4 ms·

Living in the bay, I have to say that I see more and more workers from those big companies as complete hypocrites without any sense of self-thinking. When you

Living in the bay, I have to say that I see more and more workers from those big companies as complete hypocrites without any sense of self-thinking. When you speak to them, there is so much arrogance. They are convince that they are saving the world (give me a break, you are not). And next to this you can see them earning a shitload of money, living in the posh-est neighborhood of SF, and looking up on all the homeless in the city that disturb their morning yoga. Completely dystopian and hypocrite, That is what the big-co koolaid feel-good marketing message has created

ksec 9y ago
Arguably Google started or main streamed all this.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
I think you're exaggerating. There are definitely many people like tat, but this is not even majority. Many of us just want to live our lives, and can't do much about the situation in SF. No, honestly, what can each of us do? Even if we give some money, it will never solve the problem of homeless people in SF. As for saving the world... I don't think anyone believes it. A founder must speak in a certain way to get investment and the interest of the press, but at the bottom everyone knows it's basically about making money. Of course it helps if you're working for a startup that has some positive ambitions, it creates good energy and makes work much easier, but that's pretty much secondary. It's not that we're hypocrites, it's more or less the same in all companies: you need to tell your boss you believe in the company values and all this bs, even though in fact you don't care at all. Cool tech is another thing: here you can really get excited if you're working on a really interesting project.
- jadedhacker 9y ago
  Don't give them money, give them houses. Homeless person + stable place to live = ~0 homeless. Your retort might be, well if we did that, then people would become homeless intentionally and we'd have to give them a house. Well... yea, that's the idea. Without rent, the average family's budget would increase by probably > 25-30%. We could set up schemes to rotate good residences to people that need them (e.g. families with kids get 8 yr tenures near schools). For houses without long waitlists, people can trade at will. Decommodifying that sector of the market would do a world of good.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Good luck with implementing this policy. The problem typically was that with positive birth rates development was way behind demand. Additionally where do you want to build those houses and how do you want to prevent these areas from becoming ghettos?
    - jadedhacker 9y ago
      Birth rates are slowing. Build the houses all over the city so you don't have concentrated poverty. If you have too much poverty in your city, then it's time to start redistributing wealth more generally.
- ironjunkie 9y ago
  I'm indeed exaggerating to make a point, and I agree with you that most of the employees jut want to live their lives. The homeless example was probably ill-chosen as well. That being said, where as you said most of the companies have those type of feel-good values, it is well known that it is only corporate-level marketing talk, and I would challenge you to find employees of let's say GE or Walmart really believing any of those. But from the big tech companies (and yes mostly google), I'm still amazed to meet employees that genuinely believe those feel-good values are actually REAL. It shocks me even more that those employees are usually ultra-educated engineers. There is something deeply sad and hypocrite to claim living by those values ("make the world a better place"), but then having a lifestyle that puts them in the top 1% and look up at the rest of the country for not doing the right thing. Now as you said, it is not all of them (not even the majority), but there is definitely a trend that cannot be ignored.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  >> Many of us just want to live our lives, So how come Google (and others) market his new shiny tools as "revolutionary", "game changing", etc. ? There must be at least a part of the shop that believes the message.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    Come on, it's just marketing speak, each company has to do the same. Nobody gives a damn about these press releases. And sometimes really Google is doing something that changes the landscape, for example by deciding to work on a browser. Many times it's a failure like with Google+, but when you start you have to shout out loud how revolutionary your new tool is, that's pretty much normal. I think most people learned to ignore it just like we ignore advertising noise in our lives.
notacoward 9y ago
A lot of people in SV at companies both big and small think they're saving the world. What percentage really are? Do you pour this kind of scorn on the people at Juicero/Bodega or "Uber for XYX" startups too? ETA: I see from your comments that you occasionally express mild negative sentiment toward others, but you seem to have an especially intense and constant antipathy toward Google. Let me suggest that it's disproportionate. For example, all of the Hadoop-distro vendors spew the same "saving the world" rhetoric even though they're just as much in bed with the military/intelligence community and other unsavory types.

ksec 9y ago

Arguably Google started or main streamed all this.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

I think you're exaggerating. There are definitely many people like tat, but this is not even majority. Many of us just want to live our lives, and can't do much about the situation in SF. No, honestly, what can each of us do? Even if we give some money, it will never solve the problem of homeless people in SF. As for saving the world... I don't think anyone believes it. A founder must speak in a certain way to get investment and the interest of the press, but at the bottom everyone knows it's basically about making money. Of course it helps if you're working for a startup that has some positive ambitions, it creates good energy and makes work much easier, but that's pretty much secondary. It's not that we're hypocrites, it's more or less the same in all companies: you need to tell your boss you believe in the company values and all this bs, even though in fact you don't care at all. Cool tech is another thing: here you can really get excited if you're working on a really interesting project.

jadedhacker 9y ago
Don't give them money, give them houses. Homeless person + stable place to live = ~0 homeless. Your retort might be, well if we did that, then people would become homeless intentionally and we'd have to give them a house. Well... yea, that's the idea. Without rent, the average family's budget would increase by probably > 25-30%. We could set up schemes to rotate good residences to people that need them (e.g. families with kids get 8 yr tenures near schools). For houses without long waitlists, people can trade at will. Decommodifying that sector of the market would do a world of good.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Good luck with implementing this policy. The problem typically was that with positive birth rates development was way behind demand. Additionally where do you want to build those houses and how do you want to prevent these areas from becoming ghettos?
  - jadedhacker 9y ago
    Birth rates are slowing. Build the houses all over the city so you don't have concentrated poverty. If you have too much poverty in your city, then it's time to start redistributing wealth more generally.
ironjunkie 9y ago
I'm indeed exaggerating to make a point, and I agree with you that most of the employees jut want to live their lives. The homeless example was probably ill-chosen as well. That being said, where as you said most of the companies have those type of feel-good values, it is well known that it is only corporate-level marketing talk, and I would challenge you to find employees of let's say GE or Walmart really believing any of those. But from the big tech companies (and yes mostly google), I'm still amazed to meet employees that genuinely believe those feel-good values are actually REAL. It shocks me even more that those employees are usually ultra-educated engineers. There is something deeply sad and hypocrite to claim living by those values ("make the world a better place"), but then having a lifestyle that puts them in the top 1% and look up at the rest of the country for not doing the right thing. Now as you said, it is not all of them (not even the majority), but there is definitely a trend that cannot be ignored.
wiz21c 9y ago
>> Many of us just want to live our lives, So how come Google (and others) market his new shiny tools as "revolutionary", "game changing", etc. ? There must be at least a part of the shop that believes the message.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  Come on, it's just marketing speak, each company has to do the same. Nobody gives a damn about these press releases. And sometimes really Google is doing something that changes the landscape, for example by deciding to work on a browser. Many times it's a failure like with Google+, but when you start you have to shout out loud how revolutionary your new tool is, that's pretty much normal. I think most people learned to ignore it just like we ignore advertising noise in our lives.

notacoward 9y ago

A lot of people in SV at companies both big and small think they're saving the world. What percentage really are? Do you pour this kind of scorn on the people at Juicero/Bodega or "Uber for XYX" startups too? ETA: I see from your comments that you occasionally express mild negative sentiment toward others, but you seem to have an especially intense and constant antipathy toward Google. Let me suggest that it's disproportionate. For example, all of the Hadoop-distro vendors spew the same "saving the world" rhetoric even though they're just as much in bed with the military/intelligence community and other unsavory types.