Live data from Hacker News

An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

medium.com

271–280 of 353 posts

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#271
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You're standing up a bunch of straw men to argue with here. I'm not sure what you're basing that on since I'm responding to things you explicitly said. > If you want to talk about this, which is essentially Marxist theory I have no idea what you are basing that on. The only thing I said that was at all related to Marxist theory was my reference to "class warfare"; yes, Marxist theory was one of the culprits in usin…

> Which is why countries that tried to run themselves according to Marxist theory

There aren't any, despite Leninist theory often being presented with a misleading (in the context of “running a government”) prefix of “Marxist-”. (There are a number that tried Leninist theory, or theory descended from it such as Maoist theory.)

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#273
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning those bridges carries a cost to your career. If you think about your retirement prospects as amassing wealth by optimizing the "Area under the graph", it's really important to build a professional network so if one job opportunity ends, you can quickly work your network to find another similarly paying job. Failing that, you take a big pay cut, and impact your salary history. I can't imagine an employer makin…

> If you think about your retirement prospects as amassing wealth by optimizing the "Area under the graph", it's really important to build a professional network so if one job opportunity ends, you can quickly work your network to find another similarly paying job. Do you believe the supermarket shelf stockers think this way? Yes, you've come to understand yourself to be in a different socio-economic class than super…

> But what you fail to see

I don't fail to see the point of the article, I just think it's wrong.

> your employer has no incentive for maintaining your status in a different socio-economic class, and lots of incentives for changes that drive you, the exalted, mutually loved, always cooperative SWE into the same life+work situation as a supermarket shelf stocker.

Worker protections are good. So is being good at your job.

We can, and should, strive to have it both ways.

What's not good is disparaging people who don't have as prestigious a job as you. (And you are doing exactly that)

Even shelf stockers have basic human dignity; Don't be a dick.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#274
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some aspects are adversarial, some aspects aren't. How much compensation I get is adversarial. How much documentation I write or how many internal tools I develop isn't adversarial, not even if you put la liberté guidant le peuple above the fold.

Exactly. The company (owners plus workers) getting a big pot of money is not adversarial, it's cooperative. Dividing the pot of money is where it gets adversarial. But spend all your time focusing on how to divide the pot always (at least in the long run) means the whole group loses out on the big pot of money.

Management decides what portion of the pot gets to be divided by the workers, and much of that pot you might get. You're not even a part of that discussion. You are an individual, management is not. They have negotiating power because they see what everyone else gets paid, you don't. Your only viable threat is walking away, and for most people that is not a credible threat.

Your perception of your negotiation skills is likely very biased by the Dunning-Kruger effect: you rarely use negotiation skills in adversarial settings, so your perception of how good you are at it compared to professional negotiators is likely highly inflated.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#275
post #138

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? 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 agre…

> 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?

Yes, the laws don't magically vanish. Also, you seem to be neglecting inflation in those numbers, which is the main reason things have gone out of whack economically.

The fact is you can have bigger numbers and less real wealth. There is greed causing that, but mostly from the political class who printed a ton of paper even though there isn't more stuff to actually buy with that paper.

It's ironic that the stock buybacks work like the inverse of this, showing that they understand the effect of printing too much, even if they're dick moves by people who are compensated mostly in stock.

But you can't really call this out without calling out our government robbing us by printing more paper in a regressive stealth tax, which is what started this whole mess. No, Putin didn't do us any favors with his bloodthirsty war, but he poured gas on a fire that was already burning strongly well before then.

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

All of them? No. But the ones keeping me from being stuck working for company scrip are pretty good.

> 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?

You have to become more valuable for that, then you have more options. You know, invest into your own human capital. If you don't produce things that other people actually want, why should you be entitled to the things that they produce?

The thinking in this article just leads you down a downward spiral where everybody loses, when the economy is a positive sum game where we're constantly making new things that people want. If you want more of the pie, you have to start baking.

I say this as someone who has worked a crappy ass factory job. I can see why the lower end of jobs makes people feel this way, since I spent years in an awful factory working myself half to death, not feeling like I could even get vacation and not having any kind of stable schedule at all, given that I'd drive for two hours to work for 1d20 hours, not even knowing how many ahead of time.

Now I work at a place where my whole job is helping people, we work a stable schedule, and things are good. When I just naively asked for a "market" salary, they quoted a figure that was $20k higher than I expected.

And I did it by making myself more valuable, spending all the time I could get making some projects to show what I knew and finding places that valued that.

But if you follow this advice, you'll find yourself in a race to the bottom.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if everyone decides to pay less That's called a "cartel", and the big problem with cartels is the members cheat on them under the table. They're unstable, unless maintained by force (i.e. using the law to punish members who cheat). I recall one job I had where I was offered X, and I said X wasn't enough. They said they weren't officially allowed to pay more, but they would if I kept my mouth shut. Deal!

> They're unstable, unless maintained by force What is the basis for this assertion? Is this why OPEC exists? Is that why in 2010 Department Of Justice had to step in to break up a wage suppression cartel between Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay If it wasn't fpr the force of law, they would happily cooperate to drive you into poverty.

And this wage suppression was direct collusion, corporations have such an oligopoly now they hardly need to explicitly collude, both on wages or prices.

A company raises the price for something, and it's called 'price leadership', other companies recognize it is in their interest to follow suit and prices go up. The same dynamic exists for wages. Years of not enforcing anti-trust have left us in a pretty bad spot.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#277
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, you must have worked for some terrible companies. I have friends at everywhere I ever worked and we always tried to cooperate.

So have I. I love the people I work with (usually). That doesn’t change the nature of the wage relationship. We workers produce value through our labor which companies pay for in wages. Capital (CEOs, founders, VCs) wants to maximize the ratio of value to cost, therefore they wish to pay us as little as possible while getting maximum efficiency. It has nothing to do with liking your coworkers.

Negotiation goes both ways, you want to be able to demonstrate your value and sometimes that comes by showing people that you can be paid more elsewhere. The game here is positive sum, not zero, you want to know and show what you add to the equation.

I've met everyone above me on the org chart. It's not that impressive because we're smaller, but we're also not doing layoffs and I can talk to people who make human decisions, rather than folks who are trying to cut 10% of expenses off of a spreadsheet by firing "resources."

So I don't think it's quite the same.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a cite, but I saw a graph in the WSJ decades ago that laid "productivity" and "total worker compensation" on the same graph, and they neatly overlaid each other. In any case, neglecting the value of employee benefits makes comparing salary to productivity a completely worthless statistic. What needs to be included are the values of: 1. health insurance 2. retirement benefits 3. stock options 4. so-called…

WSJ is also a very "pro business" paper, they aren't likely to publish anything that supports a pro labor pov

You'll know what you're reading is propaganda if they're comparing salary increases to productivity increases.

Don't overlook that the primary customer of the WSJ is not conservatives, but businessmen who are looking for accurate business information that will help them make money. If the WSJ just delivered pro-business propaganda, that would not serve their customers' needs.

I subscribed to the NYT for a while, and finally gave it up. Their business news was all propaganda, and of little use for things like picking a good company to buy stock in.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if everyone decides to pay less That's called a "cartel", and the big problem with cartels is the members cheat on them under the table. They're unstable, unless maintained by force (i.e. using the law to punish members who cheat). I recall one job I had where I was offered X, and I said X wasn't enough. They said they weren't officially allowed to pay more, but they would if I kept my mouth shut. Deal!

> They're unstable, unless maintained by force What is the basis for this assertion? Is this why OPEC exists? Is that why in 2010 Department Of Justice had to step in to break up a wage suppression cartel between Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay If it wasn't fpr the force of law, they would happily cooperate to drive you into poverty.

> Is this why OPEC exists?

OPEC has had a constant problem with cheaters selling oil under the table.

> Is that why in 2010 Department Of Justice had to step in to break up a wage suppression cartel between Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay

Yes, it was a cartel, and the companies were cheating on it. Remember when Jobs complained to Google that Google was cheating on it? There was nothing holding that cartel together.

> If it wasn't fpr the force of law, they would happily cooperate to drive you into poverty.

Cartels have never managed to do that, unless they were (ironically) enforced by law.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#280
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're unstable, unless maintained by force What is the basis for this assertion? Is this why OPEC exists? Is that why in 2010 Department Of Justice had to step in to break up a wage suppression cartel between Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay If it wasn't fpr the force of law, they would happily cooperate to drive you into poverty.

And this wage suppression was direct collusion, corporations have such an oligopoly now they hardly need to explicitly collude, both on wages or prices. A company raises the price for something, and it's called 'price leadership', other companies recognize it is in their interest to follow suit and prices go up. The same dynamic exists for wages. Years of not enforcing anti-trust have left us in a pretty bad spot.

We've seen across the board price increases recently, but it was inflation, not collusion.

How do you explain price decreases?

> Years of not enforcing anti-trust have left us in a pretty bad spot.

And yet STEM graduates were getting $200K+ for their first jobs. How is that collusion working out?

Post reply on HN