Live data from Hacker News

The Burnout Machine

unionize.fyi

621–630 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#621
post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this how business works? For example, walmart revenue per employee is $300k but they mostly make minimum wage. starbucks is $94k/employee

This is how the monetary system works. While your math is inaccurate in terms of the spirit of what it is attempting to show, correcting for that, its still the way of the world until money is no longer a thing.

> This is how the monetary system works.

No, its how capitalism works. The monetary system is largely orthogonal.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other reasons, because the employer holds all of that information and I'm not given access to it. It's an asymmetric information problem.

But you can for sure tell me the proportion that you think is fair right? Should it be 25%, 50%, 99%?

You're not arguing in good faith, dude.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The capital flees almost in its entirety to non-union countries once unions grow in power, that's why. Go ask the IATSE (film) folks how many jobs they're getting this year. (All their jobs left to developing economies in Eastern Europe and Asia. Cast gets flown out, but the crew are hired and based overseas.) Unions contributed to the decline of US steel, US shipbuilding, US automotive, etc. A worker can be both fun…

The union had no choices when capital decides they want more money. Look at what you're arguing here dude. You're blaming workers for trying to protect their jobs when the issue is that capital is too powerful and needs to be regulated more. Even more odd you're mentioning shipbuilding an industry that use to have its workers centrally planned by the US government to provide educated skilled labor but was killed off…

> Even more odd you're mentioning shipbuilding an industry that use to have its workers centrally planned by the US government to provide educated skilled labor but was killed off in the 80s by the pro-corpo Reagan admin.

It was killed off by the Jones Act, which "shielded" us from having to be competitive. Tariffs are one lever for establishing fractional protectionism, but the Jones Act was absolute. It essentially turned our industry into the Dodo with no competitive exposure.

> You're blaming workers for trying to protect their jobs when the issue is that capital is too powerful and needs to be regulated more.

The rest of the world is already getting really good at film and entertainment. We're no longer in a blessed position of being number one with a wide margin, and our goods have to compete in a worldwide marketplace. You want to make our product even more expensive to produce at a time when it should be getting cheaper? That's literally going to kill our industry. And then those people will have nowhere to work anyway.

> regulate companies harsher while giving more protections to workers.

This kills the companies, and then there are no jobs.

Companies don't exist to provide jobs. Companies exist to create value for those buying their goods and services. The minute companies stop being about that, they get out-competed.

Jobs and the nature of work changes all the time. Regulations and unions make companies stagnant and ossified. When they're put into straight jackets, they can't move nimbly enough to provide value.

If you want unions, then you must also be a big fan of tariffs. Because switching to domestic only production and keeping our entire market isolationist is the only way an expensive and inflexible labor equation works out. It's big fish, small pond thinking rather than small fish, big pond. (Or actually giant fish, big pond - which is what we are, but will cease to be if we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.)

Do you want to allow affordable and advanced BYD cars into the American market? They weren't produced with unionized labor. Their employees are working their asses off. What do you think that'll do?

What about production companies, some foreign capital financed, that hire American actors and fly them to a cheap Asian or Eastern European country to be filmed with cheap local crew labor? How do we stack up against that? Do we need more unions?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#625

I am an engineering manager for a large team of developers. Part of my job is to estimate the cost and potential revenue of big projects. I have a spreadsheet of everyone's salaries (including bonus compensation, other perks). I've done the math at my own company: average developer salary is approximately $100k. Our largest teams have 10 developers, so about $1M in labor costs. These teams work on projects that bring…

[deleted]

Re: The Burnout Machine

#626
post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Of course I do? Do you seriously think that doctors are a commodity with no difference in skills between them? The phrase "get a second opinion" is so intrinsically tied to medicine that it's a little weird that you'd imply that any doctor will do.

A second opinion comes after services are rendered. I don't think you put your doctor through a ringer like an employment candidate, was the point I was making.

No I do though, although the context is of course different since I don't know a bunch about medicine.

I ask a ton of questions and I've found that good doctors a) welcome the questions and b) do a good job of explaining. If q doctor doesn't really give me good answers then I'll go elsewhere. A lot of doctors appointments are ahead of some bigger procedure or an ongoing relationship, so the first meeting definitely is evaluative for me.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#627
post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is overly simplistic. I don’t fault you for it, but it shows a lack of understanding how a business functions. There is a lot of overhead that goes into running a business, as others have mentioned. Taxes. Rent. Utilities. Licenses. Certifications. HR, testers, project managers, product managers, people managers, directors, marketing, customer service, sales, C suite, and on and on. I know right now you might be…

And yet you still turn a profit at the end of the day, i.e., money that's not going to 'overhead'. Let's not kid ourselves. Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

> Your interest as the owner is to maximize that profit and minimize expenses, and our interest as workers is to maximize our wage and minimize your profit.

Is it? I know a handful of small business owners, and generally their interest is running their business well and keeping their customers happy. Sure, they want to be profitable, but profit isn't their primary motivator.

Ditto on the worker side.

Your outlook on this is wildly cynical

Re: The Burnout Machine

#628
post #28

Awesome to see something like this on HN. As we keep working for less pay, more hours, the constant threat of layoffs, and business leaders frothing at the mouth to replace us all with AI, it's important to remember that we aren't powerless as workers. It's also important to remember that your relationship to the higher-ups is adversarial. They want to get as much productivity out of you for as little pay as possible…

This just sounds like you and your colleagues work for shitty companies.

This doesn't generalize to all companies! After all, if you started a company, certainly you'd do things differently... Right?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#629
post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you it is. You get paid X. You deliver Y value. The proportion is X / Y. Sometimes that proportion is very high, sometimes it is very low. Sometimes it is negative. Sometimes you get a divide by zero error. And again, the questions. What specific proportion do you think is fair? And how do you calculate the value you provide?

I don't think you understand what "proportional" means. It doesn't mean "there are two numbers." It means that when looking at all employees, compensation is strongly linearly correlated to provided value.

That's literally what "proportional" means.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#630
post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can for sure tell me the proportion that you think is fair right? Should it be 25%, 50%, 99%?

You're not arguing in good faith, dude.

I dunno, he's asking a really basic question that should be trivial to answer. When I see a basic, level-setting question like this go unanswered, it starts to seem like the side refusing to answer is the one acting in bad faith, not the side asking the question
Post reply on HN