Live data from Hacker News

The Who Cares Era

dansinker.com

241–250 of 765 posts

Re: The Who Cares Era

#241
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to absolve employers here, since they are almost certainly the ones who initiated this trend, but there are very few incentives to care about employees when employees take advantage of it. The end result is they make life more difficult not just for the employer, but for their fellow employees.

It's kind of a self-fulfilling cycle in that way. Employers have taken away any and all incentives to do anything but the absolute bare minimum to not get fired, so now that's what they get. Because that's now employees behave, now employers won't offer anything else - but without offering anything else, employee attitudes aren't going to change. I think strong unions are the only way forward

> without offering anything else, employee attitudes aren't going to change.

In my lived experience, unions permanently cement the anti-employer (and often anti-customer) attitude present in some employees. Once in place, they don't produce a massive change of heart where employees are willing to rise above and beyond the exact terms of their collective bargaining agreements, but instead result in a rejection of the traditional work ethic and the embrace of minimal output and often malicious compliance across the board.

It's one reason many of us have had such bad experience working with unions in the past. The customer suffers along with the employer, and worse the customer often pays a higher price for this privilege.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#242

The Who Cares Inception. > As Elon Musk's DOGE rats gnaw their way through federal agencies, not caring is their guiding light. He wouldn't have used this wording if he had actually spent sometime on understanding how wasteful the previous governments have been. So in a sense, Elon was correcting the previous Who Cares mistakes and not actually committing new Who Cares mistakes. This shows that even Dan doesn't care…

yeah, cutting waste is caring. And totally right, turns out Dan himself does not care.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#243
post #5

I was just kvetching about this to my partner over breakfast. Not exactly, but a parallel observation, that a lot of people are just kind of shit at their jobs. The utility tech who turned my tiny gas leak into a larger gas leak and left. The buildings around me that take the better part of a decade to build (really? A parking garage takes six years?) Cops who have decided it's their job to do as little as possible.…

>really? A parking garage takes six years?

I tend to agree with your overall point, but I’m not sure this supports it. To me, the difficulty in building things like parking structures isn’t indifference but the opposite: we care too much.

We care about the environmental impact. We care about the safety of workers. We care about the impact on local residents. We care about property values. All of those things create a layer of risk management, and the administrative overhead is what slows many of those projects down. If we were less risk adverse, we could get things done more quickly but we care about those things enough to manage them.

(To be clear, I’m not saying any of those are bad, just pointing out the natural consequence of caring about things and how it runs counter to the OPs point.)

Re: The Who Cares Era

#244

In my opinion, "who cares" era is the consequence of "care about this!" era that preceded it if all loudspeakers scream "care about this", but don't give a thing (or worse) about something /you/ care - you stop caring in response

I would argue that "who cares" era is the consequence of post-"care about this" era (90s-2000s). It was going downhill after dotcom boom and took nearly vertical nosedive around 2012-2015 when mass of content generation happened.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#245

Ugh, he had a point until he brought in cutting the government as a bad thing. Seriously, DOGE is sweating the small stuff, trying to get cuts where they can, and that does NOT happen from people who don't care. There's a lot of care there. As an analogy, when I program, I'm always on the lookout for performance improvements, and that involves cutting non-performant code and doing less . It's the bro-coders that slap…

> Seriously, DOGE is sweating the small stuff, trying to get cuts where they can, and that does NOT happen from people who don't care.

DOGE is a propaganda exercise (in part to provide false justification for policies undertaken with other motives, and in part as a distraction), and the appearance of energy is important for that.

They care, but not about the thing that it is the public rationale.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal? > I think pride in work has declined a lot (at least in the US) because so many large employers have shown that they aren't even willing to pretend to care about their employees. It's difficult to take pride…

> it's all due to the focus on short-term financial results I've heard that my whole life. If that were generally true, company stocks would be going steadily downwards.

Or…PE ratios bloat to provide price support. See:CAPE-adjusted PE ratio.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#248
post #149

I read the title and it triggered something I've been thinking a lot lately: there's too much for everyone to care about right now. Article didn't really touch on it directly, but: > something that sounded like every other thing: some dude talking to some other dude about apps that some third dude would half-listen-to at 2x speed while texting a fourth dude about plans for later. It's not that the dudes don't care, i…

>It's not that the dudes don't care, it's that the dudes have 15 other things expected of them, which weren't expected 15 years ago and caring capacity feels like a biological limit I genuinely think this is a factor in some ways. 500 years ago, what were people worried about? Their immediate concerns, those of family, and neighbors. Realistically, there was no way to get caught up in the minute-by-minute concerns of…

> People genuinely expect you to care about the back-and-forth between two celebrities you've never met

Maybe this is some unknown privilege of mine or some bubble I live in, but I only know about celebrity gossip when people ask me if I've heard about it and I say no, or not really. You get to choose what to give your attention to, and you don't have to just because other people expect you to. I still have friends and acquaintances, we just talk about other stuff.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Or they offshored the project and fired people, and are bringing it back, and now you have to deal with that mess Your potential reward for fixing all of it and reminding them to not do it again? Nothing!

The reward for putting out a fire is more fires to put out.

Re: The Who Cares Era

#250
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to take work personally. That is a lesson that I've been taught many, many, many times over the years. I've been told that within the last 24 hours. So why is it a surprise that, when employees are not supposed to take work personally, they stop taking work personally? I do not understand anyone's confusion about this. We are a resource to be used in companies now; replaced, shunted, and changed a…

> So why is it a surprise that, when employees are not supposed to take work personally, they stop taking work personally? I'm a bit puzzled about how this reply is supposed to relate to or add to my comment. For example, I already said, "The question is, in the face of such job insecurity, why should employees care are their jobs? Their employers clearly don't care about them." What I don't see in the reply is any k…

One example that comes to my mind: I had my first job in 1974. The expectation back then was that if you wanted to leave your job, you always gave at least two weeks notice.

I'm slow so it took me a very long time to realize how ridiculous this was. If the company was going to lay you off, they never gave you any notice at all. You were just told not to come to work the next day.

So this is not just about current economic circumstances. It's about an imbalance of power that has been going on a long time.

Post reply on HN