411–420 of 734 posts
I told Apple I wasn’t interested in interviewing for a non-remote role based on their NYC office. I’m not an engineer who can work anywhere I want. And I’m confident that working at Apple would have an incredible positive effect on my career. Still not worth it. I’d rather find a local job outside of tech than get back on the office space hamster wheel.
Apple Park is the only hamster wheel I'd remotely consider returning to
Some people are extremely sensitive to the issue of the remote work, like it is some kind of inalienable right, and any (perceived) threat to it makes them want to grab a pitchfork and proteat. I don't get it. Things are simple. The employer sets the terms, where you work and how the work is paid. The employee either accepts the terms or walks away. Sometimes the sides engage in negotiations, where the side with more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back of the envelope, the offered salary is roughly $5000-$10,000 less than the average revenue per employee. I'm not familiar with thinking about salaries in these terms though, how is this relevant?
I’m surprised such a company isn’t going out of business. That’s a very low amount to make per-head for software engineers. Do they make up for it in volume?
I'm in Higher Ed analytics, embedded at a high level in an operational division at a university. So, maximizing revenue isn't a primary goal. It's certainly a secondary concern, some amount of "profit" is necessary to plow back into resources for students & researchers and capex, but if we're making a ton of profit it would kind of mean we're charging students more than we need to and putting a higher debt burden on them. Some schools, unfortunately, take that path but not where I work. We are honestly very focused on doing what's best for the student, even at the cost of leaving some easy money on the table.
Minimizing student debt burden is a primary target metric for the university. Of course it's much more complicated than that though, countless variables and interlocking & sometimes competing goals & requirements.
And while Higher Ed isn't perfect and could use some disruption, quality instruction doesn't have much economy of scale. Sure, a very self-motivated person can plow through self-paced college courses without a lot of handholding or overhead costs to get them through, but that's not the majority of students. For most students the ability to get quality help along the way is inversely proportional to class size and directly proportional to support resources. So, high labor costs. Though again, some amount of disruption could probably improve things. As would the realization that not everyone needs to go to a traditional 4-year college, that for many people learning a skilled trade is both a faster path to financial self-sufficiency and better suited to their interests. But that's all a bit off topic so I'll end it there.
WFH is screwing young workers by eliminating the mentorship, learning by osmosis and relationship-building that has propelled many knowledge-based careers. If Goodfellow were truly a good fellow, he would recognize the higher purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have weekends in China and it’s not because of any labor movement. Working conditions and compensation increase because of supply and demand dynamics, which unions are a part of but not necessary for. For another example of countries that do not tolerate independent labor movements where economic growth led to better working conditions see Vietnam.
You realise it's commonplace *not* to have weekends in China, right? On the basis of your logic that's a consequence of the lack of union and organised labour
There are similar splits in professional level work. There are jobs available where you ~never work six days a week and others where it’s routine. Trust me when I say no one at Nike or Booking in Shanghai is working 996.
My logic does not suggest the lack of unions and organized labor causes six day weeks. Six or seven day working weeks are the natural condition. Economic growth allows for different consumption leisure trade offs. Unions can only very indirectly effect economic growth. They matter much less than the ability to quit your job and find a new one easily. Firms desperate for workers are what make working conditions better, much more than unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll refrain from ruder responses and point to the weekend as a lovely innovation powered by unions. How did you get so intensely in thrall of the people holding your collar?
> point to the weekend as a lovely innovation powered by unions. No, this is powered by the law. If it wasn’t the evaporation of unions that we’ve seen over the last 20 years would have taken weekends with them. A thing unions were supportive of in the past is not evidence of the value of unions now. It’s like pointing out the importance of American troops in France because world war 2.
Those laws were a consequence of industrial action by unions. Here's a backgrounder on the progress made by unions in Australia.
https://www.australianunions.org.au/about-unions/union-achie...>
Every year, Australian employees are entitled to 4 weeks of paid annual leave, two weeks of paid sick leave, 6 months of paid long service leave after 10 years of employment, about 10% of their salary paid into their retirement investments (superannuation).
Unions even up the negotiation power imbalance between employers and workers. Union power has been severely curtailed over the last few decades and as a consequence workers have seen stagnant wages, rising inequality of compensation and the rise of insecure work.
There's plenty of evidence to support the assertion that collective bargaining leads to better outcomes for workers. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Links chosen from a cursory web search:
https://www.ehstoday.com/safety/article/21918297/new-study-s...>
https://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-cha...>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have much more bargaining power, yes. But you’ll also be bargaining as part of a group that includes Joe Useless, who sits in the next cubicle over and ostensibly fulfills the same role as you. The company may be happy to give you a 10% raise, but they’d rather lower JU’s salary by 10%, so they won’t budge on your demands for an increase, since it’d also apply to him.
The free-rider problem applies to basically any system with cohorts. It's part of the incentive structure, for sure, but it's not the only part. As long as you accept utility in collective systems (ie if you're anything but a pure anarcho-capitalist), you recognize that in some cases (such as public roads) the value outweigh the costs of the free-rider problems. Once you're past that point, it should be all about tra…
Some people are extremely sensitive to the issue of the remote work, like it is some kind of inalienable right, and any (perceived) threat to it makes them want to grab a pitchfork and proteat. I don't get it. Things are simple. The employer sets the terms, where you work and how the work is paid. The employee either accepts the terms or walks away. Sometimes the sides engage in negotiations, where the side with more…
If you don't like to work in office, find a remote job, end of story.
That's exactly what Apple's director did. He resigned to find a remote job. There is no drama in that, other than it being reported and people talking about it. Many workers (myself included) simply refuse to go back into the office. It's quickly becoming an archaic social norm that you have to have your butt in an office chair to be productive. That simply isn't true. The employer has the right to set their work terms, just as the worker has the rights to set their work terms too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what I'm missing in this concept. You would think that the people in charge would see that real estate is an unnecessary expense, where applicable. Also, I've been to a lot of meetings where we were told "there are other things people value in work besides money". Maybe being able to manage your own work environment and save gas and time fits in that slot. A content, well rested workforce would be better IMO…
> You would think that the people in charge would see that real estate is an unnecessary expense, where applicable. Some real estate is a sunk cost, and the execs doubling down on it. Apple and Google both dropped 2 or 3 billion combined on fancy new offices just before the pandemic. You can’t sell those buildings, their too big, and they’re not subdivided well enough to rent out parts of them, so everyone comes back…
I am not personally aware but I do remember hearing they had office spaces all over the place because they don't have enough room on the main campuses for all of the employees.