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

341–350 of 434 posts

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#341

Post by bdcravens »

thebradbain wrote: post #82
bdcravens wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very little of Hollywood's work can be done remotely. Even the parts that can are essentially protected by that network that can't, they are so intertwined. Also Hollywood has a substantial moat that prevents an indie studio in Tulsa from having access to the same distribution network, etc. Not suggesting that "big tech" doesn't have advantages, but overall, there's an entire world of software development outside of…

> You don’t even need a college edification to do most of the work in our industry You don’t in entertainment either, I can assure you that unless you’re working at an agency or a studio salaryman, no one will ask. But those are more corporate than creative jobs, anyways. And at least from person experience, a lot of Hollywood TV writers rooms are still remote or hybrid (they found it works better!)

> a lot of Hollywood TV writers rooms are still remote or hybrid

Yes, I was addressing that in the "Even the parts that can are essentially protected by that network that can't, they are so intertwined." part of my comment.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#342

Post by treis »

guhidalg wrote: post #49
treis wrote: post #15

Sometimes I can't even begin to comprehend the POVs I read on the internet. The FAANGs and adjacent companies treat their workers better than pretty much any other company in the world. The idea that workers there are somehow this abused underclass is ridiculous.

The company does treat the employees well, the article specifically calls out VCs and executives as the principal actors: > The tech industry is desperate to somehow frame a period of time where it took advantage of low interest rates to recklessly overhire and overinvest as something that created entitled workers. What they don’t want to discuss is the truth that the only people that have ever acted entitled are the…

But that's not the truth. You can see it anytime this sort of thread comes up. People think they should be able to work very little and get paid a lot of money as long as they "meet expectation". That's entitlement.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#343

Post by 8note »

throwaway23597 wrote: post #109
habosa wrote: post #65

I think because individual tech workers are so highly paid relative to other industries, we fail to see how low our pay is relative to what the people at the top are making. A high performing Google engineer may make 500k+ in total comp, Sundar Pichai makes $100M+ in many years. That's 200x as much ... and the baseline is already super high. You see startup founders who exit with generational wealth (tens or hundreds…

> The Bezos and Musks and Kalanicks of the world believe that this is correct. They truly think they do something in their 24 hours of daily human life that makes them hundreds or thousands of times more valuable than even the absolute best "labor" in their industry. I mean to play devil's advocate, these people have created organizations that employ hundreds of thousands of people in highly paid tech positions. Thes…

They're necessary but not sufficient conditions for google to exist. There are countless other contributors who are also necessary but not sufficient conditions for google too.

What's the incentive for other necessary people to work at these companies?

Assuming that they are necessary and sufficient for making new businesses that hire lots of people, aren't we disincentivizing them by paying so handsomely for their first such business. If we realigned the incentives, we could have 200 google equivalents made by Sergey and brinn, not just the one

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#344

Post by diebeforei485 »

throw93 wrote: post #331
diebeforei485 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employer can't unilaterally change the terms written in the offer letter. That would be clear breach of contract. Any state or federal court in the US can enforce this. I'm not sure how it works in other countries.

Again, which entity forces the employer to write these terms in the offer letter in the first place? Govt or courts can't. If you as the person interviewing asks for these terms, employer can just say no and move on to next person in queue. In other countries the notice periods are written in law. But then again, do we really want to wait(& trust) for the govt which is heavily lobbied by FAANG to legislate this? Isn'…

No entity forces startups to convert ISO's to NSO's when early employees leave the company, but they did it because it made their offers more competitive. The legal default was ISO's that expire quickly.

It's the same. If companies hear loud and clear from both their employees and from people they want to hire, they will do it if they want to compete.

Heck, any smart company might do it voluntarily to make it harder for their employees to be poached by other companies that only offer a fire-at-will employment (the legal default).

A few posts on Medium/Substack might catalyze this change.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#345

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

unity1001 wrote: post #303
throwaway23597 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Bezos and Musks and Kalanicks of the world believe that this is correct. They truly think they do something in their 24 hours of daily human life that makes them hundreds or thousands of times more valuable than even the absolute best "labor" in their industry. I mean to play devil's advocate, these people have created organizations that employ hundreds of thousands of people in highly paid tech positions. Thes…

> These 500K Google jobs wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Larry Page / Sergey Brin What has Google done since Page and Brin left? Other than trying to suck what they already built dry for max profit? ... You are equating early technical founders with the MBAs who later took over the big tech. They are not equal. The former builds things and creates new paradigm. The latter's purpose is to suck things dry for prof…

> > The former builds things and creates new paradigm

Why the religious talk? This sort of talk only happens in SF.

Google is a product/service which serves customers to propel their convenience and quality of life. There is nothing more to it.

Also Google just happened to be the winner in a winner-take-all market which was made of 10s of search engines.

So it's true, MBAs might care about profits, but all the above is very clear to them, founders instead are blinded by these sort of mythological figures who build a cult-like following around them, whereas in reality it's just survivorship bias.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#346

Post by topaz0 »

pdonis wrote: post #290
topaz0 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow that wasn't always the case in the past, so presumably it's also possible for things to be different in the future. If we have the audacity to imagine a different world, it is fixable through organizing and demanding that incentives be aligned with our values rather than with the spiraling fortunes of a handful of extremely self-centered people.

> that wasn't always the case in the past Yes, that's correct. The movement of stock ownership to mutual funds largely took place in the few decades after WW II. > presumably it's also possible for things to be different in the future Yes, but the changes that would have to take place are quite drastic. I don't think disallowing mutual funds is an option. But the only other mechanism of control (aside from market for…

I didn't say it would be easy. What I said is that the potential for change is rooted in organizing and class struggle.

> regulatory capture

Regulatory capture just is the capitalist class organizing to shape the structures of society to their continued advantage. It is class struggle. The only solution is to struggle back.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#347

Post by gnicholas »

lordnacho wrote: post #327
gnicholas wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One creative theory I heard is that a rational benefit of seemingly-irrational executive pay is to incentivize harder work among the people who desire to be executives. Not sure if it makes sense or not, but it's an interesting possibility.

Only works if the would-be CEOs are themselves irrational. You can't seriously be expecting to outcompete thousands of other prospective CEOs.

It would only really apply to companies that promote from within. That could motivate a few dozen people who have a shot at becoming an executive in their career at the company.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#348

Post by par »

WalterBright wrote: post #323
par wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

two words for you: health insurance

You don't need to be employed by a corporation to have health insurance. I know this because I have health insurance and am not employed.

It costs a lot more, especially for families, once the cobra runs out. I know this because I have also not been employed, and had to provide health insurance for my family.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#349

Post by Sebguer »

gnicholas wrote: post #225
kortilla wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other industries known for highly paid labor (finance, law, and medicine in the US) do not distribute rewards this way. Yes the people at the stop are still pulling in massive pay but there's a much stronger distribution of profits throughout the labor pyramid. This is wrong. Lawyers get paid worse than FAANG SWEs unless they make partnership, which is the equivalent to becoming a co-owner or working as a lower…

The difference is not as great in these other fields, but that's because the pyramid isn't as large. There's one person at the top of Alphabet, and tens of thousands of people below him. No law firm has as many people, by a long shot. And the medical analogy isn't right either. You have to look at the CEO of a pharma company, who probably does make a similar multiple to Sundar. But the person at the top also has a mu…

The bottom of their risk is having to become labor again, that's not a risk, that's the default for every one of their employees.

Re: Tech's Elite Hates Labor

#350

Post by throwaway9191aa »

norir wrote: post #244
freedsoftware wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also that good marketing of a product is probably more integral to its success than its engineering. There are so many stories of superior technologies failing because of bad marketing.

I agree that marketing is extremely important. There is no product without the engineers and no customers without the marketers. If you prioritize quality, I think the engineers are more important. If you prioritize making money, perhaps then the marketers are more important. I don't really know. The problem is that in this particular case, the only things this person seemed exceptional at were being friends with the…

IME at startups (well very small micro startups) you focus on quality at first, and wait for the company to go bankrupt. Then sell the IP to another company you happen to own. That second company focuses on marketing without having to worry about the ownership %'s afforded to the engineers at the first company.
Post reply on HN