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

221–230 of 353 posts

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#221

Post by etothepii »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #189
Supermancho wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> House prices are not kept stupidly high by the 1% or capital class but by the 50.1% that vote against allowing any kind of building anywhere near an existing house, The discussion is not about a specific area or your specific area. There are large parts of the US where there is no such NIMBY voting allowed, much less enacted to prohibit construction. Prices have more or less ballooned everywhere in the US. Random h…

> There are large parts of the US where there is no such NIMBY voting allowed It's called zoning. Do you know of any notable residential areas without zoning?

As I understand it in most of the United States zoning is controlled by City governments which are under democratic control. If enough of the people didn't want the zoning, the zoning wouldn't be happening.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#222

Post by carlosjobim »

pdonis wrote: post #181
carlosjobim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. Skills have an unlimited supply that can not be limited. If you want to mind-bend people into believing skills are capital, then all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid.

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor",…

Good to hear, but it's still a huge stretch to call skills capital - what does any of us gain by redefining words in free conversation?

When arguing for or against communism (as is the theme of the article and thread) we need at least to have some common understanding of what a word means. "Capital" is generally understood as exclusive ownership.

> In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor"

No, most workers earn their pay from labour. Applying your skills is still labour.

I think the pandemic was a happening that made more people than ever realize they can and should change their life course to better suit their needs. So many people are changing careers to get a better return on their skills and effort. There are whole industries now that are starting to have a hard time getting enough labour, because they can't find anybody willing to be exploited even short time. And sometimes that's not deliberately by the individual business owner, some sectors are just not lucrative enough to continue - unless they change profoundly.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#223

Post by etothepii »

pdonis wrote: post #181
carlosjobim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. Skills have an unlimited supply that can not be limited. If you want to mind-bend people into believing skills are capital, then all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid.

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor",…

I suspect the point was more that those who write articles like this one are borrowing heavily from communist ideas. If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital and the rebuttal was along those lines.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#224

Post by carlosjobim »

malermeister wrote: post #211
pdonis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor",…

> Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. So did Capitalism [0]. Now what? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme

Communism and capitalism are allies, and frankly two sides of the same coin. Marx repeatedly makes it clear in his communistic manifesto, that a society first needs to become capitalist in order to break down traditions and family, before it is ready for a communist revolution. He states that communists should side with capitalists against traditional society, and then get rid off the capitalists after that. Smart capitalist politicians switch coats and become loyal party functionaries when that happens, corporate leaders keep their nice jobs and report to the party instead of to the shareholders. Bankers remain untouchable in both systems.

Just the fact that people think the world is left/right, socialist/capitalist proves that these two allied ideologies have been extremely successful in the last century.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#225

Post by carlosjobim »

etothepii wrote: post #223
pdonis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skills are not capital in the communist vocabulary. I have no interest in the communist vocabulary. Communism killed more than a hundred million people in the 20th century. I would hope we have figured out by now that communism doesn't work. > all the workers in the world are bona-fide capitalists, since they are using their skills to get paid. In the sense that most of their pay is return on capital, not "labor",…

I suspect the point was more that those who write articles like this one are borrowing heavily from communist ideas. If you aren't a communist, there's a good chance that you don't think that skills are capital and the rebuttal was along those lines.

Thank you, yes that was how I meant.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#227

Post by Supermancho »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #189
Supermancho wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> House prices are not kept stupidly high by the 1% or capital class but by the 50.1% that vote against allowing any kind of building anywhere near an existing house, The discussion is not about a specific area or your specific area. There are large parts of the US where there is no such NIMBY voting allowed, much less enacted to prohibit construction. Prices have more or less ballooned everywhere in the US. Random h…

> There are large parts of the US where there is no such NIMBY voting allowed It's called zoning. Do you know of any notable residential areas without zoning?

I was referring more to the additional processes that have been weaponized like CEQA.

In most of the US, additional zoning is welcomed. Zoning for smaller locales is controlled by financial limitations, rather than entrenched interests. Who doesn't want utilities to be brought to their area? For example, Puyallup WA is ~40 mi away from Seattle and there are still residences in Industrial zoned areas waiting for residential zoning to bring them sewer access. It's about the cost, not grassroots opposition.

Most towns can grow in every direction as fast as they can build. The issue is cost of land development and regulation, moreso than NIMBY influence.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#228

Post by neilv »

nbk_2000 wrote: post #142
neilv wrote: post #39

> Engineering culture encourages workers to collectively improve the company’s effectiveness. It encourages them to share knowledge with one another. To train each other. To build tools for one another. To bring new workers up to speed, and review each other’s work. To speed the company up. To seek out weaknesses in the company and fix them. / Engineers do this while they’re doing their actual job, the one the compan…

Please note the topic is "Class _Warfare_ for the Software Engineer" and NOT "Fulfilling Your Expected Role as a Software Engineer" This is the author's opinion of how Software's Labor can "fight back" If you're not in an adversarial relationship with your employer then this advice will not be particularly useful/advantageous.

The author seems to be making statements about what the job is.

Are you saying we shouldn't take those literally, but as what the new (bad faith) thinking about the job should be?

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#229

Post by teucris »

etothepii wrote: post #144
teucris wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there exists a path towards success in tech without significant capital. That doesn’t mean it’s easy, or that it will be that way forever. At some point in the past a car mechanic could build a new engine from stock parts and make improvements they could monetize.

This is a new argument I have not heard before I am deeply curious about it but don't know how to interrogate it further. Is this original thinking or something you found in a book?

I don’t know if I’d call it original thought, but rather a synthesis of a few ideas I’ve been exposed to. Every innovation is eventually commodotized, so being a worker in a new space pays well because we haven’t figured out how to do it at scale. In addition, the space is not saturated, so there are more low-hanging fruit for innovation. Eventually though, things get automated and the cost of disruption goes way up, limiting significant returns to those that have sufficient capital to work at gigantic scales.

Re: An Introduction to Class Warfare for the Software Engineer

#230

Post by Gigachad »

vineyardmike wrote: post #44
andrewmutz wrote: post #32

> Especially if the company you’re working for is not actually struggling economically right now. If you work for Google, say, you must be thinking, “What is it about the coming recession that makes a company that’s doing just fine institute broad layoffs for the first time in its 23-year history?” People commenting about the layoffs keep citing the financial health of the companies that are doing the layoffs as evid…

> the labor they are buying is more expensive than the profits from the products they were planning to build with those employees Thats it. Thats where the Marxism enters. Most of these companies (or the bigger ones) aren't losing money with these new products, they were just losing profit margin because its profitable but not as profitable . They chose to have fatter profits over your employment and wellbeing. WRT y…

If you are working at Google, your well-being is already very good. Ride the highs and the lows, start saving some of that huge pay and you will be able to coast along while looking for new jobs.

Otherwise you could just work in government and get paid bellow average but be stable in all economic environments.

Post reply on HN