8 ms·
> there are two sets of entry-level knowledge workers at Facebook: > engineers ($150k/year, benefits, upward career trajectory) and > content moderators ($30k
by DannyB2 7y ago
> there are two sets of entry-level knowledge workers at Facebook:
> engineers ($150k/year, benefits, upward career trajectory) and
> content moderators ($30k/year, no benefits, likely going to acquire mental illnesses).
If Facebook could get away with paying engineers $30K/year, no benefits, believe me, they would.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- H8crilA 7y agoI'm sorry but who wouldn't? I would.
- anarchy8 7y agoI wouldn't, because that would be horrible...
- H8crilA 7y agoHow much would you pay your house cleaner? 100k a year? Do you tip $100 USD in restaurants so that waiters can enjoy similar effective salary?
- reactorofr 7y agoI would if I could, absolutely.
- csallen 7y agoWhat's stopping you from giving high percentages of your income/wealth away to those less fortunate than you right now?
- amanaplanacanal 7y agoWait, how do you know they don't?
- csallen 7y agoTo my eye, "I would if I could" implies "I don't because I can't."
- lagg 7y agoIf I had the fuck-you levels of money facebook does I'd switch you and your house cleaner's salary, hire a PI to follow you and figure out which waiter or clerk hates you the most (you know there's at least one) and give them $3.5 million in front of you. Simply because the most powerful and hilarious usage of fuck-you money is punching up in such a manner. And making someone's life better at the expense of someone that thinks like you do on top is a cherry on the most flavorful sorbet. What I'm saying is you're a diiiiiiiick Edit: I was so taken aback by the dickery I forgot my closing point and I guess this shit isn't obvious to some people: There's little reason whatsoever beyond personal insecurity to not want someone to make as much as possible. But many reasons to not want them to make as little as possible. If you can get away with either - like facebook can at this point, I really feel like - why the hell would you do the latter. I'm aware of the practical issues with incentives with this for example, but you already derailed the thread into dumb anyway so what's it matter.
- flatline 7y agoNeither of those require years of education and training.
- wernercd 7y agoContent Moderators requires years of education and training? The original poster made two categories: Engineers and Moderators. Engineers? Definitely years of training and education... Moderators? What education is required to say "Does this post break community standards? (Check yes/no)"
- fesoliveira 7y ago>Content Moderators requires years of education and training? It doesn't, but the potential trauma and psychological damage they might get from this kind of work should put it in the "high risk, high reward" category. I would never do a job like that knowing it could scar me for life unless the rewards were fantastic in that moment. And I believe that most people, knowing what this job entails, would say the same thing. The way the article puts it, these moderation companies are looking for whoever they can to fill the chairs in order to meet their quotas, offering a seemingly larger paycheck for what they advertise as an easy job. They literally mislead people so they accept this job, and when the hired person finds out what it is really about, they are likely to be dependent on that income and can't leave the job. And as time goes, they get more and more damaged, to the point that the company eventually fires them, and they are left with no money, no psychological help and traumatized for who knows how long.
- saagarjha 7y agoDoes being a Facebook moderator?
- flatline 7y agoThe comment was in regards to paying Engineers $30k/yr.
- memmcgee 7y agoNeither of those include massive mental trauma.
- geodel 7y agoMore likely none of trauma they suffer is being pursued and reported by media.
- rayvd 7y agoIf they were willing to work for that wage, why wouldn't you allow them to? Why would you favor an opportunity for someone pricing themselves higher?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lexapro 7y agoYeah, that's kinda how free markets work.
- bumby 7y agoExcept we don't have those Ayn Rand-ian free markets for a reason. We have a whole host of workers rights in the U.S. because society realized that leaving everything up to free markets to take advantage of what they can may lead to bad outcomes.
- luckylion 7y ago^ for engineers. It obviously works for moderators, and this isn't the first instance it has been reported on, so it appears that there is no outcry from society to be expected any time soon - they know, and they don't care. I'm convinced they would care if it affected those with higher education from wealthy families (i.e. those that become engineers and managers) more, but it doesn't, they are well protected.
- bumby 7y agoNot saying your class argument is wrong, but in the U.S. at least, engineers and moderators are still protected by the same workers rights laws. Maybe the laws need to be updated to reflect modern service jobs, but all workers fall under them.
- cabaalis 7y agoDon't we still enjoy the results of those "bad outcomes", though? Huge cities built, railways across the country, massive industries and technology advancements from the period?
- bumby 7y agoSure, but this falls under "the ends justify the means", which I disagree with. Take climate change. Just because we advanced because of our previous attitudes about carbon doesn't mean it's a good idea to continue doing so in the same regard.
- bumby 7y agoI imagine many people wouldn't. It's potentially shortsighted to have that sort of myopic utility maximizing mindset when it causes you to debase other values like social stability. But in a society that advocates the hustle, I gotta get mine, right? /s
- threatofrain 7y agoIsn't that something that should be resolved at the social or government level? As opposed to Walmart? The market is good at some things, and that which the market does not naturally provide... we morally expect/beg for? Doesn't a situation like this ask for social or government intervention?
- bumby 7y agoIt potentially could be solved at the governmental level, but it could also be addressed at the individual level. Each probably has it's own tradeoffs. For example, governments tend to have sweeping solutions that ignore ground-truth information (e.g., the disparity of cost-of-living with a federally mandated minimum wage). On the other hand, individuals may not have the bandwidth to absorb all the information (e.g., I have no idea about any immoral conditions that lead to much of the consumer items I buy). I assume there's a balance between the two. My personality tends to advocate personal responsibility over looking for someone else to solve the problems, when possible.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y agoIt can't be resolved at that level as far as I can see it. Even in planned economies individuals found ways to enrich themselves. My view is that any programs that are seen to imply that a employer is responsible for it's employees is harmful. It should be made clear to everyone that the employer/employee relationship isn't too different from the used car dealer/customer relationship in that everyone is looking to extract maximum value from the exchange. These people aren't your family and will take food out of your children's mouth without hesitation, as such make the moves that are best for you and don't work too hard if hard work goes unrewarded. This was the critical realization that took me from poverty to the middle class. Smile, pretend to be a bit naïve, extract what you need from the company (résumé fodder, etc) and move on.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoI wouldn’t. I pay everyone at least a living wage, full stop. It’s a matter of ethics for me. If the business can’t support it, I change the business.
- dahart 7y agoThe company I work for now seems to be serious about a strategy of golden handcuffs, giving more than the going rate, and keeping employees from having to fret about basic needs so they can spend more time focused. It definitely appears to work to retain talent. I could say similar things about the two companies I worked for prior to this one as well. I feel there is something serious and economically competitive to be said for understanding the importance of hiring and keeping good people by paying more than the minimum. Maybe this only works if individual employees aren't easily replaceable. Or, maybe some companies don't try to track the long term financial costs of high turnover.
- unethical_ban 7y agoI don't think that was debated by OP.
- meruru 7y ago>likely going to acquire mental illnesses I find hard to believe humans are so sensitive that some visual stimulation is going to give them mental illnesses. We evolved in an environment where violence was part of real life and a real threat to our own well being, seeing it on a screen will elicit emotions we may not be used to in modern life, but causing mental illness is a stretch.
- hollerith 7y ago>We evolved in an environment where violence was part . . . We also evolved in an environment without screens, that is, a world without any selection pressure to distinguish between actually dangerous experiences and experiences generated by screens.
- marak830 7y agoId like to preface, I'm not trying to reduce what these people are going through. But it's relative. I grew up on farms, I've slaughtered animals and I've seen seemingly stable 30 year olds completely break down when they see a video of an animal being humanely slaughtered. I've also heard stories from mates of mine in the military that I'd prefer not to see on video. People are desensitised from things they are raised with. Some shit (kiddie porn and extremely graphic BDSM and rape), isn't something you really want people to be able to accept. Knowing that it's something that really happened vs a movie is a big difference.
- meruru 7y ago>People are desensitised from things they are raised with From my own experience, that's not required. I grew up pretty sheltered myself and I have no problem seeing that kind of content occasionally. Maybe it would be a different story if I were being exposed to this sort of content constantly. I don't know. That said, I hadn't actually read the article when I posted and found it pretty surprising. It seems there's a lot going on there. >seemingly stable 30 year olds completely break down when they see a video of an animal being humanely slaughtered. My reaction was more about things like this. I tend to think that's an overreaction and at least partially feigned and self-deceptive.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoA company that made 15B can't afford to raise salaries? What a ludicrous statement to make.
- DrJaws 7y agoHe never said they can't afford to raise salaries, but they can get away with it
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dang 7y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20222900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20222900.