5 ms·

It's very hard to complain about wages when you make $200k+ on flexible 40 hrs/week with free food. From the outside, tech workers would look entitled.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Doesn't stop CEO's or beter known Actors does it and they earn a lot more than $200k. You may earn $200k but your still a worker and most do a lot of unpaid OT
- eitally 11y ago
  You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours. I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past. What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    Did the U.S. tech industry actually have long hours during the period when it became world-leading? The U.S. was dominant in technology by the 1970s, and as far as I understand the '50s-'70s tech work culture, it was more of a professional engineering culture. 9-to-5 jobs, everyone wore a tie, etc.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      As it is known now, there sort of wasn't a "tech work culture." People just topped out at fairly low salaries relative to now. People were mostly "lifers". There was very little hope of a replacement job. I had relatives caught up in the early 1970s aerospace bust and they were out of work for a while and had to retool. As a view into it, see "Moon Machines" - that's what it looked like as a child to me. A lot of the "work long hours" thing is cargo culting / social signalling to project the image of "high performance." The first step is admitting you're not John Carmack. I have tendencies that way; I'll get caught up in something at home on the weekends and completely lose track of time. But it must be managed. I know better than to do that at work. You have to let the work breathe ( a metaphor for letting all your cognitive processes catch up after a burst ). It's fun to do... beer/coffee-fueled sprints far into the night but it's not very responsible nor sustainable. I learned this looking carefully at what I'd done in those.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    "You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours." I do not believe that for a second. And even if it were true, how does that justify not paying for those hours? "but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past." Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too." If the company is doing well, it makes absolutely no sense that the people who did the actual work to make that happen don't share in it.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      The unseen factor in companies is how risk is priced. Our perceptions of capital have gotten extremely self-referential - cash is its own good thing for lottery winners. If you're Apple, the probability of another iPhone is low. For MS, it's Windows. Dunno what really qualifies for Google, but Yahoo seems to be struggling. I strongly recommend empathy with the positions of those you oppose. It is, IMO, the only path to understanding. Chances are they're not psychotic. The scary part is - we seem out of ideas.
      - st3v3r 11y ago
        I should have empathy with the positions which say that I should feel happy to work unpaid overtime, and that I don't deserve to be paid for my time?
        ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        Not at all - just be able to at least understand the positions you oppose.
        st3v3r 11y ago
- themartorana 11y ago
  Well, the courts have a) held that overtime is due to salaried workers so, abuse your employees at your own risk, b) held that salary collusion is illegal and fined companies millions Also I have no desire to be forced into a union, dues forcibly taken from my paycheck, thanks.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    hmm, would you rather have a larger paycheck with dues taken out, still increasing your take home pay? Thats whats actually on the table - wage collusion has artifically deflated wages. Unionization would fight against that artifical deflation and bring wages up closer to market value. As long as union fees are less than the increase in your wage, why would you prefer to make less money overall just to not support a union?
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  So stop doing that and let Nature take its course. If something exists that you don't like and your behavior helps cause it to exist, you're part of the problem. There is no information anywhere that says the employer is doing anything by doing that that will help them get what they want. There is a lot of literature that says its a bad idea - for their own enlightened self interest. We do automation of things. If there is no multiplier inherent in that, we should not be there to start with. I'll caveat this with the statement that there may be things where it's just inherently that way, in the way that a surgeon must be there or human life is in the balance. Pushing your CRUD changes isn't likely to tip the scales on human life one way or the other. I've been in sprints where the fate of the company hung in the balance; I worked those hours. In the end it failed because it was going to fail anyway. It was worth doing, but this was cases where we knew it would fail if we didn't. There's no need for collective action. There is a need for many, many people to recognize what codependency is and adjust their behavior. I know all the "But I..." in the list. BTDT. But the truth is that until you stop, it won't.
st3v3r 11y ago
Why not? What's the exact dollar amount that you have to make before you lose the ability to protest that you're not being treated fairly? And, quite frankly, from the 3rd world, McDonald's workers look entitled.
Amezarak 11y ago
The vast majority of tech workers don't make anywhere near 200k or have free food, and probably don't have flexible schedules. If you can find a job like that anywhere in my region, I'd crap myself in excitement. :)
pdeuchler 11y ago
Or maybe the employers are counting on that complacency to enable their exploitation of the people who don't make that much money, and don't have those benefits.
ones_and_zeros 11y ago
The fact is very few software developers make 200k+ (even adjusting for geographic CoL) but we all think someday we will and don't want to change the current system that allows that belief. To me, working collectively isn't 100% about compensation. It's also having a fair footing at negotiations on things like time off, overtime, family leave, vacation, retirement, health care, etc. It's also about adversarial processes like performance reviews, age/gender/race discrimination etc. Those are all things that some of us can overcome individually, but it'd be a lot easier if we could ease up on viewing ourselves as mercenaries and actually work together.
- greg_ 11y ago
  Fuck this PC bullshit. I make 200K+ and Mark Zuckerberg makes 35 Billion. There is no sane reason for this kind of BS. I don't see my generation of engineers tolerating clowns like Zuckerberg the way the previous generation tolerated Larry Ellison and Bill Gates. It's a different world. Expectations are different. The only thing he brings to the table is mindless ambition. It's highly overrated and damaging and the world does not need it at this point. He and his ilk will be taken down. We need more Linus Torvalds, Jimmy Wales and Sal Khan's who are capable of thinking that their creations are more than just about world domination at any expense.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    I'm confused what your point is. What's PC about the previous statement? You seem to agree with them. Are you mad you aren't making more, or that Zuck isn't making less? We could unionize, you know? It would DEFINITELY mean outlier cash wages on the high side would go down as we normalize benefits. Right now the Valley is very focused on the needs of young, affluent, educated men who can take significant career risk. If we unionized, things like reasonable *ternity leave and a minimum standard of health care would appear, as would formalization of vacation rules ("unlimited vacation" is common but actually means "no vacation just dispensations from your founder for good behavior"), etc. And we need less people like Linus Torvalds, thanks. It's possible to be good at tech and NOT be an insufferable asshole riding atop a human pyramid like some rendition of 300's Xerxes.
  - 11y ago
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>It's very hard to complain about wages when you make $200k+ on flexible 40 hrs/week with free food. How large a portion of tech workers make this much?
snowwrestler 11y ago
Some of the strongest and most successful unions in the U.S. right now are in the entertainment industry. Screen actors, professional sports players, heck even many screen writers make well above the U.S. median income. Stepping outside of employee groups that are explicitly defined as unions, you find professional associations that work collectively to support high earning potentials. Most doctors, for example, are board-certified by ABMS, even if they work as employees of large corporations. Lawyers are members of the bar. Realtors can only call themselves "realtors" if they are members of the National Association of Realtors. Etc.
- ryao 11y ago
  I thought anyone with a license from the state to practice real estate is a realtor. I could check with my father who has been doing real estate since he was laid off from an engineering position >20 years ago, but I am fairly certain that is how it works in New York. Maybe other states are different.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    It's the word "realtor" specifically--it's covered by a trademark. > Isn’t the definition of REALTOR® anyone who has a real estate license? > No. The definition of a REALTOR® is a real estate professional who is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® and subscribes to its strict Code of Ethics. The marks should not be used inadvertently and improperly to denote a vocation or business. A good rule to follow is if the term “Member” cannot logically be substituted for the term REALTOR®, then the term should not be used. Appropriate substitutions might include the phrases “real estate broker,” “real estate agent,” “real estate salesperson,” “property manager,” etc. http://www.realtor.org/letterlw.nsf/pages/TrademarkLogoFAQs http://www.realtor.org/letterlw.nsf/pages/TrademarkLogoFAQs
    - ryao 11y ago
      That sounds like the term Xerox.
- vitd 11y ago
beachstartup 11y ago
i think what actually happened is the people who run the place realized it's better to pay the very exceptional few $200k+ so that the rest of the peons getting paid 80k have something to hope for.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago

Doesn't stop CEO's or beter known Actors does it and they earn a lot more than $200k. You may earn $200k but your still a worker and most do a lot of unpaid OT

eitally 11y ago
You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours. I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past. What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Did the U.S. tech industry actually have long hours during the period when it became world-leading? The U.S. was dominant in technology by the 1970s, and as far as I understand the '50s-'70s tech work culture, it was more of a professional engineering culture. 9-to-5 jobs, everyone wore a tie, etc.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    As it is known now, there sort of wasn't a "tech work culture." People just topped out at fairly low salaries relative to now. People were mostly "lifers". There was very little hope of a replacement job. I had relatives caught up in the early 1970s aerospace bust and they were out of work for a while and had to retool. As a view into it, see "Moon Machines" - that's what it looked like as a child to me. A lot of the "work long hours" thing is cargo culting / social signalling to project the image of "high performance." The first step is admitting you're not John Carmack. I have tendencies that way; I'll get caught up in something at home on the weekends and completely lose track of time. But it must be managed. I know better than to do that at work. You have to let the work breathe ( a metaphor for letting all your cognitive processes catch up after a burst ). It's fun to do... beer/coffee-fueled sprints far into the night but it's not very responsible nor sustainable. I learned this looking carefully at what I'd done in those.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours." I do not believe that for a second. And even if it were true, how does that justify not paying for those hours? "but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past." Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too." If the company is doing well, it makes absolutely no sense that the people who did the actual work to make that happen don't share in it.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    The unseen factor in companies is how risk is priced. Our perceptions of capital have gotten extremely self-referential - cash is its own good thing for lottery winners. If you're Apple, the probability of another iPhone is low. For MS, it's Windows. Dunno what really qualifies for Google, but Yahoo seems to be struggling. I strongly recommend empathy with the positions of those you oppose. It is, IMO, the only path to understanding. Chances are they're not psychotic. The scary part is - we seem out of ideas.
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      I should have empathy with the positions which say that I should feel happy to work unpaid overtime, and that I don't deserve to be paid for my time?
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        Not at all - just be able to at least understand the positions you oppose.
        st3v3r 11y ago
themartorana 11y ago
Well, the courts have a) held that overtime is due to salaried workers so, abuse your employees at your own risk, b) held that salary collusion is illegal and fined companies millions Also I have no desire to be forced into a union, dues forcibly taken from my paycheck, thanks.
- unprepare 11y ago
  hmm, would you rather have a larger paycheck with dues taken out, still increasing your take home pay? Thats whats actually on the table - wage collusion has artifically deflated wages. Unionization would fight against that artifical deflation and bring wages up closer to market value. As long as union fees are less than the increase in your wage, why would you prefer to make less money overall just to not support a union?
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
So stop doing that and let Nature take its course. If something exists that you don't like and your behavior helps cause it to exist, you're part of the problem. There is no information anywhere that says the employer is doing anything by doing that that will help them get what they want. There is a lot of literature that says its a bad idea - for their own enlightened self interest. We do automation of things. If there is no multiplier inherent in that, we should not be there to start with. I'll caveat this with the statement that there may be things where it's just inherently that way, in the way that a surgeon must be there or human life is in the balance. Pushing your CRUD changes isn't likely to tip the scales on human life one way or the other. I've been in sprints where the fate of the company hung in the balance; I worked those hours. In the end it failed because it was going to fail anyway. It was worth doing, but this was cases where we knew it would fail if we didn't. There's no need for collective action. There is a need for many, many people to recognize what codependency is and adjust their behavior. I know all the "But I..." in the list. BTDT. But the truth is that until you stop, it won't.

st3v3r 11y ago

Why not? What's the exact dollar amount that you have to make before you lose the ability to protest that you're not being treated fairly? And, quite frankly, from the 3rd world, McDonald's workers look entitled.

Amezarak 11y ago

The vast majority of tech workers don't make anywhere near 200k or have free food, and probably don't have flexible schedules. If you can find a job like that anywhere in my region, I'd crap myself in excitement. :)

pdeuchler 11y ago

Or maybe the employers are counting on that complacency to enable their exploitation of the people who don't make that much money, and don't have those benefits.

ones_and_zeros 11y ago

The fact is very few software developers make 200k+ (even adjusting for geographic CoL) but we all think someday we will and don't want to change the current system that allows that belief. To me, working collectively isn't 100% about compensation. It's also having a fair footing at negotiations on things like time off, overtime, family leave, vacation, retirement, health care, etc. It's also about adversarial processes like performance reviews, age/gender/race discrimination etc. Those are all things that some of us can overcome individually, but it'd be a lot easier if we could ease up on viewing ourselves as mercenaries and actually work together.

greg_ 11y ago
Fuck this PC bullshit. I make 200K+ and Mark Zuckerberg makes 35 Billion. There is no sane reason for this kind of BS. I don't see my generation of engineers tolerating clowns like Zuckerberg the way the previous generation tolerated Larry Ellison and Bill Gates. It's a different world. Expectations are different. The only thing he brings to the table is mindless ambition. It's highly overrated and damaging and the world does not need it at this point. He and his ilk will be taken down. We need more Linus Torvalds, Jimmy Wales and Sal Khan's who are capable of thinking that their creations are more than just about world domination at any expense.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  I'm confused what your point is. What's PC about the previous statement? You seem to agree with them. Are you mad you aren't making more, or that Zuck isn't making less? We could unionize, you know? It would DEFINITELY mean outlier cash wages on the high side would go down as we normalize benefits. Right now the Valley is very focused on the needs of young, affluent, educated men who can take significant career risk. If we unionized, things like reasonable *ternity leave and a minimum standard of health care would appear, as would formalization of vacation rules ("unlimited vacation" is common but actually means "no vacation just dispensations from your founder for good behavior"), etc. And we need less people like Linus Torvalds, thanks. It's possible to be good at tech and NOT be an insufferable asshole riding atop a human pyramid like some rendition of 300's Xerxes.
- 11y ago

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>It's very hard to complain about wages when you make $200k+ on flexible 40 hrs/week with free food. How large a portion of tech workers make this much?

snowwrestler 11y ago

Some of the strongest and most successful unions in the U.S. right now are in the entertainment industry. Screen actors, professional sports players, heck even many screen writers make well above the U.S. median income. Stepping outside of employee groups that are explicitly defined as unions, you find professional associations that work collectively to support high earning potentials. Most doctors, for example, are board-certified by ABMS, even if they work as employees of large corporations. Lawyers are members of the bar. Realtors can only call themselves "realtors" if they are members of the National Association of Realtors. Etc.

ryao 11y ago
I thought anyone with a license from the state to practice real estate is a realtor. I could check with my father who has been doing real estate since he was laid off from an engineering position >20 years ago, but I am fairly certain that is how it works in New York. Maybe other states are different.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  It's the word "realtor" specifically--it's covered by a trademark. > Isn’t the definition of REALTOR® anyone who has a real estate license? > No. The definition of a REALTOR® is a real estate professional who is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® and subscribes to its strict Code of Ethics. The marks should not be used inadvertently and improperly to denote a vocation or business. A good rule to follow is if the term “Member” cannot logically be substituted for the term REALTOR®, then the term should not be used. Appropriate substitutions might include the phrases “real estate broker,” “real estate agent,” “real estate salesperson,” “property manager,” etc. http://www.realtor.org/letterlw.nsf/pages/TrademarkLogoFAQs http://www.realtor.org/letterlw.nsf/pages/TrademarkLogoFAQs
  - ryao 11y ago
    That sounds like the term Xerox.
vitd 11y ago

beachstartup 11y ago

i think what actually happened is the people who run the place realized it's better to pay the very exceptional few $200k+ so that the rest of the peons getting paid 80k have something to hope for.