I think I get what you are saying and appreciate the detail and time you took. Hope you will similarly excuse my lack of brevity.
Here on HN there is a huge level of entitlement with some and some of these folks with that attitude are certainly not at the earning floor. There is the large degree of difference between an Amazon SWE making $200k in a WFH arrangement complaining about exploitation because of aggressive release deadlines as compared to the Amazon driver pissing in a gatoraid bottle because he can’t afford the productivity stat hit to stop at a restroom while making $35k a year. One might have a point and one might want to probably look at things a bit more pragmatically. Perhaps both need to quit and move on, but one of those folks certainly has more justification to bitch about their lot in the life of Amazon. Of course this is just my opinion. So in terms of my framing…I was speaking to the HN audience, not the floor earners.
However, consider this about the floor. The government’s use of minimum wage laws should protect those workers. Employers are forced to comply with that minimum or face legal issues. You can certainly argue that minimum wage is not enough but isn’t that is a government problem and not an employer problem?Government sets the policy. If the floor is not protected the government has failed in its responsibility. An employer complying with minimum wage and successfully staffing that position at that wage is not really exploiting a person per se, if anything they are exploiting a law. The onus is on government, not the employer to make sure the employee is not exploited.
Now if the employer is unable to staff the position at that minimum wage rate, the onus is on the employer to set a rate that staffs the position. Still no real exploitation by the employer here since they are exceeding the legal requirements. The floor is protected but the job market then sets the rate higher for the position. If anything the market of workers now exploit the employer’s need for an employees.
However, if there was no minimum wage law and the employer takes advantage of a captive market (that small town) and sets the salary rate low—that would be exploitation of the person. Where that tends to exist (in US) is in industries that employ undocumented workers. I think you could make the argument that these workers are the true floor and are really the only folks in the US that are exploited in an employer/employee sense.
I definitely agree that there are a lot of entitled people here. I will not argue against that. But I also believe we have different estimates of the proportion and who are making these comments. Maybe you think I am one of them, maybe not? I can say I am a grad student and as far as wages go it is better than the memes but even if I do get a summer internship (this summer not as lucky) my income is substantially closer to that of the driver than the SWE. But we've also seen HN grow exponentially over the last few years. It has really caused the tone to change around here, for good and bad. One of my particular frustrations is that in this growth that noise expresses itself as shorter and more pointed comments. At least in my experience, it feels like it has significant decreased the number larger and detailed conversations, like these, that drew me in in the first place. So I do appreciate what you wrote, even though we disagree. But then again, disagreement is in part how we learn. Maybe you feel differently or the same. A larger audience also means far more priors and viewpoints, which often makes communication difficult in the first place and frankly gives bad actors a larger edge to increase noise. I think if my experience is representative it does also suggest we may be speaking to a wide audience at large, which would result in an increase of entitled SWEs but also in laymen and people simply interested in tech at large. Maybe someone has scraped the list of front page articles and through categorization there could be hints to if this feeling is true or not. Maybe the experience is just the environment changing? It is hard to know. So I can't reject your estimation outright either and with respect to the framing you have specified, I think your comment is fairly agreeable.
But the next two paragraphs I find a bit confusing. I had originally started with a discussion of possible miscommunication, which in the current response I believe you agree with. But your response to that comment was about how you do not believe an employee should be _forced_ to compatible. I took this to mean with respect to wages and with that respect a minimum wage is that forced mechanism. But it seems you agree. Maybe I'm too primed in the thinking that it makes interpretation difficult. At least in this regard to this, I do not think the federal standard meets the demands of the current environments. Nor do I think many states. I think this issue is rather complicated though because the minimum requirements are highly non-homogeneous across even a singular state. I'm not quite sure what the solution to this is, but maybe you have some ideas. There is some balance in there that prevents low wage workers from being priced out, required to bus/train in with long commutes, and maintain high wages for SWEs and C-suite. The oversimplification of the problem I think makes the solution difficult as first order approximations or narrow framings aren't "good enough."
But thinking carefully, I can see that that interpretation may be wrong, or wrong enough. Because I think we're close in position (ironically not an uncommon case in people that disagree). Maybe you meant that there should not be tight restrictions in maintaining that employee, such as we see in more European structures? I think we'd at least both agree that the government's role in this is mainly to ensure that there is healthy and strong competition within the market. I think it matters where on that scale of employer/employee market we are, where people think we are, and where they think we're headed. We should want that employee market, as I think everyone benefits the most here (even that top 0.01%, but not visible through their bank accounts). I do think 5+ years back SWEs was clearly an employee market, which likely even built a lot of entitlement. But I think we quickly shifted to an employer market, making people's stress go up, and even causing overestimation of that scale.
I do think these changes cause resentment regardless of the income level. I can understand someone being frustrated even making $200k/yr WFH when they see friends let go, the company say they have to tighten the reigns on perks/income/employees, all while seeing stock and C-suite compensation go up or even be the same. These are conflicting signals. Static friction is quite a force too. In this respect I don't agree that an employer should be forced to do anything either. In fact, we are on an incubator website and I would encourage those people to take their frustrations out by competition rather than regulation. After all, this was the game being played between the capitalists and the soviets: a market economy vs a planned economy. But I think too that people underestimate the heavy hand that was being used. Not so much the invisible hand of Smith, but rather invisible because it tilted scales and purposefully hid. Maybe the market is too captured. Maybe not. I will at least say it is easy to get caught up in one of the two dominant narratives that has permeated our culture with respect to wealth inequality. But I don't think either of those narratives are particularly helpful as they do not capture the complexity of the issues we are facing and themselves end up only being noise and even make conversations like these difficult as we are now primed so well it is easy to misinterpret and jump to each other's throat. Especially when we see these conflicting signals, they do give each narrative evidence to their claims. Possibly even saying the same thing in different ways and building frustration as we feel unheard. Most of language is implicit after all, and it is hard to know intent or reception through a screen. I do appreciate your comment though, as I think you have brought up things I wasn't thinking about and made me think deeper. I also think conversations like these do start to heal our community. I appreciate the lack of brevity. The world is complicated and language is imprecise, I'd rather slow down and truly communicate, even if it is harder.
Well we are at very different points in our careers—-I am approaching my fourth decade in tech and have been from entry level all the way up to senior leadership levels at orgs, been an owner/founder, and am now serving in more sales engineering position. I did an intentional step downward because I want to work to still fatten my bank account a bit, but no longer want to manage people before I take that long walk in the cursed earth to bring law to the lawless. Also prior to my entry into tech, I held some shit minimum wage jobs so I come at my opinion from a pretty holistic and pragmatic position. A floor to ceiling one if you will.
My opinion boils down to the following: Just because you feel you are exploited doesn’t mean you are actually exploited. Exploitation should be protected by the government. If the company is following the law, they are simply not exploiting their employees. However, if you can’t get over that feeling of exploitation you have a couple of options: You can quit and that ends the perception of continuing exploitation. Alternatively, you can convince enough fellow coworkers of the grievance and unionize to try and force change.
If you cannot or will not do either of those things, you are choosing to trade your labor for a paycheck.
> If the company is following the law, they are simply not exploiting their employees
I do take issue with this line. Law is slow moving and reactionary, not proactive. Courts frequently update the law and redefine that abuse by nature of someone being abused and having the capacity and willingness to sue. The law defines things through historical action. That is, someone has to be wronged first.
I do agree that perception isn't reality though. But that's a whole other issue. Were law proactive I'd be in more agreement with your sentiment. But laws follow the culture just like markets follow the economy. There's a delay
There is a delay, but can’t that delay also be explained by the difference in perception too? For instance…until the government perceives or recognizes the exploitation…who is to govern against it? Only the employee can by exercising their freedoms to change jobs can fully protect themselves from an exploitation that is not legally recognized.
I realize that this timing disconnect is a slippery slope especially in a historical context, but I think in modernity the recognition is much quicker and frankly at this point there is probably not a lot of truly exploitive things that need additional regulation going on by companies in the US who corporately are trying to follow the law.
I'm unconvinced. If the phenomena is real, it is clear that there is always a delay. There's no mechanism for immediate reaction. Government is purposefully slow as this is also a defense mechanism against abuse. This is the downside of that. Everything has loopholes though (hence why I keep ranting on HN about complexity and embracing the noise).
For employees protecting themselves, if things are happening at a larger scale, would that not also exhibit as distress at first? Assuming the abuse does exist, we also think about what the societal "immune response" would look like. A meme is just an analog to a virus in social thought, not necessarily bad, and it means we can create analogies to the immune system. What's hard about all of this is that you're right that sometimes the immune system attacks itself unnecessarily.
Arguably we agree that we see the immune response acting up. Now we have to ask if the immune response is appropriate or not. This is hard, because we ourselves may or may not have come into contact with the infection and the system's response is extremely noisy. But determining that determines how we resolve the problem. And no matter the conclusion, a problem exists. Sometimes the immune system attacks the right thing, we just can't see what it is attacking. Sometimes it attacks the wrong thing, so we need to look at why they look alike and how to differentiate. But in no case does it attack itself with no reason. (even a bad reason is a reason)
And yes, historically we see both this and an extremely slow response from the government (idk, virologists in our analogy? Doesn't matter). In the gilded age we saw tons of abuse run rampant before they were addressed. Things were considered normal and common that we'd see as horrific (e.g. per-adolescent children working in factories and losing fingers). There's a reason we got labor unions and many workers rights from this time. Even if you believe the defenses degraded and malformed over time, that's why they came to be. And if you do believe that, it is even worrying because it means we're not ready to handle the next infection. Even if this isn't an infection, we are humans and can think proactively and want to address things when they are small issues and build defenses before they become big issues. So even small infections are worth scrutiny. Just the same way maintenance of any system (biological, mechanical, software, social, etc) reduces overall costs and prevents larger damage from ever happening in the first place (but counterfactuals are fun...).
So from this standpoint, I'd just say "listen." I'm not sure what the real problem is (got some ideas), but it is clear there is a problem and I'm afraid the way you frame it is dismissive. Even entitlement itself is a problem and we'd still have to listen carefully to address that.
If you want to take that immune system analogy to the logical conclusion that I see, its this: An immune response can be good or in some cases very bad. Entitlement mentality creating an assumption of exploitation where one doesn’t actually exist feels to me is more akin to a allergic response or an autoimmune response which creates a harm more than a help. It’s an inappropriate response.
Here on HN there is a huge level of entitlement with some and some of these folks with that attitude are certainly not at the earning floor. There is the large degree of difference between an Amazon SWE making $200k in a WFH arrangement complaining about exploitation because of aggressive release deadlines as compared to the Amazon driver pissing in a gatoraid bottle because he can’t afford the productivity stat hit to stop at a restroom while making $35k a year. One might have a point and one might want to probably look at things a bit more pragmatically. Perhaps both need to quit and move on, but one of those folks certainly has more justification to bitch about their lot in the life of Amazon. Of course this is just my opinion. So in terms of my framing…I was speaking to the HN audience, not the floor earners.
However, consider this about the floor. The government’s use of minimum wage laws should protect those workers. Employers are forced to comply with that minimum or face legal issues. You can certainly argue that minimum wage is not enough but isn’t that is a government problem and not an employer problem?Government sets the policy. If the floor is not protected the government has failed in its responsibility. An employer complying with minimum wage and successfully staffing that position at that wage is not really exploiting a person per se, if anything they are exploiting a law. The onus is on government, not the employer to make sure the employee is not exploited.
Now if the employer is unable to staff the position at that minimum wage rate, the onus is on the employer to set a rate that staffs the position. Still no real exploitation by the employer here since they are exceeding the legal requirements. The floor is protected but the job market then sets the rate higher for the position. If anything the market of workers now exploit the employer’s need for an employees.
However, if there was no minimum wage law and the employer takes advantage of a captive market (that small town) and sets the salary rate low—that would be exploitation of the person. Where that tends to exist (in US) is in industries that employ undocumented workers. I think you could make the argument that these workers are the true floor and are really the only folks in the US that are exploited in an employer/employee sense.