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

I Quit Google to Work for Myself (2018)

mtlynch.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 177 posts

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

#121

Post by kbutler »

Frost1x wrote: post #58
forgotmypw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, this trap is designed quite well, while warnings about it are not designed nearly as well, and many fall into it for n years.

I'm always surprised at how people fall in this trap. Businesses are inherently not there for your interest (income/livelihood), they exist to capture money/resources. They hire people to be the human face to make it appear otherwise (HR) and market (propoganda) to workers in similar ways products/services are marketed to consumers. If there's a position, businesses expect it contributes to their profit. If the posit…

If you're not better off working for a company than you would be if you left the company, then leave. If you can get a better offer elsewhere, or working on your own, then go.

In a voluntary exchange, both parties are better off than they would be otherwise - they both are both "getting back more than [they] contribute in."

If I buy an apple for a dollar, it means I consider the apple to be worth more than a dollar. At the same time, the seller values the dollar more than the apple. Both parties are better off by making the exchange.

Employment is the same: the employer considers the labor performed to be worth more than the compensation (or they wouldn't employ the person), and the employee considers the compensation to be worth more than the labor (or they leave).

If you're not leaving, then why not? Maybe you value the predictability/security of a regular paycheck (though that can end at any time). Maybe you don't know how to capture the value of your time working on your own (you can learn). Or maybe the resources/connections/structure of the company allows your labor to produce more value than you could alone, so your labor is more valuable for the company than it would be elsewhere (an expert on self-driving cars may not be able to add much value to a pharmacy, but can add a lot of value to waymo/uber/tesla).

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

#122

Post by claudiawerner »

buboard wrote: post #119
claudiawerner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ar…

There is nothing particularly insightful in that quote. Employee/employer relationship is like any other transactional relationship: exchanging some freedom for money. Other forms, e.g. freelancing, consulting are different, but pay less for the same amount of work

The quote remarks on the changing of the relationship, a point which is insightful. Several authors (from Zizek to Frederic Lordon) have noticed the dynamics of the relationship changing from pure unashamed totalitarianism in the workplace to the idea that the boss is your friend. The nature of the employee/employer transactional relationship has changed both in theory (management techniques) and practice (direction, micro-management) since the time of the old critiques of domination in the workplace. The employee/employer relation, it is argued, has not become more equitably transactional, but rather the old pre-Fordist techniques have been hidden and obscured - arguably more perniciously.

It is, if nothing else, an indication that critics of capital need to reformulate the conception of the employer/employee relationship. Nitzan & Bichler and Vrousalis take two divergent approaches to exaplaining the special nature of the employee/employer relationship as situated in modern life.

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

claudiawerner wrote: post #122
buboard wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing particularly insightful in that quote. Employee/employer relationship is like any other transactional relationship: exchanging some freedom for money. Other forms, e.g. freelancing, consulting are different, but pay less for the same amount of work

The quote remarks on the changing of the relationship, a point which is insightful. Several authors (from Zizek to Frederic Lordon) have noticed the dynamics of the relationship changing from pure unashamed totalitarianism in the workplace to the idea that the boss is your friend. The nature of the employee/employer transactional relationship has changed both in theory (management techniques) and practice (direction,…

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by domador »

Do the members of this dystopian-sounding promotion committee at Google actively develop software themselves (when they're not promoting or failing to promote people)? Is this a case where those who can't develop software judge those who can? Or am I reading too much into one ex-Googler's account of their own experience?

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

#127

Post by war1025 »

sokoloff wrote: post #86
sumeno wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is my reaction when I see people complaining about tech jobs.

Especially when they use phrases like "back breaking work".

It mainly indicates a severe lack of perspective.

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

#128

Post by m0zg »

pmart123 wrote: post #116
rb808 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're at a corporation you should figure out which game you're playing. Are you there to "benefit the company" or get "promoted and rewarded"? Make a decision but they are different paths leading different directions.

My general feeling regarding any company is work closest to the source of revenue. This way, your performance will be attached to what drives the business performance.

Don't know how it is now, but this would be a bad idea at Google specifically when Larry was in charge. Back then you'd need to work on something he cared about to have the best career trajectory. To give an example: Larry never particularly seemed to care about Cloud, Ads or Technical Infrastructure (TI). He did seem to care a lot about Google+, at least until it became obvious that it's not going anywhere, Android, and "moonshot" projects like Waymo (nee Chauffeur).

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

#129

Post by kbutler »

Frost1x wrote: post #97
noonespecial wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not always zero sum. In the best case, a group of workers that could make 1x each on their own, combine and are able to make 1.5x each together, and get paid around 1.2x each. The additional .3x is the corporate "profit" and is distributed in any number of ways depending on how the company is set up. Its still a rational decision for all of the employees to work there.

Not sure I believe emergentism. While it may be difficult to quantify, I don't find the "whole greater than the sum of its parts," just the perception of the sum being greater than its parts or the reality hiding in the complexity from us mere mortals. Without emergent properties (your work + my work < our work), it really is a zero sum game. To me, you may be able to manipulate perception of value in this fashion bu…

No, differential preferences make free exchange a positive sum game (economic surplus/gains from trade). Emergent properties can magnify the value, but are not necessary.

The apple farmer sells apples because (he considers) the money is worth more than the apples. Consumers buy apples because (they consider) the apples are worth more than the money.

  My perceived benefit - my compensation to you > 0 (I win = consumer surplus)
  My compensation to you - your perceived cost > 0 (You win = producer surplus)
If either one of those is not true, no voluntary exchange takes place. In compelled exchange, only the first needs to be true. This takes various forms, including taxation, robbery, and slavery.

Note that those two equations are from two individual perspectives - I determine my benefit, you determine your cost. If you simplify to "benefit > your cost" and compel the exchange, you get a dystopia - compulsion "for the benefit of all/others/king/etc.", without realizing the full costs to those compelled to sacrifice. Voluntary exchange is required to allow each individual to determine their own benefits and costs.

Note also that this incorporates transaction costs inside the "benefit" or "cost". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem for more info.

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

#130

Post by heyflyguy »

rb808 wrote: post #103
heyflyguy wrote: post #29

Now granted, I never worked at Google, but I've worked for several F500 companies through the years. I made a promise that I'll never work for one ever again because this corporate structure and bloat tend to engineer promotions and reward through things that do not actually benefit the company. His work, which was useful to the company essentially got reworked into something that impressed the "promotion committee".…

If you're at a corporation you should figure out which game you're playing. Are you there to "benefit the company" or get "promoted and rewarded"? Make a decision but they are different paths leading different directions.

I don't disagree with you, only as a business owner I'd be pretty upset if I even knew that was going on amongst my new hires. If someone can't explain to me our company vision after 90 days, as well as their role in delivering it - I'm not saying they'll be fired but it's not a long term engagement between us.
Post reply on HN