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

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#341

Post by throaway234 »

skrebbel wrote: post #192

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

I'm with you here. I don't like this hand-wringing suffer porn (great label btw!) about how something is wrong with the world.

We only have to consider that building and maintaining an organization is not a clear science. To think otherwise is to indulge in utopian thinking. So there will always be wasted effort in any organization, whether it's BigCo or SmallCo or Boy Scouts or the local Church. It's like, if you build any machine, that machine will produce waste. Heck, if you undertake any venture, such as cooking a meal or writing a book or running a 5k, you will produce waste: wasted food scraps, wasted words (that the editor will remove), wasted trainings (when you werent really focused, eg.)

A person being unhappy about an organization happens because of a single reason: they are placed in a position in that organization that makes them unhappy. They can change their position or the organization. Or they can recalibrate their mind to make themselves happy.

And this is what happens: people move around or change jobs or reflect and discover a new purpose.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#342

Post by hef19898 »

skrebbel wrote: post #192

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

Not to forget the inevitable techbro complaining about being unable to support a family and buy a house at anything below 500k per year. Or being able to retire...

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#343

Post by pierat »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #308
pierat wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're trying to create needs to deal with this now simple fact: Creation of a thing costs a lot of time and resource. Copying said thing is trivial to the point of free. (This is the biggest difference between our current culture, and previous years. Copying is effectively free.)

Abolish IP and treat ideas the same way bacteria swap their plasmids.

Doing that means you used to get the medieval and renaissance guild systems.

However, we already have countries that ignore copyright/patent/trademark (China). The new solution is to remove features from devices, and to tie them into some cloudshit.

We get some dog-and-pony show that cloud means we get new features, but in reality, it's just an anti-cloning tactic.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#344

Post by argiopetech »

djoletina wrote: post #301
TeMPOraL wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choices aren't made equal. Some are easier to make, even unconsciously, than others. For example, choosing immediate pleasure is easier than immediate discomfort. A series of small, incremental choices over time is easier than one large step. Etc.

What is your point? It’s still a choice. It’s easier to spend more money than less money, great insight.

It's also easier to spend the same money than to spend less money. Given two easy things, most people won't chose the hard thing most of the time.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#345

Post by Brystephor »

neogodless wrote: post #259
anvil-on-my-toe wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$60-100k salary is not enough to support a family and retire; it's probably not enough for a single person to make meaningful progress towards retirement because at that level of pay home ownership is constantly out of reach and inflation outpaces wage growth. It's sacrificing your life so someone else can get rich.

In today's environment, home prices really seem to be getting nuts. As I said, anyone in software is likely making over $100K. A $500K house with 20% down would have a P&I payment of $2,715 / month (at 7.2%, plus taxes/insurance.) That's less than $33K / year. (I bought my first house for $155K making $55K / year, and my second house for $390K making $100K.) If you're making over $100K, and spending under a third of…

Home rates are closer to 8%. The redfin calculator puts a $490k home near me at just under $3200/mo with 20% down.

So over $36k a year. I'm in Washington, so no income tax. Let's say $100k income, single person. No pre tax deductions and you'll be bringing home $6200/mo. So over 50% of your take home goes to mortgage alone.

In your example, your home prices were roughly 3x-4x your annual income. Compared to your example of prices being 5x.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#346

Post by Draiken »

lapcat wrote: post #321
Draiken wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seemingly care about this but also can't be bothered to bring any empirical evidence for any of your claims. Goes both ways. The US is not that different from everywhere else... we all live in the same capitalist hellhole last time I checked.

> You seemingly care about this but also can't be bothered to bring any empirical evidence for any of your claims. Goes both ways. Which claims? That Social Security exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States... That Medicare exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) That 10x savings is the recommendation? https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i... >…

>Says you, but you apparently aspire to live and work here, so it's different enough.

Never said that. It's just where tech salaries are bigger.

>Have you checked North Korea?

What does this have to do with anything? Unless you're writing from North Korea, this is childish.

Apparently I hit a nerve and that was not my intention. My point was never specifically about the US but you keep insisting on it and have a bone to grind. That doesn't add to the conversation though.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#347

Post by campbel »

l0b0 wrote: post #116
tuatoru wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've known a few company owners long time ago who ... swore on their lives they will not fire the managers for bringing them bad news It needs to go further. Fire everyone who says there are no problems. If there are no problems, why is an under-manager needed? Also fire everyone who makes up bullshit problems. If you're going to agree with me all the time, why do I need you?

Too easy to game: People are just going to gauge for themselves what management considers "not a bullshit problem" and report that, making sure that the blame rests on unpopular people or third parties. Too prone to false positives: Any project which is genuinely going really well results in everyone getting fired, and the company absolutely tanks as a result.

Exactly, an effective CEO / Executive is going to be developing systems of accountability that align with company goals. It can't be based entirely on a set of gameable metrics. However this starts at the top. An incompetent board / CEO is going to create misaligned incentives which will cascade through the organization.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#348

Post by Retric »

Brystephor wrote: post #345
neogodless wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In today's environment, home prices really seem to be getting nuts. As I said, anyone in software is likely making over $100K. A $500K house with 20% down would have a P&I payment of $2,715 / month (at 7.2%, plus taxes/insurance.) That's less than $33K / year. (I bought my first house for $155K making $55K / year, and my second house for $390K making $100K.) If you're making over $100K, and spending under a third of…

Home rates are closer to 8%. The redfin calculator puts a $490k home near me at just under $3200/mo with 20% down. So over $36k a year. I'm in Washington, so no income tax. Let's say $100k income, single person. No pre tax deductions and you'll be bringing home $6200/mo. So over 50% of your take home goes to mortgage alone. In your example, your home prices were roughly 3x-4x your annual income. Compared to your exam…

Why on earth would a single person buy a 490k house? Everyone I know either had roommates, an inheritance, or make enough it’s a trivial expense.

Also don’t forget about the home mortgage tax deduction, that plus inflation really impacts the cost of home ownership.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#349

Post by MattGaiser »

pdimitar wrote: post #238
MattGaiser wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, I've known a few company owners long time ago who were just BEGGING their managers to tell them the problems exactly as they are, swore on their lives they will not fire the managers for bringing them bad news (and made contracts that made sure of it in no uncertain terms)... and yet all of the managers below those people were sycophant yes-men. Contracts are insufficient here. A contract doesn't…

Yep, I get that, but what should an open-minded company owner do? They can't exactly promise "you will all be here for 5 years, guaranteed, no matter what" too, because for most Homo Sapiens that's a signal to immediately become useless. My point is similar to yours: that the incentives are indeed not aligned, and that this is quite tragic because even when some people make an honest try to break the vicious cycle th…

Employee ownership/performance bonuses. Dramatically changes the incentives. I would act enormously differently if I got 10% of savings I identified.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#350

Post by Draiken »

lapcat wrote: post #324
Draiken wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're so adamant I had a quick search and it turns out I'm right. >43.09% of American adults had no retirement savings >23.15% of American adults had no (or negative) retirement savings even including the extended assets https://dqydj.com/average-retirement-savings/ Of course you can rely on some government assistance but arguing that's a good enough standard is a bit of a stretch.

> Since you're so adamant I had a quick search and it turns out I'm right. No, you changed the subject. You said: > You're telling me most retired Americans have more than hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings? To which the answer is no, but you don't need a million dollars to retire. Whereas your link is not about retired Americans, it's about UN -retired Americans: "Statistics are for households headed by adu…

Read the article. It's about people that will retire. Unless you're trying to be facetious and say they'll never retire, which I guess will be true for many.
Post reply on HN