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

An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 353 posts

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#201

Post by jltsiren »

carlosjobim wrote: post #168
jltsiren wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of nice cities in the developed world where people making a third of that have no trouble buying homes. California is expensive, because people oppose building new housing in sufficient quantities. They may support it in principle, but they oppose what it means in practice. Los Angeles also has other issues due to the way it has developed. The city is too large for everyone to commute by car and too…

Where? Can they buy homes without entering into lifelong debt?

At least in Finland, home ownership seems to be common among the people in their 30s and 40s I know, regardless of what they studied or didn't. The most common reasons for renting appear to be being single and relocating often for work. Typical mortgage duration is 20-25 years, which means that if you are in your 30s or 40s, you are probably about halfway through. At least if you didn't switch to a bigger home recently.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#202

Post by msluyter »

This article overlooks the potentially positive impact of your peer network. All of the things that the article suggest you shouldn’t do are things that make you valuable to your peers. And your peers may be instrumental in helping you find your next job.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#204

Post by malermeister »

nickff wrote: post #108
RangerScience wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds to me like it’s just accounting spin. If I sell something with a 2-for-1 deal, what are the ways that’s different from selling two for 50% off? If I am paid to work 40 hours a week, and I work 80, are the second 40 free, or are all 80 %50 my expected wage? > free to leave Ah! I see we agree on the need for such a robust social safety net that employment isn’t any degree of necessary!

If your employer knowingly and willfully doubles your pay without changing the contract, are you stealing from them? I think not, and it's just the other side of the coin.

No, it would merely reduce the amount stolen from you.

See here [0] for more theory , but the basic tl;dr is since all value is created by labor being done (your employer, the capitalist doesn't actually do anything to create value) and not all of it is paid out in the form of wages, the workers are being exploited since value is being stolen. Reducing the amount of that wage theft is not the other side of the coin.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#205

Post by malermeister »

carlosjobim wrote: post #122
MarkMarine wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square the circle of management wanting to pay employees the minimum they can for the maximum amount of their employees labor? The company is a giant thing, with lawyers, power and resources that are impossible for an individual to push against and win anything that is contested. Like 80 hour work weeks. Children working in manufacturing jobs. Unsafe working conditions with fire exits blocked. Which are al…

> How do you square the circle of management wanting to pay employees the minimum they can for the maximum amount of their employees labor? The same way you circle the square of workers wanting as much compensation as possible for the least effort possible. In other words: The market of labour. > The company is a giant thing, with lawyers, power and resources that are impossible for an individual to push against and…

What you have just described is, in fact, an adversarial relationship. That's what it's called when two groups want the opposite thing.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#206

Post by MarkMarine »

pdonis wrote: post #126
MarkMarine wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and also be a capitalist in that same context in the sense of using your skills as bargaining power with your employer to get the best return on the capital you own This is not what being a capitalist is, in the context you're using it. Capitalist vs laborer is basically someone who doesn't work, but their money does vs someone who has to work. That's it. Gets fuzzy when you start adding a 3rd group of people in th…

> Your skills only have value if you're using them. Yes. That's true of everyone, including those that you are calling "capitalists". But that being true, and a person knowing that it's true and acting accordingly, are two very different things. > Capitalist vs laborer is basically someone who doesn't work, but their money does vs someone who has to work. If you think that Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai,…

You're standing up a bunch of straw men to argue with here.

I didn't say half of what you're asserting, just trying to clear up the definitions of some terms you were getting wrong in the context that you were using them in. If you want to talk about this, which is essentially Marxist theory, and then argue against it... some familiarity with the source material would be good to acquire.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#207

Post by int_19h »

ddoolin wrote: post #184
uoaei wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A truck is useless without a route. In the case of trucking, "the means of production" includes customer lead generation, driver dispatch, etc. Owning their truck only gives them the flexibility to switch employers more easily.

Agreed. But just as a thought experiment: what about a truck driver who owns their own trucking company, employs around a dozen other drivers, and also drives as one of its drivers? I would guess, theoretically, this is impossible past a certain size of enterprise, but in the meantime I would imagine that they would be both. A capitalist laboring as part of their own means of production.

This thought experiment doesn't have to involve trucks: most small businesses involve owners working in some capacity, even if it's only managerial (but productive management is labor same as any other component that is required to produce the final product).

Thus, they're being a laborer when they perform productive work, and they're being a capitalist when they pocket the wealth that business as a whole (i.e. all employers collectively, rather than just themselves) have generated. And if they don't actually do the latter, there's no economic exploitation involved.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#208

Post by MarkMarine »

WalterBright wrote: post #152
MarkMarine wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square the circle of management wanting to pay employees the minimum they can for the maximum amount of their employees labor? The company is a giant thing, with lawyers, power and resources that are impossible for an individual to push against and win anything that is contested. Like 80 hour work weeks. Children working in manufacturing jobs. Unsafe working conditions with fire exits blocked. Which are al…

> How do you square the circle It's squared by the employees wanting the maximum pay for the least amount of work. It's call "Supply & Demand". It's the Law. > impossible for an individual to push against and win anything that is contested Not impossible at all. I've done it many times. The power the employee has is to say "No" and go work for someone else, or start their own company. > Like 80 hour work weeks / chil…

> were necessary when productivity was much lower than today.

Wow. just incredible. I've never seen the take that kids working in manufacturing jobs were necessary.

Begs the question, necessary for whom?

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#209

Post by thiagoharry »

ddoolin wrote: post #184
uoaei wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A truck is useless without a route. In the case of trucking, "the means of production" includes customer lead generation, driver dispatch, etc. Owning their truck only gives them the flexibility to switch employers more easily.

Agreed. But just as a thought experiment: what about a truck driver who owns their own trucking company, employs around a dozen other drivers, and also drives as one of its drivers? I would guess, theoretically, this is impossible past a certain size of enterprise, but in the meantime I would imagine that they would be both. A capitalist laboring as part of their own means of production.

If the trucker is the owner of the trucking company, he do not get his money because of the labour, but because of capital. He could even pay someone to run the business, and as the capital owner, he would keep receiving money and profits. Even if he thinks that it is fun to drive the company truck and work with this, it does not change the fact that his means of income is not labor, but capital. Compare with a regular truck driver that if does not work, gets no money.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#210

Post by MarkMarine »

Natsu wrote: post #138
MarkMarine wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square the circle of management wanting to pay employees the minimum they can for the maximum amount of their employees labor? The company is a giant thing, with lawyers, power and resources that are impossible for an individual to push against and win anything that is contested. Like 80 hour work weeks. Children working in manufacturing jobs. Unsafe working conditions with fire exits blocked. Which are al…

> How do you square the circle of management wanting to pay employees the minimum they can for the maximum amount of their employees labor? Competition, where people can go to the highest bidder, or start their own business if they know they can do better than working for someone else. Lack of freedom to go elsewhere features prominently in the abuses you and the article cite. > The company is a giant thing, with law…

When the capitalist class colludes to push down wages, make working conditions worse, and do mass layoffs when the company is so profitable that they have so much money they don't even know what to do with it and are therefore buying back stock, are there any laws that protect workers?

(those are the conditions that the article describes, not me)

Should there be?

Are the laws you're citing currently good, do you agree with them?

Is there a lawsuit that someone that isn't from a protected class can pursue to get a raise? Work less hours? Have enough coverage in a role that an employee can take holidays and vacation time? Have a consistent schedule?

Post reply on HN