Sam Harris talks about how when we get superintelligent AI, our relationship to it will be like ants relationship to humans. Well, we already have a kind of “slow AI” in corporations. Profit-seeking paperclip maximizers. They don’t hate us, they don’t love us. They keep us around as long as we’re useful and then dispose of us after that point. The fact that corporations are made of meat doesn’t change the ultimate re…
When is a big If. Much like the simulation hypothesis, "super intelligent AI" is more religion than reality at this point.
Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
341–350 of 414 posts
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves. That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them. Nobody is stopping you.
This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them.", but why should that be my course of action instead of working collectively to make sure that companies' decisions are driven by all stakeholders--owners (shareholders), employees…
The beauty of America is you can do my suggestion (make your own startup, run it without firing people), but in other places where layoffs are illegal, you can't do the opposite suggestion (make your own startup, fire people). Let the best idea win! But you seem to be endorsing a world where you don't want the best idea to win, you want the state to enforce a particular idea that makes you feel good.
If you are free to run a company however you want within the bounds of the law, but only one type of company emerges, maybe there is a reason for that.
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couple days apart, and they announced an investment, but the $10B figure is rumors. Could be right, could be wrong. But so what? There’s no gotcha here; it’s not like Microsoft or Google or Amazon claimed they were cash poor and could t afford to pay people. They are changing the areas they spend money in. Would it be better if they were only cutting back and not also investing in new areas?
Just because they don't hypocritically claim they care about their employees and only laid them off because they HAD to, doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them and (if possible) use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions. Just because we know corporations only value profit, to the detriment of human quality of life in general, doesn't mean we should accept it
Most workers don’t want to use their leverage to make corporations make better decisions - they want to use their leverage to get paid more.
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hesitated a little bit, but I will admit you got me curious. The position assumes that you know a better way to assess that viability ( which assumes I accept that framing at face value -- I don't, but I want to get to the bottom of this argument ). Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuance…
> I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuanced findings is difficult precisely, because we tend to crave simple answers. Generalizing isn't always a bad thing, but this situation really is trivial to observe. There aren't too many possible outcomes. If (boss + worker) make money, (boss + worker) keep the job. If (boss + worker) don't make money, someone (or both) lo…
Notice how there is seemingly simultaneously not enough money in the budget for tech workers ( I do not want to limit this conversation to IT support, which is what many equate IT with -- did the use of that acronym change ? ) while there is indeed money for MS executives to enjoy the show[1], money for bonuses[2] and.. I was going to end with a joke but decided against it.
I am genuinely unsure how you can reasonably argue otherwise with a straight face.
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-stin... [2]https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmar...
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing wrong with the principle itself. I'm obviously not a fan of slavery etc. Just when people narrow in on it and act like it's the only priority/thing worth talking about. I was trying to criticize the myopic focus on that.
Then I agree with you. Rational employees should not want to associate with unreliable employers. This ought to drive up the prices corporations are forced to pay. It should cost them actual money to disregard people like this. If employees feel pressured to associate with them despite their behavior, then it is not free association at all, it is forced association and its causes must be identified and remedied. Usua…
Free association in labour is not possible when there's so much leverage from one of the sides of the negotiation. In a perfect idealised model, labour will increase in price due to people not accepting jobs they would, ideally, not think it's worth it, companies will then raise salaries, market equilibrium! In reality people are mothers, fathers, or just basically anyone who needs something to eat, and for food they'll accept any trade to keep some part of their dignity.
A fucking spherical cow-ish principle doesn't take into account human dignity into their pricing models... And so these people work backwards by adapting that if it's not accounted for it's irrelevant, rather than the opposite reality that we experience.
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#346But you don't understand! These people who were laid off are important ! So much so they didn't need a union, because the company couldn't possibly let them go. Unions are for all those other people who aren't important ! Perhaps some of you are beginning to understand the term Solidarity Forever.
The sad facts are that most workers in the US: lack class awareness thanks to decades of successful pro-owner, anti-worker propaganda and policies; are falsely divided along lines which are convenient to the owner class (left/right, boomer/millenial, gay/straight, receiving public benefits/not); are unknowingly and dangerously close to medical bankruptcy even when covered by "good" insurance; can't afford to be even temporarily unemployed, because their health coverage is tied to their employer; can't afford to protest or attempt organizing, because they could then quickly become unemployed and endanger their dependents.
The Silicon Valley engineer earning $500k/year is better off than the midwest bank junior IT worker earning $50k. But they are part of the same class and should organize accordingly in order to gain true leverage.
Having competing job offers is a kind of leverage available to some, at an exhausting personal cost. These can be used to obtain one-dimensional improvements like higher pay, more vacation days, or choice of projects. But true leverage could make CEO's weepy and meaningless "I take full responsibility" statements actually mean something, among other things. The recent layoffs in the US including a hefty severance rely on luck, not leverage.
Tech workers probably have all the tools needed to organize effectively, and not only among themselves. But whisper "union" and ten peers will chime in before your next breath with falsehoods and other generic claims based on misremembered anecdotes which miss the point entirely and diffuse useful discussion.
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a huge part of their compensation both to themselves and their employees is floated stock.
That doesn't explain it. It might be a factor, but it's not a big factor. FAANG jobs pay extremely well and then there's the stock on top. Is the vast majority working at these companies (with years of vesting, no?) so shortsighted? Especially the higher ups? Is it a requirement at these companies that you have to be 10000% in debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck to be a SVP/VP/director/whatever so you have to be hyp…
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it so easy for you to disregard any kind of power/leverage relationship about labour and employment? Reality isn't that simple nor that reductionist.
It's easier to not care about anything if you decide your only principle is "the free association of people". It's one of the easiest ways to do whatever you want in your life and not give a damn about the impact it has on others without having to feel any guilt or cognitive dissonance.
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're a business, they need to reallocate capital and headcount Consider this: no, they don't.
I've considered it, and of all the possible takes, I think this is the worst one. It's simple: - They are chartered as a for-profit entity - FAANG workers who are making an average $200K or whatever don't need welfare. Like I'm all for class warfare, but not between the super rich and the very rich. I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for the $200K class when they get laid off - being worth this much money includes…
Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like if you ask an alcoholic what is too many drinks they’ll say “one more than I drink”, it’s hilarious reading comments from tech people who are arguably some of the highest paid people in the US say “the upper class are people who make more than I do”. It’s incredibly tone deaf.
It’s more nuanced than that: 1. Someone making $200k is definitely doing well compared to almost anyone in the US (94th percentile, 98th at $300k) but those salaries are heavily clustered in very expensive areas where that might not even be the top 10%. Someone making that much working at Apple or Google is living in a normal house - a nice one, sure, but not a mansion - and still feeling things like childcare costs.…
A billionaire might “feel” the cost of his private jet fleet but that doesn’t mean he’s not rich.