4 ms·

Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse. I'm a scientist and earn roughly the same as a midwife in Australia. Having said that, my first child n

Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse. I'm a scientist and earn roughly the same as a midwife in Australia. Having said that, my first child nearly died during birth, and having a very good midwife who knew the signs, made all the right decisions, got the emergency doctors in at the right time - that service was utterly invaluable. I'm all for the average midwife being paid somewhat more than me if it leads to more of these outcomes.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rich-tea 7y ago
> Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club or the equivalent in your country to get a glimpse of the rest of society.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club I've worked as bar staff in one. Talking about a tribal bubbles, that place was insane. I have also worked in offices, factories and fields. Currently doing geeky stuff with nightclubs for a pittance and massively preferring it when compared to some of the vastly more high paid work I have done. There is groupthink on here, but I would say that HN perhaps isn't as cookie-cutter as you may suppose.
  - rich-tea 7y ago
    What's your point? I didn't say anything about what HN is, I just said that it is in no way a "diverse" group of people. Honestly can't see how anyone could think this is diverse.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      >I didn't say anything about what HN is, I just said that it is in no way a "diverse" group of people. Huh?
    - sctb 7y ago
      Please stop before wading so far out into the weeds. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Maybe the term "riskier job" should include the risks to everyone involved.
- rich-tea 7y ago
  Risks to other people is also known as responsibility and that should also be accounted for. But sometimes there is an imbalance. You can be putting others at risk but not be properly considered responsible. I think there is a lot of that in software, particularly when people's privacy/data is at risk. Personal risk is a bit different because everyone has a choice about what is acceptable for them. Risk to others should not be your choice. The responsibility should be fixed and defined and therefore it's probably easier to make logical arguments about compensation rates.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  If one extends this to indirect risk (i.e. financial risk to everyone involved), the paradigm gets closer to the current one: those whose jobs involve significant financial risk to themselves (investors/owners) or others (executives, managers, and -- to a lesser extent -- "talent", via the risk of shareholders losing their investment and/or employees losing their jobs/livelihoods) are paid comparably to the size of the hammer they swing with respect to risk.
  - dang 7y ago
    Does financial risk come right away to mind when people talk about risky jobs? It doesn't to mine.
- belorn 7y ago
  In which case water treatment employees would be extremely well paid.
  - lancewiggs 7y ago
    The money goes primarily to the engineers who put in place the systems, and to the designers of those systems and the companies that built the pieces of it. The day to day work, whether in the control room or on the tools, itself should be relatively simple, and it should (in theory) be difficult to stuff things up if the system is designed well.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rich-tea 7y ago

> Not sure who 'us' is; HN readership is pretty diverse Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club or the equivalent in your country to get a glimpse of the rest of society.

inflatableDodo 7y ago
>Do you really believe that? 99% of us work in offices. You're in a bit of a bubble. Try going to a working man's club I've worked as bar staff in one. Talking about a tribal bubbles, that place was insane. I have also worked in offices, factories and fields. Currently doing geeky stuff with nightclubs for a pittance and massively preferring it when compared to some of the vastly more high paid work I have done. There is groupthink on here, but I would say that HN perhaps isn't as cookie-cutter as you may suppose.
- rich-tea 7y ago
  What's your point? I didn't say anything about what HN is, I just said that it is in no way a "diverse" group of people. Honestly can't see how anyone could think this is diverse.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >I didn't say anything about what HN is, I just said that it is in no way a "diverse" group of people. Huh?
  - sctb 7y ago
    Please stop before wading so far out into the weeds. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 7y ago

Maybe the term "riskier job" should include the risks to everyone involved.

rich-tea 7y ago
Risks to other people is also known as responsibility and that should also be accounted for. But sometimes there is an imbalance. You can be putting others at risk but not be properly considered responsible. I think there is a lot of that in software, particularly when people's privacy/data is at risk. Personal risk is a bit different because everyone has a choice about what is acceptable for them. Risk to others should not be your choice. The responsibility should be fixed and defined and therefore it's probably easier to make logical arguments about compensation rates.
InitialLastName 7y ago
If one extends this to indirect risk (i.e. financial risk to everyone involved), the paradigm gets closer to the current one: those whose jobs involve significant financial risk to themselves (investors/owners) or others (executives, managers, and -- to a lesser extent -- "talent", via the risk of shareholders losing their investment and/or employees losing their jobs/livelihoods) are paid comparably to the size of the hammer they swing with respect to risk.
- dang 7y ago
  Does financial risk come right away to mind when people talk about risky jobs? It doesn't to mine.
belorn 7y ago
In which case water treatment employees would be extremely well paid.
- lancewiggs 7y ago
  The money goes primarily to the engineers who put in place the systems, and to the designers of those systems and the companies that built the pieces of it. The day to day work, whether in the control room or on the tools, itself should be relatively simple, and it should (in theory) be difficult to stuff things up if the system is designed well.