4 ms·
I think the way this problem is framed succumbs to an outdated world view, an image of the samurai computer hackers that put themselves in the service of the co
by cornholio 9y ago
I think the way this problem is framed succumbs to an outdated world view, an image of the samurai computer hackers that put themselves in the service of the corporate lords - but are ultimately responsible for their actions against society and can choose to rebel. They are rare and prized and thus their collaboration is valued by the lords.
This is a romantic vision that the companies themselves like to perpetuate, but it's no longer true for a decade or more. It's irrelevant what the Facebook employees think, just like it's irrelevant what the employees of McDonalds think about the health of their customers. They are not unique, precious snowflakes of rare skill, they are replaceable cogs in a machine that exists for a single purpose, profit. Massive IT education programs now underway everywhere in the world will ensure that the corporations will have vast masses of foot soldiers so they can concentrate on what matters: creating competitive advantage and market dominance using the strong network effects technology affords.
Silicon Valley has bred an ultra-aggressive type of capitalism that will crush and automate the old competitors away but will no longer redistribute the wealth to the workers, as capitalism has done for the last few hundred years, because it no longer needs them. In this economic war, developers are rich mercenaries, not noble freedom fighters. The likes of Facebook and Uber are simply the expression of that social reality, a glimpse into the world of tomorrow.
- feral 9y agoNonsense, at least today. If 'massive IT education programs' had made engineers disposable, then salaries would be a lot lower. (If you need 'data' on this, Glassdoor says FB SWE salaries are >120k, total comp will be a lot higher. Compare that to a job with an actual disposable workforce.) >In this economic war, developers are rich mercenaries, not noble freedom fighters. If you said developers were poor mercenaries, that'd be one thing. But if you are rich, then you can choose to work somewhere compatible with your morals. And if you don't make that choice, its on you.
- RestlessMind 9y agoCan you please share a list of companies with strong morals and are above criticism?
- slivym 9y agoThe turning point for this seems to have been the anti-competitive agreement between Apple, Google and others to avoid poaching of top talent. This new generation of companies seem intent on making all the same mistakes of their predecessors.
- ijafri 9y agoSpeaking of samurai Zuckerberg Taunted Employees With Samurai Sword, Ex-Facebooker Says https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236306 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236306
- jacques_chester 9y agoEthics and economics are separate concerns.
- donquichotte 9y ago"will no longer redistribute the wealth to the workers, as capitalism has done for the last few hundred years" It appears that we have vastly different opinions on how capitalism works. Capitalism needs to be coerced by laws into giving back to the workers (taxes on companies etc.) and more often than not, companies try to circumnavigate these laws.
- threepipeproblm 9y agoRight, that's why no one ever gets a raise without coercion. Companies would never compete to establish the price of labor without coercion. Similarly, this is why no basketball players make more than $100,000... after all, why would any company ever pay someone more than unless they were being forced?
- babygoat 9y agoYou might have had a chance at making an argument if the first and only laborer you exemplified wasn't "basketball player".
- threepipeproblm 9y agoOkay, babygoat, you're not familiar with Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, which is the allusion here. Granted it's an obscure one... but one many who have been introduced to this question (wage and price controls) academically would be familiar. Nozick made a classic argument about how naive concepts of social justice are incompatible with a system in which everyday economic transactions made by free will can be honored. He used the wealth of Wilt Chamberlain as an example (although his argument was actually concerned with wage ceilings, the same thinking applies to wage floors). You can insert the words "for example" before "basketball player," or fill in another profession if you need this to be an argument. I wasn't really trying to make one, because the burden of argument isn't on me. When someone claims that capitalism requires coercion in order to pay high salaries, the burden is on them to explain why so many high salaries exist, sans coercion, under capitalism. Or why wages have generally been higher in capitalist countries. Another problem with wage floors (coercing higher wages) is that -- to the extent they are effective -- they inevitably create surpluses. For example, requiring every fast food worker to be paid $30 an hour would create a shortage of fast food (by the economic definition). Requiring every programmer to be paid $200,000 would create a shortage of programming.
- 27182818284 9y ago> they are replaceable cogs in a machine that exists for a single purpose This is a mistake I've seen made by government officials before: The idea that a tech worker is a tech worker is a tech worker. A Java developer with expertise in Shibboleth is not going to fit right in like a replaceable cog as an iOS game developer.
- ashwinaj 9y ago> They are not unique, precious snowflakes of rare skill, they are replaceable cogs in a machine that exists for a single purpose, profit Totally agree > Massive IT education programs now underway everywhere in the world will ensure that the corporations will have vast masses of foot soldiers so they can concentrate on what matters Not yet, source most FB engineers get paid a lot.