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

Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#71

Post by tptacek »

jboy wrote: post #67
rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's more a matter of "preventing others from dragging down society to competing at a level we as a group don't find socially acceptable." This is a legitimate function of society, and opprobrium and derision is a key tool for enforcing social norms that keep a check on undesirable behavior.

Start-ups have been hot-housing like this for years. I have friends who went through YC who did it. PG even suggested in one of his essays "Ever notice how much easier it is to hack at home than at work? So why not make work more like home?" [1] [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html This is just a scaled-up version of what has already existed for years. The reason it's not more common is because it's logistically…

Those are co-founder relationships, which are substantially different from employer-employee relationships.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#72

Post by pjc50 »

it_learnses wrote: post #25
pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything can be made to sound bad if you oversimplify. Any community can be made to sound incoherent if you collapse the opinions of very different people on top of one another. It's pretty obvious that the article is describing an unusual arrangement that won't suit everyone - although it's not specific to tech, there are other jobs where you get stuffed into a remote, often mostly young male, community for months a…

I sense deep irony in this comment...

?

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#73

Post by k-mcgrady »

netcan wrote: post #66
k-mcgrady wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Yet this living situation isn't that much of a stretch from the dormitory-style housing you still see in China for factory workers, or the company towns you saw in the U.S. for mine workers and the like." You can't be serious. This is a Foxconn dormitory [1]. It's nothing like a beautiful mansion in the californian country side with swimming pool and tennis court. [1] http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060623_01.jpg

I think there are interesting fundamental objections a lot of people seem to have. Labour laws and conventions almost assume people do not have a choice in their place of employment. That's why a barman's right to a smoke free workplace is more recognized than a patron's. With that in mind I think people feel that employment needs to be accessible to everyone and that this is specifically designed for young singles.…

I'm generally for strong labour protection laws but as you point out with such demand from programmers in the area nobody needs a job at this company, they take it because they want it and they can leave relatively easily at any time.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#75

Post by edj »

gatehouse wrote: post #69
tptacek wrote: post #61

I don't understand how this could be a lawful arrangement. How do you run a company that structurally precludes hiring people with families?

It doesn't seem possible that all the people live in the house, I think they might be glossing that over a bit. Although their jobs page for open contracts it says "food and accommodation are included" haha.

At around 1:00 minute the CEO says "All of us live and work here."

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#76

Post by yummyfajitas »

rayiner wrote: post #59
yummyfajitas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok - this negative reaction is to prevent others from competing with us in dimensions we can't win on. Thanks for putting it out in the open so we can discuss it directly.

I'd say it's more a matter of "preventing others from dragging down society to competing at a level we as a group don't find socially acceptable." This is a legitimate function of society, and opprobrium and derision is a key tool for enforcing social norms that keep a check on undesirable behavior.

Apply your logic to another group which is dragging down society to competing at a level "we" don't find socially acceptable. Yay for slut shaming?

(For the record I don't advocate slut shaming and enjoy the company of promiscuous women. Just pointing out that Rayiner's logic applies equally well here.)

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#77

Post by [deleted] »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #76
rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's more a matter of "preventing others from dragging down society to competing at a level we as a group don't find socially acceptable." This is a legitimate function of society, and opprobrium and derision is a key tool for enforcing social norms that keep a check on undesirable behavior.

Apply your logic to another group which is dragging down society to competing at a level "we" don't find socially acceptable. Yay for slut shaming? (For the record I don't advocate slut shaming and enjoy the company of promiscuous women. Just pointing out that Rayiner's logic applies equally well here.)

[deleted]

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#78

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #61

I don't understand how this could be a lawful arrangement. How do you run a company that structurally precludes hiring people with families?

I imagine it's as lawful as employment on an oil rig, a distant lumberjack camp, pipeline work, etc.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#79

Post by rayiner »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #76
rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's more a matter of "preventing others from dragging down society to competing at a level we as a group don't find socially acceptable." This is a legitimate function of society, and opprobrium and derision is a key tool for enforcing social norms that keep a check on undesirable behavior.

Apply your logic to another group which is dragging down society to competing at a level "we" don't find socially acceptable. Yay for slut shaming? (For the record I don't advocate slut shaming and enjoy the company of promiscuous women. Just pointing out that Rayiner's logic applies equally well here.)

"Slut shaming" is sexual morality + misogyny and sexism against women. I'd argue that it's the latter elements that make it objectionable. I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with gender-neutral social norms that discourage certain undesirable behaviors in the marketplace for sex and relationships. For example, I'm not one of those people who think prostitution should be legal even when its voluntary and not abusive. I also think its shameful behavior for banks and VCs to be investing in companies like AshleyMadison. Like I said, barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for liberal pluralism.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#80

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #78
tptacek wrote: post #61

I don't understand how this could be a lawful arrangement. How do you run a company that structurally precludes hiring people with families?

I imagine it's as lawful as employment on an oil rig, a distant lumberjack camp, pipeline work, etc.

That's a good question. Lumberjacks and pipeline workers are not required to live in company dormitories; the North Dakota gas boomtowns have cheap family housing, and, presumably, subsidized housing provided by employers is considered employee compensation. Workers on oil rigs have no choice but to live on-site. What's the argument that says you can rig a software company in such a way as to precluding hiring people with families?
Post reply on HN