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

Is my advice too mercenary?

jacobian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 390 posts

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#321

Post by nebulous_two »

roenxi wrote: post #316
lovich wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m frankly boggled that this thought is even entertained. We have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers and other peoples in the pursuit of profits, down to actual armies killing striking workers. I agree with you that you’d be more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord as they at least viewed their serfs as theirs and not some sort of cogs to be thrown away once they were worn out…

I'm not sure you are being clear in your argument. If we have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers [up to and including] actual armies killing striking workers ... how do you think it is possible that they've become more greedy recently? Business greed has capped out since approximately the first 48 hours after the establishment of the first business back in Mesopotamia or wherever.…

You're right it's not greed itself, but the scale of its target that has grown. One person losing their job to corporate greed is a tragedy, and 10000 people losing their jobs is a statistic.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#322

Post by aperson_hello »

lovich wrote: post #306
jokethrowaway wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being charitable / good to employees is good for business and for retaining workforce in a world where employees don't have anyone else to care for them. If I need to give 40% of my profits (and your salary) to the government and there is an avenue for getting some of that money back when you're in trouble, then go and ask for the government for help. The mistake is in allowing the government to gather more resources…

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community). All I needed to read to dismiss this

It's pretty clear that it did...on paper... Didn't actually destroy anything in practice other than the formalization of that unit

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#323

Post by Frost1x »

roenxi wrote: post #316
lovich wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m frankly boggled that this thought is even entertained. We have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers and other peoples in the pursuit of profits, down to actual armies killing striking workers. I agree with you that you’d be more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord as they at least viewed their serfs as theirs and not some sort of cogs to be thrown away once they were worn out…

I'm not sure you are being clear in your argument. If we have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers [up to and including] actual armies killing striking workers ... how do you think it is possible that they've become more greedy recently? Business greed has capped out since approximately the first 48 hours after the establishment of the first business back in Mesopotamia or wherever.…

I think both lines of thought are correct and aren't mutually exclusive. Systemically, we have a fundamental underlying issue where profit motive isn't always aligned with the rest of society and there in lies what we see now.

I also think greed, or perhaps better described as flaunted greedy behavior, has increased over the past several decades. While capitalism has of course always been greed driven, different periods of time and different cultures have set guardrails up as to what level of greedy behavior is and isn't acceptable.

In the US the culture during the prime time of the industrial revolution, capitalism had technology progress propping its greedy appetite up. Those gains have been largely consumed and greed shifted over more and more towards optimizing on labor. We live in an environment now where we no longer assume your employer has your interests at heart and everyone listens to HR and leadership propoganda selling pictures of families and care for their employees while everyone rolls their eyes. We assume our employer will try the pay the least for us and get us to do the most for the least. We assume that they'll replace us the second they have a quantifiable cheaper alternative. Many decades ago these practices weren't as accepted, they certainly occurred, but they came with bad image and cultural rejection that harmed businesses. That isn't the case anymore. Businesses can basically do whatever isn't explicitly restricted by law or more profitable than penalties law sets and its just the accepted state of affairs. After all, it's legal, what are you going to do? Meanwhile through aggressive lobbying businesses are basically writing the law as they see fit.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#324

Post by nebulous_two »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #161
rmason wrote: post #91

There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company. Here in Michigan there were a number of small towns where a single employer would dominate. If the town needed something, like a baseball park the owner would simply write a check. If a loyal employee had a health crisis that insurance didn't cover the company owner would write a check. When there were tough economic times…

> There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company. The problem with these advice columns is that they aren't saying "don't give your all to a company". They end up saying "your company is the enemy ". The original article that this blog refers to was titled "Exit interviews are a trap", which many pointed out was a gross exaggeration. It assumes that every company perform…

What is the difference, from an employee's perspective, between an abusive employer, and one that would not hesitate to steamroll them in the name of profit. Sure one is intentionally targetted and the other is collateral damage, but in the end the employee is in the same boat. All you've said so far is "..but not ALL employers!"

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#325

Post by refurb »

rglullis wrote: post #317
kbenson wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than some fiefdom ruled over by some noble? The whole point of democracy and elective government is that you can't rely on a system like that to be consistently good, whether it's the Duke's son squandering all the wealth and not listening to the people or a shift in management at the company. Just because sometimes there were benevolent companies that decided to contribute to their communit…

You are talking past (way past!) the point of OP. The point of OP is about a time where local communities mattered more than global output. When those in power were close enough to the common folk to the point where they could face consequences of their abuse. A time where societies had much higher levels of trust. OP is not talking about "relinquishing the responsibilities to others". Quite the opposite. It's much e…

My opinion (having worked for one those companies the OP talks about) is it’s easy to be benevolent and generous when you face no real competition, profits grow year over year and everyone is fat and happy.

You never have to lay anyone off, pay raises come regularly, no huge pressure to perform, management gets big bonuses and shareholders watch the stock rise.

See the big US automakers in their hay day.

But when competition heats up, other companies take you business and profit growth has to be fought for, anything and everything is on the table.

The companies back then were never really loyal, they just never had the need to be ruthless, but they certainly would have been.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#326

Post by verve_rat »

q-big wrote: post #320
sharken wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being good to employees is in my experience not that clearcut. Yes, companies spend money on social events to make the employees feel good about the company. But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere. As an employee you are nearly always better off switching jobs every 18 months, as staying in the same job loses you money. I wish…

> But they won't spend any significant amount of money to keep valued employees, which of course makes said employees look elsewhere. Isn't it rather the other way round: you should be very careful to invest too much money into employees who are willing to quit?

Of we train them, they might leave.

But what if we don't train them and they stay?

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#327

Post by contrast »

chrisseaton wrote: post #228
nerpderp82 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working class was middle class.

If you're middle class, with stocks, a professional job, your own house, you probably have been doing absolutely fine over the last couple of years. It's everyone else who's in trouble.

It might be worth noting that in the US, "middle class" is used in the same way as "working class" is used in the UK i.e. blue collar, non-professionals.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#328

Post by seizethegdgap »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #296
lovich wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't like people were relying on business then business owners got greedy. Do you actually believe that? That all these business owners were running their factories out of the goodness of their hearts and that they only stopped because the government took all the money they had to give out as charity? If that is the case why do we see ultra profitable businesses returning to this form instead of trying to carve…

Being charitable / good to employees is good for business and for retaining workforce in a world where employees don't have anyone else to care for them. If I need to give 40% of my profits (and your salary) to the government and there is an avenue for getting some of that money back when you're in trouble, then go and ask for the government for help. The mistake is in allowing the government to gather more resources…

> Welfare also destroyed the family unit (especially in the black community).

You sure it wasn't selective enforcement of the War on Drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_war_on_drugs) and the criminal justice system in general (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/08/racial-dispariti...), and redlining (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)?

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#329

Post by ericd »

roenxi wrote: post #316
lovich wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m frankly boggled that this thought is even entertained. We have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers and other peoples in the pursuit of profits, down to actual armies killing striking workers. I agree with you that you’d be more likely to find a benevolent feudal lord as they at least viewed their serfs as theirs and not some sort of cogs to be thrown away once they were worn out…

I'm not sure you are being clear in your argument. If we have literal centuries of evidence of corporations oppressing their workers [up to and including] actual armies killing striking workers ... how do you think it is possible that they've become more greedy recently? Business greed has capped out since approximately the first 48 hours after the establishment of the first business back in Mesopotamia or wherever.…

Also let’s talk about how investors just discovered housing as an asset class and are buying up all the houses.

Re: Is my advice too mercenary?

#330

Post by refurb »

hobs wrote: post #97
rmason wrote: post #91

There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company. Here in Michigan there were a number of small towns where a single employer would dominate. If the town needed something, like a baseball park the owner would simply write a check. If a loyal employee had a health crisis that insurance didn't cover the company owner would write a check. When there were tough economic times…

Extremely true and it happened all over, my dad worked for a place for 40 years and the last 10 the MBAs moved in, they were profitable, had profit sharing, and a great company. Today its a footnote in a merger, place is closing down.

MBAs tend to move in when companies are in trouble. It’s a signal not a cause.

The companies I know who are still benevolent make money hand over fist. Management, employee, shareholders are all happy as peas in a pod.

It’s when the money stops flowing that hard decisions are made.

Post reply on HN