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

The Burnout Machine

unionize.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 695 posts

Re: The Burnout Machine

#671

Post by banannaise »

paulcole wrote: post #666
banannaise wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is 100%. This brings us to the start point of the real conversation this person is trying to have, which likely centers on the nature of employment, the importance of Job Creators, and/or the infallibility of markets.

Yes, that is the real conversation. 100% seems delusional to me because you're saying that the company deserves no profit for doing the work of providing you customers to provide value for? It also seems to ignore the fact that some of the value you're creating is used to pay for the work that enables your value creation. Think about payroll processing, benefits administration, hiring, etc. etc. Those roles provide v…

I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. How you split up the credit is a difficult problem. (As many developers will note, there is no such thing as a 'cost center'; all labor contributes to the outcome.)

However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#672

Post by Nemi »

musicale wrote: post #668
Nemi wrote: 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…

Can you estimate the actual overhead rate? Maybe 100%-200%?

It varies greatly per company and industry. You are talking about Net Margin and it can vary a lot.

A company like google has a 28% net margin. That means that after paying all expenses for employees and rent and everything, they have 28% left over from revenue as profit. This is very good.

Amazon (being a hybrid retailer/tech company) has 9.29% net margin.

Target has a net margin of 3.84%.

Believe it or not, many public companies have a negative net margin, meaning they spend more than they bring in. Lyft had a negative net margin until just this year. A few years ago, they had a negative net margin of -70%! That means if someone didn’t keep putting money into the company they would have “ceased as a going concern”, as they say. Their most recent year they had a 0.39% net margin. Go Lyft!

Re: The Burnout Machine

#673

Post by musicale »

Nemi wrote: post #672
musicale wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you estimate the actual overhead rate? Maybe 100%-200%?

It varies greatly per company and industry. You are talking about Net Margin and it can vary a lot. A company like google has a 28% net margin. That means that after paying all expenses for employees and rent and everything, they have 28% left over from revenue as profit. This is very good. Amazon (being a hybrid retailer/tech company) has 9.29% net margin. Target has a net margin of 3.84%. Believe it or not, many pu…

If "employees" includes the CEO, then low net margin would not refute GP's claim that

> Almost all of the value they create goes into the pockets of their CEO

Re: The Burnout Machine

#674

Post by try_the_bass »

banannaise wrote: post #660
try_the_bass wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The answer is 100%. This brings us to the start point of the real conversation this person is trying to have, which likely centers on the nature of employment, the importance of Job Creators, and/or the infallibility of markets.

> The answer is 100%.

But that's not a valid answer? It seems like you're sidestepping the question by moving the goalposts and redefining terms.

The reality is that there will always be a gap between "what a company is willing to pay you for your work" and "what your contribution to the whole earns the company", and that's... fine? The whole is often greater than the parts, and this difference contributes to that gap. The gap also needs to provide for the commons of the company: workspaces, licenses, equipment, interest/loan repayments, etc.

This mostly just a fleshing out of the `X` and `Y` quantities mentioned by the ancestor. If you don't think the whole is worth that much more than the parts, then presumably you should seek employment at a company that offers you a larger absolute `X`, a larger relative `X / Y`, or (ideally) both. If no such company exists, you could attempt to start one of your own? That would be the ultimate vote of confidence that such a thing is even possible, right?

I suspect the reason why such companies do not exist is because that's actually much harder to accomplish than you're making it out to be.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#675

Post by try_the_bass »

banannaise wrote: post #671
paulcole wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the real conversation. 100% seems delusional to me because you're saying that the company deserves no profit for doing the work of providing you customers to provide value for? It also seems to ignore the fact that some of the value you're creating is used to pay for the work that enables your value creation. Think about payroll processing, benefits administration, hiring, etc. etc. Those roles provide v…

I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. How you split up the credit is a difficult problem. (As many developers will note, there is no such thing as a 'cost center'; all labor contributes to the outcome.) However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the r…

> I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created.

So... you're describing the current system?

This is so loosely defined as to describe any system, really.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#676

Post by paulcole »

banannaise wrote: post #671
paulcole wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the real conversation. 100% seems delusional to me because you're saying that the company deserves no profit for doing the work of providing you customers to provide value for? It also seems to ignore the fact that some of the value you're creating is used to pay for the work that enables your value creation. Think about payroll processing, benefits administration, hiring, etc. etc. Those roles provide v…

I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. How you split up the credit is a difficult problem. (As many developers will note, there is no such thing as a 'cost center'; all labor contributes to the outcome.) However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the r…

You’ve just found a roundabout way to repeat the idea that you don’t like that someone else is getting what you believe to be an unfairly large piece of the pie.

Because currently in the world today, the owner of the business is earning 100% of the value they provide as is the developer as is the bookkeeper.

You just don’t agree with each person’s view of the value they create and don’t have a way to determine the actual value they create.

So we’re back where we started.

> However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward.

Isn’t the funder getting earning 100% of the value they create (just like you want them to) by providing capital? If not, how do you prove otherwise?

Re: The Burnout Machine

#677

Post by Capricorn2481 »

Nemi wrote: post #662
dns_snek wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the standard conversation line that sounds oh-so optimistic but it's not actually true, is it? As soon as you need to raise money, or as soon as you need to compete, the system will either beat you into submission or you'll get out-competed by companies that don't concern themselves with any missions other than making the maximum amount of money possible. The most ruthless, dirtiest, immoral players can cut th…

This is true, and what Machiavelli was talking about in his book The Prince. He is not talking about HOW to be an asshole ruler, he was talking about what other asshole rulers WILL DO, and how you will need to deal with that (as a ruler that does not wish to be a tyrant).

While it certainly reads satirical, in the sense that someone writing a book like this now would come off comically evil, there is nothing to suggest it was a satire. That's just a reddit thing that's been trending, and largely put forward by one historian a long time ago.

There's plenty of reason to think he wrote this book earnestly to boost his own political standing with the Medici family. It was not written for the common man, it was written as a resumé for political leaders to peruse. However, he distanced himself from the book in his later work.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#678

Post by nickpinkston »

nielsbot wrote: post #537
nickpinkston wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though you'll need to deduct a lot of SG&A, etc. overheads from that as well, and it often looks far worse. Big Tech companies (ie ones close to monopolies) still extract a ton of net cash flow that ends up going to investors and top management, though you could then ask why those monopolies extract cash from their customers as well, etc. My worry with tech unionization is that generally it slows productivity increas…

> My worry with tech unionization is that generally it slows productivity increases and change. Do you have examples? > Now they're just saddled with too much bureaucracy and politics, and that's already led most of them to underperform, at least on an innovation basis. Who?

Yea, it's more complicated than that, but in the US context unionization (like in the automotive and steel industries) was shown to slow innovation. [1]

The counter to this is that Europe actually has better outcomes because it takes a more collaborative approach vs. the adversarial approach in the US, and this better approach has shown to improve some outcomes.

[1] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Unioniza...

Re: The Burnout Machine

#679

Post by nielsbot »

nickpinkston wrote: post #678
nielsbot wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My worry with tech unionization is that generally it slows productivity increases and change. Do you have examples? > Now they're just saddled with too much bureaucracy and politics, and that's already led most of them to underperform, at least on an innovation basis. Who?

Yea, it's more complicated than that, but in the US context unionization (like in the automotive and steel industries) was shown to slow innovation. [1] The counter to this is that Europe actually has better outcomes because it takes a more collaborative approach vs. the adversarial approach in the US, and this better approach has shown to improve some outcomes. [1] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files…

The linked paper is strongly biased towards the ownership class--and the think tank is labeled "libertarian-conservative" on wikipedia, so I'm skeptical of the conclusions.

Re: The Burnout Machine

#680

Post by Capricorn2481 »

JimTheMan wrote: post #229
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if tech workers don't acknowledge their privelege, they shouldn't be shocked when no-one else turnsout to support them It's hard not to read your comment as anything but virtue signaling, and doing so in a way that makes everyone worse off. You seem to think being a part of a union means you think you have a bad job and everyone should pay special attention to you. Forming a union does not mean you are asking f…

Virtue signalling, not at all. I work as an regular engineer in construction and I have a very cushy job compared to the boots on the ground working in the mud. I am conveying what I and everyone else thinks about tech working conditions. Also not against unions, I have to work with unions in my day to day. Yeah, when people choose to write an article about 'how bad they have it', don't expect sympathy from anyone el…

> I am conveying what I and everyone else thinks about tech working conditions

What you think about tech is not reality, but a riff on it. It's a cathartic exercise. The salary is generally higher, but not everyone gets paid very well and they have exactly zero protections. I know people who are working horrific conditions for not much pay. And it's not good if a new grad in debt can be replaced so easily even when they do their job well. So yes, people are going to ask for unions.

Not everyone who is a programmer has never shoveled shit. So when you say things like

> but jeez it would help if some of you had to scrape a little in your past prior

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's clear you just have an image in your head of a programmer informed by nothing but stereotypes in your social circle. Programmers are not people with histories to you, but strawmen who were born into the role and don't have a life before or after. This is not in service of advocating for conditions of workers in your life, but just appearing class conscious when it's anything but. That's the virtue signaling.

Post reply on HN