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

Rolling the ladder up behind us

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#111

Post by stego-tech »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #101
stego-tech wrote: post #50

Xe's stuff is always excellent, and this is no different. What's disappointing is the amount of energy and effort wasted by people to come into the comments and espouse their desire to give up on addressing any of their concerns. "It's just how things are." "That's what generates profit." "If that's what the market demands, who are we to judge?" "Guess we do nothing." We've all heard it before. We get it , so many HN…

> We get it, so many HN and Tech folks have thrown in the towel and given up on changing anything within their own lives, or within the lives of others. It’s hilarious to read such defeatist takes on the current state of things on a site called Hacker News. The classical definition of a hacker was someone who wielded tech to circumvent power imbalances in whatever form. Now I fear we have plenty of technologists that…

Your entire reply gets it, and I'd gladly pin this comment to the top if I could.

We need more Hackers.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#112

Post by dontlaugh »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #80
dontlaugh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the Luddites’ position. Organised labour should one again take up this principled position. Join a trade union!

Even unions are up against it though. in the Netherlands, there have been multiple strikes from e.g. the train operators; they demand a 10% wage increase, after the train company downsized a lot during the pandemic, but who were then unable to upsize again as traffic resumed and who even now don't have the same amount of travelers as they did in 2020. But they're not profitable. They've made a loss for five years in…

You’ll often find trade unionists are also anti-capitalist, some are even socialists or communists.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#113

Post by WalterBright »

specialist wrote: post #102
WalterBright wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs. When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers. > Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? Durin…

Now include profit (surplus) in your analysis. Wage grow has not kept pace with corporate profitability. Why?

Because the correct comparison would be with total compensation, of which wages are only a portion.

Total compensation is the costs to an employer to hire some one. It includes:

1. contributions to retirement plans

2. so-called "employer paid" social security contributions

3. sick and paid vacation days

4. employer paid health insurance

5. stock plans

6. 401k plans

7. other payroll taxes

Last time I checked, these often added 40% or more over the takehome pay.

Also, the pay is based on the value the employee as an individual provides, not the value the company as a whole created. Just like the compensation for pro football players varies in a single team.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#114

Post by WalterBright »

dontlaugh wrote: post #107
WalterBright wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs. When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers. > Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? Durin…

Whenever I see you post on HN I’m reminded about “don’t meet your heroes”. You are so politically naive and indoctrinated for someone so smart.

You might be interested to know that political discussions are not allowed in the D forums (or any non-programming topics). We also don't discuss politics at the D conferences.

> You are so politically naive and indoctrinated

How can you be sure it's not the other way around? :-)

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#115

Post by mschoch »

sundaeofshock wrote: post #30
kevmo314 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are often erroneously cited as analogous to efficiency gains Sure, I can believe that, but... > doing anything of value for their own self-preservation Even your own comment relies on some metric of value. I agree that profit motives are not an ideal metric of value but as your comment suggests, we as a species do rely on some metric of value. I'm not infuriated until there's a better metric.

If we don’t figure out a way to keep people alive and relatively happy, the metric may become pitchforks per angry mob. I used to wonder if a Butlerian Jihad was plausible or just an interesting plot device. Now, it seems more plausible every day.

[dead]

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#116

Post by WalterBright »

whatshisface wrote: post #51
WalterBright wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labor class is free to form collectives and cooperatives. There's no law against it. Bezos started Amazon with $300,000. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for workers to raise that kind of money, after all, $300,000 to buy a house is considered cheap. On the other hand, the history of businesses being confiscated and handed over to the workers has not been a successful one.

But startups are worker-owned, insofar as the founders are able to profit from it.

Some startups are worker-owned through stock grants, but those grants are rarely evenly distributed. The founders hold the majority as long as they can.

It is a good practice for companies to include stock as part of the pay package. It encourages alignment of the company with the employees. Very, very successful companies follow this model, such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#117

Post by WalterBright »

whatshisface wrote: post #106
WalterBright wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. But they have competitors!

It sounds like the issue is competitors or the absence thereof more so than central allocation based on market forecasts being possible or impossible.

> It sounds like the issue is competitors

You nailed it.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#118

Post by zanecodes »

teeray wrote: post #79
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #8

industry only ever seems to want to hire people with the word Senior in their title. They almost never want to create people with the word Senior in their title. I suggest that the first ladder that got pulled up is the one on the ground. No one wants to train new entrants to the field. Not training junior workers seems like a natural extension to that.

It’s a Volunteer’s Dilemma: why train juniors when you can hire the juniors other companies trained to become seniors?

Maybe companies should provide some sort of incentive for the juniors they trained to stay with them. As it is, the obvious and rational choice is always to leave for another company that will pay you 25% more whenever you feel undervalued.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#119

Post by mattpara »

zanecodes wrote: post #118
teeray wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a Volunteer’s Dilemma: why train juniors when you can hire the juniors other companies trained to become seniors?

Maybe companies should provide some sort of incentive for the juniors they trained to stay with them. As it is, the obvious and rational choice is always to leave for another company that will pay you 25% more whenever you feel undervalued.

I think pensions used to be that incentive.

Re: Rolling the ladder up behind us

#120

Post by const_cast »

WalterBright wrote: post #4
Refreeze5224 wrote: post #2

This is the true problem with AI. It's with who owns it, and what they will inevitably use it for. Whether it can do cool stuff with code or equal a junior developer is irrelevant. What it can do is less important than what it will be used for. The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs, which from their perspective is a cost center and always will be. If you're not an owner, then you have no control over t…

> The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs Of course. That's been going on since the invention of the plow. That's why today we can do more interesting things than turn over the earth with a pointy stick all day every day. > economic democracy, where average people regain control over their lives History shows us that this inevitably means people lose all control over their lives, because the state will m…

It's kind of a meme at this point that any kind of economic control for laborers = communism. That's not just a jump you're allowed to make, sorry. There are a plethora of nations outside the US which have stronger protections for labor, and they're doing quite well. It's not 1965 anymore, we have to start making real big boy arguments.
Post reply on HN