I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#81

Post by dominotw » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

tuesday20 wrote: post #46

ainar-g wrote: post #2

> Wait a second. I was in a business relationship with Google. > It may sound strange that it took me two and a half years to realize it, but Google does a good job of building a sense of community within the organization. To make us feel that we’re not just employees, but that we are Google. > That conversation made me realize that I’m not Google. I provide a service to Google in exchange for money. People, and espe…

My dad had just one job all his life, for 33 years. While he didn’t become rich, he did enjoy relative peace of mind, pension etc. Of course everything is relative, but there was a time where companies had a little bit of concern to their employees, however small it was. Those days are gone. These days, companies don’t even pretend. A very small percentage of people are going to do well, for the vast majority it is j…

> it is just slavery

If working a cushy tech job is slavery then what would be working at a sand mine in cameroon called ?

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#82

Post by scotty79 » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

ainar-g wrote: post #2

> Wait a second. I was in a business relationship with Google. > It may sound strange that it took me two and a half years to realize it, but Google does a good job of building a sense of community within the organization. To make us feel that we’re not just employees, but that we are Google. > That conversation made me realize that I’m not Google. I provide a service to Google in exchange for money. People, and espe…

I was always aware that there's no relationship. That I'm just selling my life for money. Every moment that I'm not doing the thing that I want to be doing at that moment should better be worth it.

Employer can pay with money or with entertainment. Roleplaying as a "part of family" or "valued employee" can be worth something but never forget it's a game played for your entertainment to balance lower pay. When it's no longer worth for the players, game ends and everybody goes home to barely ever meet again.

Pick employers that offer best sum of pay and entertainment at the lowest cost to your life.

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#83

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #79

lotsofpulp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are vast swaths of the US that are in economic decline, and they most certainly do not allow for mobility irrespective of skill level. They don't even have sufficient economic activity to support a Walmart.

You seem to define mobility different from me. The people in those areas have the legal and opportunistic means of going elsewhere.

I have a hard time imaging the people are willingly sacrificing theirs and their kids' futures for no reason. It's hard to up and move somewhere without adequate savings, a family or friends network. What kind of landlord is going to rent to someone with no job? Will someone in that situation be able to get a job that even allows them to save up for a home purchase in an economically burgeoning area? Or will they always be treading water?

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#84

Post by wccrawford » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #71

wccrawford wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because what they're really saying is that they don't want to pay more money. By complaining about the "shortage" they encourage new entrants into the field and convince existing talent to accept lower wages. It's purely marketing, IMO.

>convince existing talent to accept lower wages. That seems like lousy marketing. If I'm told that something is constantly in a shortage my first thought isn't exactly to sell it for less.

Eh, you're right. I'm obviously not thinking clearly this morning.

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#85

Post by jka » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #69

vms20591 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they might pay for your insurance, give you free food, but that's it. The ultimate motive is to make profit, by getting every bit of work from you. You can sugarcoat it however you want, but to an employer, you are just a liability, not an asset, even when the "current" they call you as one. Because, the "next" they might not. The terms "employer", "they" are relative. As in the previous comment, "A company as…

No, a company just a collection of people with a common goal. And when you don’t like one company, you have incredible mobility to find another. In a job market as good as the one in the US at the moment, that mobility is irrespective of skill level . And that keeps companies, even the bad ones, from getting away with dehumanizing its workforce.

I'd like to agree with you, because the narrative that employees corral and motivate their employers is an attractive one, and to be encouraged.

Within tech specifically: I do think it's true that software employers shift and change their rhetoric and/or practices to meet the (sometimes entitled) demands of developers.

But some of the issues silicon valley tech firms are relentlessly unwilling to move on are ones around unionization and collective bargaining.

If employees are truly creating the market, and it's the companies that have to work to attract and retain them, then why are employers so fearful of anything except individual bargaining?

For people who are all of: confident, socially mobile (few family/social ties to bind them) and physically in good health you are probably absolutely correct. But I would wager that setting those expectations across entire populations doesn't scale.

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#86

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

sumeno wrote: post #70

gaggler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're underestimating how terrible Google's stack ranking system. It basically exploits you into doing more work than you should with the prospect of making more money, only to smack you back down and ask you to do 6 more month of back breaking work. More than you were hired to, mind you.

If you are comparing it to slavery I think you are vastly overestimating how bad the promo process is.

Or vastly underestimating how terrible slavery is.

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#87

Post by sanj » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

tuesday20 wrote: post #46

ainar-g wrote: post #2

> Wait a second. I was in a business relationship with Google. > It may sound strange that it took me two and a half years to realize it, but Google does a good job of building a sense of community within the organization. To make us feel that we’re not just employees, but that we are Google. > That conversation made me realize that I’m not Google. I provide a service to Google in exchange for money. People, and espe…

My dad had just one job all his life, for 33 years. While he didn’t become rich, he did enjoy relative peace of mind, pension etc. Of course everything is relative, but there was a time where companies had a little bit of concern to their employees, however small it was. Those days are gone. These days, companies don’t even pretend. A very small percentage of people are going to do well, for the vast majority it is j…

For me you’re demeaning the word “slavery” by suggesting that anything in this discussion is even close to that level of horrific, evil brutality.

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#88

Post by jotm » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

seieste wrote: post #31

ayende wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to burnout, then. That is not sustainable, and you can't create a profitable solution in a time frame that this amount of work would pay off without horrible (personal) costs.

In my experience, burnout seems to be a result of poor sleep, poor nutrition, lack of autonomy, lack of recognition, etc. This is especially true if working harder won't lead to greater rewards, like if you have a fixed salary or if your compensation is fairly independent from your actual work. Many of these are more likely to occur when working at a big Corp, so working by yourself can help you avoid this.

Right, "17 hours a day, 7 days a week" in the "hardest tech possible" fits the bill then.

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#89

Post by claudiawerner » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

ainar-g wrote: post #2

> Wait a second. I was in a business relationship with Google. > It may sound strange that it took me two and a half years to realize it, but Google does a good job of building a sense of community within the organization. To make us feel that we’re not just employees, but that we are Google. > That conversation made me realize that I’m not Google. I provide a service to Google in exchange for money. People, and espe…

>Arguably the most pervasive element enabling exploitative office culture is the postmodern trickery of the contemporary working environment. Slavoj Žižek argues that modern employment tactics create the illusion that our employer is our friend. This fabrication empowers the employer while denying the employed the right to vocalize and protest dissatisfaction of their working conditions. “You’re not going to stick around and help out? I thought we were a team? I thought we were friends?”

>Žižek suggests that the environment of the workplace has been twisted, using architectural devices, to manipulate employees. Kitchens, ‘break-out spaces’, lounges, free food, free coffee – he postulates that this is a postmodern sleight of hand designed to manipulate and disarm staff. By fabricating the illusion of employer as friend, the employed is denied the opportunity to protest, argue, fight, be adversarial and demand more of their working conditions. These informal spaces are political spaces of control, surveillance and manipulation.[0]

[0] https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/slavoj-zizek-says-your-off...

Re: I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

#90

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

elfexec wrote: post #4

ainar-g wrote: post #2

> Wait a second. I was in a business relationship with Google. > It may sound strange that it took me two and a half years to realize it, but Google does a good job of building a sense of community within the organization. To make us feel that we’re not just employees, but that we are Google. > That conversation made me realize that I’m not Google. I provide a service to Google in exchange for money. People, and espe…

> It's called “labour market”, not “labour community” It's also called human resources, not human community or human family. You are a resource just like a monitor or a stapler on the desk. A resource that the company uses for the benefit of the shareholders.

Indeed; "human" is an adjective in that phrase.