9 ms·

I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. The revers

• blazespin 11y ago
  Pretty simple.. Improved productivity from this new era of employment at will should lead to wealth which provides guaranteed basic incomes.
  • api 11y ago
    If that happens it will be a fight.
  • intended 11y ago
    Basic income is welfare 2.0. It's not going to lead to human happiness. The economy itself is an "actor" on this stage. It's going to make choices about who can afford what. It's going to reward those who reduce inefficiency, those who find new growth paths, and if not that, it will build reserves to help it through lean times. In that system, people who don't "add value" are a carrying cost, and the system will try and reduce them. The system we have, can not be expected to spend its surplus generously, or happily.
    • iamcurious 11y ago
      I'm not sure I follow, what are the reserves? If we are talking about the entire economy as an actor, a number in some magnetic tape can't be. Neither can be food or infrastructure unless it is properly preserved. So my guess is that the right reserve would be a people. People that aren't adding value today, are excess capacity that can be used during bad times. Guaranteed income is one way of maintaining that extra capacity. Also, I'm not sure that anthropomorphizing the economy, while interesting, is the right level to think about this.
  • kombucha2 11y ago
    For everyone with a stake? I still see clear winners and losers in that scenario.
• haberman 11y ago
  > I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. Then why did Lyons cite grandparent's book as though it supports his worldview? Why did he sandwich quotes from the book with paraphrasing that doesn't represent the book at all? > That is the heart of "The Alliance" - an acceptance the world has changed, and making it work for you. Are you preaching to grandparent about what his book is about? That strikes me as strange.
  • humanrebar 11y ago
    > Rather than defend against a perceived attack, I think a policy of agree and amplify makes sense. The reply (not mine) was not a defense. It was adding a new point of view to the conversation; that this disagreement might be mostly involve a mismatch on what abstract words like "job security" mean. It's implied that progress might be had if people broke down and discussed details a bit. Like, "is it a good idea to assume a company will be around for 50 years?"
• chrisyeh 11y ago
  I appreciate the thoughtful comment. And I wouldn't dispute that we believe that lifetime employment by a single company is unlikely to be offered or accepted in today's world. But Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. We're not pro-corporation or pro-employee; our point is that work is a voluntary relationship where both parties should benefit.
  • chris_wot 11y ago
    Do you address the power imbalance between employees and employers? Do you address that an employee in such a culture is viewed as a disposable resource and no loyalty towards them is necessary, no matter what they do? Or do you address that corporations are run by people, who each have lives and that those who are older, female or who gave young families they must support and who they want to spend time with don't feel they are in such "voluntary" work forces? What about corporate cultures where if you say no to ridiculous work hours (often unpaid) or unreasonable demands will be "graduated" from their role? Or have you addressed the disruption to someone's life when they are forced out of a job, or the feelings of worthlessness they often feel, or the injustice that is often done to them? Your views appear to promote toxic corporate cultures. Frankly, they are designed for people who are highly mobile and who have as much power as their employers. You don't appear to address any of these things.
    • chrisyeh 11y ago
      1) We do specifically address the power imbalance between employers and employees. Because managers typically have more power in the relationship, it is critical that managers take the initiative to prove themselves trustworthy. Now that talent mobility has increased so much, employers who continue to treat employees as disposable are going to have a hard time attracting the best talent. This doesn't mean that all companies will behave in an enlightened way, and there are cases where employees who lack specialized and valuable skills will still be treated badly. 2) There are also corporate cultures that place such high demands that they have negative impacts on employees' health and happiness. The purpose of our book isn't to defend all corporate employers! Its purpose is to lay out a plan for how corporate employers who believe in our ideas can build stronger, more mutually beneficial relationships with employees. 3) Losing a job can be devastating, both to your financial life, and to your health and happiness. It doesn't help that the social safety net in the United States is stingy and inconsistent. But unless you prohibit employers from laying off employees, I really think this is more a matter of government policy. And preventing employers from firing people always has unintended consequences, such as discouraging any hiring, and encouraging black market, off-the-books work. Have you actually read our book, or even one of our many articles? I feel like you're judging me based on Dan Lyons' editorial, which as I've already pointed out, quotes exactly 6 words out of the entire book. Broadly speaking, capitalism works because it is a voluntary exchange mechanism. It doesn't work perfectly, which is why we should strive for things like educational reform (to give everyone a chance to get a good education). But no system does.
• Alex3917 11y ago
  > I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. Pretty much the #1 asshole behavior on the Internet is criticizing other people's books/studies without having read them. Chris is right, this reflects extremely poorly on Lyons.
  • chrisyeh 11y ago
    I suspect the reason that Dan Lyons mentions "The Alliance" is that we cite some of HubSpot's programs in the book. Specifically, we mention HubSpot's "Learning Meals" program, which encourages employees to take smart people outside the company to lunch. HubSpot will pick up the tab as long as you share what you learn with the rest of the company on the intranet.
    • chris_wot 11y ago
      This is pure speculation. You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him. Lyons worked for a company that has an abusive culture. They recently had two top people in management leave because of unethical behaviour - and you observed and promoted aspects of such a culture in your book. I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.
      • chrisyeh 11y ago
        I didn't criticize Dan's book, or say that his statements about HubSpot were inaccurate. (Note that I'm not saying they're accurate either; I haven't worked there!) What I did do was to point out that his op ed does not accurately reflect what I wrote on my book. I don't believe this constitutes mischaracterization on my part. HubSpot fired two senior managers because they tried (foolishly) to use deception to obtain copies of Dan Lyons' book before it came out. You seem to be implying that our book promotes such unethical behavior. Again, I'm unconvinced that describing a program for allowing employees to expense networking lunches constitutes encouraging an abusive culture.
• ec109685 11y ago
  Do you have a cite for being the 70's paradigm: "the business will employ you no matter what you do or how bad you are" - the classic 1970s Union paradigm No Union protects employees no matter how bad they are.
  • gedy 11y ago
    The very often do and did! Read about the history of the Telsa Fremont factory when it was GM, or teacher's unions for cases like Mark Berndt, etc.
    • ZeroGravitas 11y ago
      The usual story told about the Fremont NUMMI plant is that it was a disaster (drug use and prostitution occuring on the grounds) under GM and that when it was taken over by the Toyota joint project with the same work force (and union) became highly productive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI#History In this telling it's the GM management who are incompetent, not the line workers. Clearly that's not the version you're selling though.
    • kombucha2 11y ago
      Both examples are pretty disingenuous.
  • Spooky23 11y ago
    Have you ever worked in a union shop? Unions are democratic institutions that rely on precedent, so it's really essential to defend employees all of the time.
  • jbuzbee 11y ago
    No Union protects employees no matter how bad they are. Uh, not quite. How about union-represented employees who kill people? We continuously read how Police department unions defend cops who kill unarmed citizens: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-poli... Once of many examples from the article: "Hector Jimenez is one Oakland policeman who was fired and reinstated. In 2007, he shot and killed an unarmed 20-year-old man. Just seven months later, he killed another unarmed man, shooting him three times in the back as he ran away. Oakland paid a $650,000 settlement to the dead man's family in a lawsuit and fired Jimenez, who appealed through his police union. Despite killing two unarmed men and costing taxpayers all that money, he was reinstated and given back pay."
• secabeen 11y ago
  >Dan Lyons idealises a world in which people worked their whole career for one company, had a slow progression of minor promotions and pay rises & retired to a gold watch they took to Florida. That reality makes me personally want to buy a chair, some rope and to Google how to tie a noose, but my view is certainly NOT universal, and I need to accept and recognise that. I think the angle you're missing on this sort of job is that it's perfect for someone for whom their job is not their self-identity. In the tech realm today, a lot of people really tie their identity to their work, and for them, this sort of job is really bad. However, there are lots of people for whom a job is just a paycheck, and their passion lies elsewhere. Often that passion is in an area where significant money just cannot be made (family is the most obvious one, but there are others.) I've worked in public service in the past, and you see lots of people that have been working the same job for 10, 20, or even 30 years. When you talk to them, it's clear that the job is fine, and they enjoy it, but what they really care about is their kids, or the dogs they walk at the local shelter, or whatever their passion is.
  • lyqwyd 11y ago
    I don't think this is about passion, I think it's about a culture mis-match. Lyons is looking for a place with stability, and that was not HubSpot. In this case it was probably HubSpot's error in hiring him in the first, as they have a very clear opinion of their culture. I think Lyons would not have been happy at any tech company, the fact that he considers a company that was a year away from IPO, and almost 10 years old when he joine, to be a startup says he has no idea what he was getting into. It's understandable, and most people don't know the culture of the company when they apply for a job. On a side note: public service is the last place I want somebody who doesn't care about their job.
    • intended 11y ago
      Your last statement is incorrect - they care about their job, but are not passionate about it. Your statement inadvertently highlights the point on language which is being made in the article and in this thread. Lack of Passion != disinterest.
• muraiki 11y ago
  Your idea of "vocabulary misunderstanding" is similar to what the philosopher Wittgenstein calls "language games". He believes that it is the duty of the philosopher to help clear up the misunderstandings present when two people are trying to communicate with the same vocabulary but are actually playing different language games. It's been a long time since I studied him, but I think that I can at least recall this much correctly. :) You might be interested in reading more by him.
  • jschwartzi 11y ago
    How much formal logic does he use?
• charlieok 11y ago
  If “maximise skill development” were really so central, I would be much happier with the working environment. I think that would involve some combination of: * Choice over what kind of tasks you work on * Freedom to spend some extra time on a task, both to get it to a level of quality you are happy with and to use the opportunity to learn the domain in question a little better * Blocks of time to work on a maker's schedule; to read, concentrate, and work with minimal interruption from coworkers These things benefit not only the happiness and well-being of a software engineer (which is where I'll focus since that's what I am and this is hacker news) but also his/her ability to learn and improve over time. In the short term, these things might make you less valuable to the business by not being at the constant beck and call of others, and taking longer on tasks. In the long term, I think they would more than pay for themselves for all concerned. If I were offered these sorts of improvements to the working arrangement in exchange for a pay cut, I'd be very very interested.
  • jlarocco 11y ago
    Honestly, I think too many people take their situation as a given and don't look at it as something they can change and improve for themselves. > * Choice over what kind of tasks you work on At a high level, you already do that by choosing one job over another. > * Freedom to spend some extra time on a task, both to get it to a level of quality you are happy with and to use the opportunity to learn the domain in question a little better That should be in your schedule estimate. When the PM asks "How long will this take?" the duration you tell them should include time to understand what you're doing and make it nice. > * Blocks of time to work on a maker's schedule; to read, concentrate, and work with minimal interruption from coworkers I don't exactly understand what this means. Block off time in your calendar and turn off IM and email. If that doesn't work, go to an empty meeting room or somewhere else quite where people can't find you and work from there.
    • charlieok 11y ago
      You're right, of course. My experience has been that the social norms and cues in the workplace are generally stacked against people doing these things, and in the past five years seem to have moved farther away from these ideals rather than closer to them. Maybe that isn't really the trend; that's my perception of it though. Maybe I just need to do a better job of finding the right arrangement. It doesn't seem like an easy topic to address in the hiring process though. I find that I only really learn what the environment is like by working in it, and even that can change from team to team or month to month.