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

Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 469 posts

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#451

Post by xboxnolifes »

Phlarp wrote: post #157
AnEro wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I subscribe to the 'you are what you eat' view of social media, we are social creatures, and we will always adjust ourselves to fit what we feel is THE group. Any media then makes subconscious biases whether we like it or not. I don't think YCombinator is doing brainwashing us or some crazy conspiracy, more we will conform to this audience's thinking which ultimately is about start-ups and tech company's a…

>I don't think YCombinator is doing brainwashing us or some crazy conspiracy Try posting any kind of substantial critique of a YC company and see what happens to the submission. This site is rather open and shameless about it's manipulation. YC companies get to post job ads that are instantly boosted to the front page and nobody can comment on. They have an official "second chance" queue to force boost posts that did…

> Try posting any kind of substantial critique of a YC company and see what happens to the submission.

I would assume it would do poorly, and then the submitter would realize the site isn't for them and then leave. Reinforcing the fact that the people who stay already had a certain bias.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#452

Post by unity1001 »

flavius29663 wrote: post #312
unity1001 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd have to be an idiot. Yep. Like someone who could do it through an algorithm. Like how Google did...

This is the first I hear of this, do you have a source for that?

It was in one of the articles posted in HN. In the Open Source one I believe.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34558576

https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/27/google_open_source/

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#453

Post by tekknik »

petsfed wrote: post #409
dvt wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees This is a weird take, as it absolutely does. Kind of how the viability of a military also relies on an imbalance of power between generals and privates. Power structures are fundamentally necessary in productive endeavours.

Two things: First, power structures are not fundamentally necessary in productive endeavors, but division of responsibility absolutely is. I submit to your authority in situation A, and you in turn submit to my authority in situation B. But insofar as there is a power imbalance, it is a function of how the responsibility is divided, and how often situation A comes up vs situation B. Is there actually a power imbalanc…

> Is there actually a power imbalance between a general and a private though? There is absolutely a difference in scope of responsibility, but a general, BY THEMSELVES, does not have some special ability to compel that the private does not.

The general is authorized to take the privates life if he does not comply. That’s your special ability to compel.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#454

Post by tekknik »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #441
monero-xmr wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear - IMO any business that is not profitable is hanging by a thread. I invest capital and time in building new entities that I am confident can and will become profitable. I am potentially losing all of my money and time if that doesn't happen, and the vast majority of businesses fail. Creating a successful, sustainable, profitable business is a very difficult (yet rewarding) endeavor that I have had success…

Like I said to the other commenter: I understand the point you’re trying to make, I just disagree with it. If you tell me the only way some business can become profitable is if the employees don’t unionize, what you’re actually saying is that the business isn’t viable if employees can negotiate on equal footing. And I mean, I understand why your perspective as an entrepreneur is that you should be allowed to negotiat…

You haven’t really answered why, you just keep saying you don’t agree. How do you create a startup and avoid hiring union workers that will drag your business to the ground?

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#455

Post by AlwaysRock »

wdr1 wrote: post #449
AlwaysRock wrote: post #175

Right before COVID-19 stay at home order in Chicago, a bunch of improvisers who preformed at the popular i.o theater put together a list of demands which basically asked for a bunch of changes to make the lives of performers better. They were not going to perform until those changes were made. The owner didnt respond for a few days and then said, "Hey! Heard you. Great valid concerns. But I'm actually shutting the th…

Out of curiosity, what's to stop the performers from leaving & starting their own theater with those policies?

If they had the money and the interest I'm sure they could have. It's just really hard to start and run a theater. I'm guessing a lot of performers want to perform but dont want to run a business.

Interestingly enough... When i.o opened its current location they had TJ and Dave (a very popular improv act with a huge following - you may know TJ from Sonic commercials and Dave from Veep or Boba Fett or a bunch of other tv shows or movies) a big section of the theater and called it The Mission theater.

Their show was the draw but they had many interesting acts fill out their line up. After ~2 years they gave the ownership back to i.o and went back to doing just their show. They wanted to perform. They didnt want to run a theater.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#456

Post by jakelazaroff »

tekknik wrote: post #453
petsfed wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: First, power structures are not fundamentally necessary in productive endeavors, but division of responsibility absolutely is. I submit to your authority in situation A, and you in turn submit to my authority in situation B. But insofar as there is a power imbalance, it is a function of how the responsibility is divided, and how often situation A comes up vs situation B. Is there actually a power imbalanc…

> Is there actually a power imbalance between a general and a private though? There is absolutely a difference in scope of responsibility, but a general, BY THEMSELVES, does not have some special ability to compel that the private does not. The general is authorized to take the privates life if he does not comply. That’s your special ability to compel.

> The general is authorized to take the privates life if he does not comply. That’s your special ability to compel.

I've never been in the military but uhhhhh I'm pretty sure that's not true.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#457

Post by jakelazaroff »

tekknik wrote: post #454
jakelazaroff wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said to the other commenter: I understand the point you’re trying to make, I just disagree with it. If you tell me the only way some business can become profitable is if the employees don’t unionize, what you’re actually saying is that the business isn’t viable if employees can negotiate on equal footing. And I mean, I understand why your perspective as an entrepreneur is that you should be allowed to negotiat…

You haven’t really answered why, you just keep saying you don’t agree. How do you create a startup and avoid hiring union workers that will drag your business to the ground?

You don't. If your startup can't survive a unionized workforce, you didn't build a viable business. Not all business ideas are viable and that's okay!

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#458

Post by giantg2 »

sdiupIGPWEfh wrote: post #439
andsoitis wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And software engineers, even entry level, are some of the most highly paid workers on the planet.

In some areas. Salaries are still pretty middle class here on the east coast of the US, I have to say.

It's mostly the higher paying companies doing the layoffs.

It's also about perspective. I'm below the median for a US dev, but even so, I'm above the median in general. We have to use the Area Median Income (AMI) for a specific locale. Middle class goes up to 2x the AMI. On much of the east coast, it's about $140k per household. It's very easy to exceed this if married with both spouses working and one being in tech.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#459

Post by giantg2 »

tukantje wrote: post #435
giantg2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The earnings of a hedge fund manager who makes 1.5 million pounds a day is inflated. Not a software engineer living a decidedly middle class life." Haha, ok. Can you not clearly see your own subjective bias? Why doesn't that hedgefund manager deserve it? Many of the people working for tech companies are not middle class. At the very least, $500k+ salaries are above middle class. The starting salary at most top-tier…

Most engineers are not making said numbers, even at big places like Google. Besides, 1.5 million A DAY, is near a billion a year, which is an absurdly high number. Especially if said person cries about "inflated tech salaries". You can't ignore these people have exceptional talent, in one of the highest cost of living cities. Finally, what do these people get for 300k salaries (which was the most common number used f…

Middle class is defined using a range of the Area Median Income (AMI). This measure accounts for the income based in a specific locale to determine if you are middle class or not. For San Francisco, the upper limit for middle class is around $225-250k (2x AMI) per household.

A single person earning $300k is above middle class.

If we look solely at quality of life (which you don't even define), then the results are meaningless. Even if the things they have would have been considered middle class decades ago, they are not middle class now due to population increase and density increase in that area (you can't all have SFH in the finite space). Or possible if you mean the quality of has overall decreased, then those people still have more that the people who are currently middle class. I don't think quality of life has actually gone down, but I'd be interested in numbers either way.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#460

Post by BaseballPhysics »

randomdata wrote: post #446
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions are a libertarian concept. As is union busting. As the US learned a long time ago, and then eventually forgot, the freedom to organize without employer retribution can only exist with government coercion. And absent that freedom, any attempt to unionize will be (and in the last 30-40 years, has been) crushed by the capital-owning class.

Absolutely. Freedom of association depends entirely on government upholding the will of contract. What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. Probably conservatism.

> What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism.

That's just a No True Scotsman fallacy.

A libertarian would say that employees can choose their employers, and the employers can therefore dictate the term of employment.

One of those terms can be "you are not allowed to freely associate with your fellow employees", and the libertarian would say "if you don't like it, don't work there. #freedom"

The realist recognizes that the employer-employee relationship is one that contains a significant imbalance of power, and that it requires a government to step in and put their finger on the scale in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees. This isn't theory, it's practical reality that we learned from the post-industrial sweatshop era where child labor was the norm and employees had no rights to speak of.

Now, go ahead, feel free to define your personal belief set as "libertarian" if you want. But if you support government regulating the employer-employee relationship, you are not, by any definition I'm aware of, a libertarian.

Post reply on HN