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

Tech's Elite Hates Labor

ez.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 434 posts

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#311

Post by hackerlight »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #299
hackerlight wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that by definition, if the CEO is making 100x what you do then you're not being paid fairly Really, "by definition"? You can't think of a possible universe where a CEO draws on all their skill to make a crucial decision, that most other possible people in that role probably wouldn't have made, that saves a company billions of dollars, and that this is 100x more valuable than what you or I have contri…

We generally talk about risk and probability when discussing this. You get 50% when it's just an idea with a 99.9% chance of failure, and below 0.1% when it's a rocket ship. So we have to apply that to your question too, and apply "market for lemons" thinking. So while it's possible that they can save a zillion dollars by making amazing decisions nobody else would have made, the odds of them doing so are empirically…

That's not the expected value thinking anyone would go through when deciding who to hire as a CEO. I mean, firstly, it's ignoring the large downside of hiring the wrong CEO.

There's steps of difference between hiring someone good (Steve Jobs is worth a hundred million dollars a year if you can get him to run Apple, because he will improve Apple's market cap by more than a hundred million dollars), hiring someone average (worth negative if it means rivals eat market share and market cap declines), and hiring someone who will commit fraud and ruin the company (worth negative 2.43 trillion). The large asymmetric possibility of downside from a mediocre to bad CEO skews the expected value calculations.

> You get 50% when it's just an idea with a 99.9% chance of failure, and below 0.1% when it's a rocket ship. So we have to apply that to your question too, and apply "market for lemons" thinking.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing different markets. CEO compensation is in the context of labor markets. It should be compared with other labor market activity such as the compensation of software engineers or surgeons. But here you're talking about capital markets.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#312

Post by Lich »

idlewords wrote: post #46

The author claims that "the only people acting in an entitled, reckless and ridiculous way have been venture capitalists and the most powerful people in tech", but the fact that a tech bubble existed and the excess couldn't last forever have been obvious to most people in the industry for a long time. There was an effort around 2017, catalyzed by Trump's election, to get tech workers to organize* while the times were…

> "Now the good times are ending, a future of limitless high-wage programming jobs seems less secure, and people are justifiably mad. But fairness demands some of the victims of the current round of layoffs also go look in the mirror."

Big yup. I think the author's point is valid, but I think you're observation is completely true and valid too. I do remember that time around 2017. Lots of talk about tech unionization, but no action because like you said, they didn't want to endanger their comfy jobs. I live in Seattle, and many tech workers here talk about equality, labor rights (only for the Starbucks employee), but the moment something would endanger their job, benefits, or property values they wouldn't hesitate to vote against what they claim to value.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#313

Post by matwood »

MockObject wrote: post #170
goodpoint wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These 500K Google jobs wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Larry Page / Sergey Brin Citation extremely needed. Do you think without some billionaires around everybody else would be sitting on their hands all day?

From my job to my marriage to my artwork, what couldn't conceivably be done by someone else, if I wasn't available? Most of us are fungible.

Bingo. Nearly everyone is replaceable. It may not be easy to replace a certain individual, but it can be done.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#314

Post by [deleted] »

xxpor wrote: post #213
AlbertCory wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are not worth much, sorry. Unless you're a patent troll. They're a by-product of other work.

That's like saying nukes aren't worth much. They aren't at an individual level, but the total value is much greater than the sum of their parts. From a game theory perspective, patents essentially have MAD dynamics: no one is crazy enough to strike first, but if you come at anyone they'll respond in kind. This is why patent trolls are so dangerous, they don't have any actual assets, so they're not in any actual dange…

[deleted]

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#315

Post by pavlov »

pwpw wrote: post #298
lordnacho wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is beside the point you're making, but that guy at the top does not have greater risk. The right measure of risk isn't money, it's freedom. Work as CEO of Google or Roche for a month and you don't have to work any more. You don't risk shit, you can only win or win bigger. This is what I don't understand. There are plenty of people who can run a business, so why is it that we pay so much for them? There's…

> that guy at the top does not have greater risk. The CEO and CFO of publicly traded companies get paid pretty handsomely in exchange for taking on a significant amount of risk by signing off on the financial statements.

And when does that risk ever materialize apart from the Enron/Wirecard/FTX cases where the CEO and CFO truly were pulling a massive scam?

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#316

Post by hnfong »

hackerlight wrote: post #267
amrocha wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that by definition, if the CEO is making 100x what you do then you're not being paid fairly Did you mean to say you just want to be paid modestly?

> The problem is that by definition, if the CEO is making 100x what you do then you're not being paid fairly Really, "by definition"? You can't think of a possible universe where a CEO draws on all their skill to make a crucial decision, that most other possible people in that role probably wouldn't have made, that saves a company billions of dollars, and that this is 100x more valuable than what you or I have contri…

Another way to look at your story is that the CEO is just doing their job. Perhaps they had a specific talent, perhaps they had a stroke of insight, or perhaps they just randomly made the right decision. But at the end a cynic could say they were just being at the right place at the right time.

On the other hand, you can also say that the board should be paid 100x because they somehow picked the right CEO.

But why stop there? Shouldn't the CEO's parents get a bonus for the upbringing of such a brilliant person? Or should the CEO's teachers get paid as well? The possibilities are endless... why attribute success to one single person?

PS: I'm not seriously saying this is what we should do. I'm just trying to illustrate how the concept of fairness looks a bit funny if you think hard about it.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#317

Post by thescriptkiddie »

whack wrote: post #306

Here's a hot take. VCs don't hate labor. They love money. They will do anything that makes the most money for them. If that means investing in people who they think will be successful (ie, impressive resume, past success), they will do that. If that means not investing in people who they think will not be successful founders, they will certainly not do that. Ultimately their drive to make money by backing the right h…

> VCs don't hate labor. They love money.

Marx would agree. People who don't know better tend to think that labor vs capital is an aesthetic or moral conflict rather than a material one. The mechanics of capitalism force the owners to exploit the workers as much as possible, or else they will be driven out of business. That doesn't necessarily make the owners bad or hateful people, though it does select for people who are able to convince themselves that they are doing the right thing in spite of the evidence.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#318

Post by ejb999 »

VFIT7CTO77TOC wrote: post #295
baron816 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Leftist tech workers like to think they’re working in a coop. They think the company should exist to serve their needs, rather than the needs of investors and customers. It’s a recipe for catastrophe.

I saw a discussion about tech layoffs few weeks ago. Someone had noted that layoffs should have come as no surprise when you had employees bragging about how little work they were doing. This comment stirred up a lot of people calling the poster heartless and saying things like "these people have families". That is such a naive perspective of the world. These are businesses and their goal is to make as much money as…

>>I don't know where the expectation that they should function as charities or job programs came from.

Personally I think it comes from many of these people being young (under about 33-35), and having worked almost their entire careers in a booming economy where things always went up in a straight line; you would need to have about 15 years working as an adult to have lived thru the last big down cycle in 2008.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#319

Post by hnfong »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #112
zozbot234 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sundar Pichai's job is to make sure Google has enough revenue to keep paying all those $500k+ engineers. If Google's revenue is at risk, the stock plunges and Sundar is out of a job. All things said, it seems like a remarkably fair arrangement.

But CEOs don't actually have that much impact... So whatever decisions - in this example - Sundar makes, it only carries so much weight. And, you also get fired if you're a $500k engineer and you suck at your job. So I'm not sure what's so much different about Sundar - except that if he sucks at his job he has a way better golden parachute.

They do have impact if they're super competent or super incompetent.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#320

Post by [deleted] »

thebradbain wrote: post #146
Aunche wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions aren't a hack that let you subvert supply and demand. The "bad" parts of unions are what give it power. Without excluding an out-group, you're left with a useless bureaucracy. For Hollywood, I think this is a necessary "evil" because the market rate for creative jobs is likely close to working making $0 for 80 hour work weeks. However, this isn't the same for tech.

Well, an important distinction in Hollywood versus my understanding of most other unions is that being a part of a guild does not guarantee you a job (though it is a prerequisite for many of them): You still need to be hired by a production, who chooses to work with you and sets your rate. The guild just provides a guarantee of pay floor, hours, conditions, healthcare, etc across and transcending individual companies…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN