposedly constructing "company towns" in the sense that the housing stock they build won't be for sale, and presumably only rented to employee…

[deleted]

Re: Zucktown, USA

#49

Post by freeflight »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
eru wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are mostly there to keep out newcomers and non-union members. Eg strike breakers. I'm internationally mobile, so I'm often the newcomer. (And from a philosophical point of view, programmers are so well paid that even taking that down a nodge to the benefit of the general public would be fine. What we have to make sure is that forming new tech companies becomes easier and easier---so that any general cheapening…

> programmers are so well paid that even taking that down a nodge to the benefit of the general public would be fine The problem is, taking that down a nodge will not benefit the general public. All the surplus will be eaten up by the companies. I suppose there are two ways to view this - putting up barriers to entry vs. preventing wages from being driven down by encouraging everyone and their dog to become coders. A…

> All the surplus will be eaten up by the companies.

That can easily be fixed by plugging tax evasion loopholes and generally taxing higher.

If there's a will then there's a way, the problem is pretty much finding the way everybody agrees on.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#50

Post by jrimbault »

TrickyRick wrote: post #45
humanrebar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you get fired you also get evicted. If you get fired, you basically lose your healthcare, which in many cases is much worse. Though quite a number of Americans seem fine with that arrangement for some reason.

If I'm a healthy individual then the risk that I need my healthcare insurance are low (But it has a big impact on my economy if I do need it). However the risk that I need some form of housing is 100% and the impact of not having it is huge which to me makes it a bigger risk. However YMMV depending on your situation.

>If I'm a healthy individual

I don't think I know any family without a member of it having some kind of medical condition. (bad turn of phrase, but do I get the point across ?)

Post reply on HN