6 ms·

This might be an unpopular thing to say on this forum, but it needs to be said: 1. The average US worker is entitled and arrogant. The "everything is belong to

This might be an unpopular thing to say on this forum, but it needs to be said: 1. The average US worker is entitled and arrogant. The "everything is belong to me" attitude is rampant. 2. "There is no shortage if you pay enough" argument - especially in high-tech - is a bunch of BS. You could be paying 200-250K salaries and still you end up with bunch of incompetents.

rublev 7y ago
Wow hot take watch out everyone.
arcticbull 7y ago
IMO that's more of a symptom than it is a cause. Re 1: Mid-western/"fly-over" state folks have been hit by large amounts of change in the last few decades. The "white working class" (especially male) was overthrown by globalization, immigration, by a renewed push for women's rights, LGBTQ rights and so-on. Wages went down, social rank went down and opportunities dwindled. No training programs, no social programs, no healthcare, nothing. This has led to a reactionary position of "returning to the good old days" of manufacturing, of mining, and conservative ideologies. To when they could pursue the American dream. I think it can come across the way you describe but it's driven more by fear and lack of opportunity than by some intrinsic arrogance characteristic. These are the folks who were left behind by the Democrats in 2016. The status quo genuinely wasn't working for them. Not that the alternative was better, but it was an alternative to a system that wasn't working and from their perspective they had nothing to lose. That's why we find ourselves where we do. Re 2: "There is no shortage if you pay enough" has more to do with the zero marginal cost business models that yield staggering quantities of revenue and profit per worker. Apple makes ~$40B per year in net profit off of 123,000 employees. That means could give each of them (including FTE geniuses and sales people) a $350,000 per year raise and still break even. There's tons of head-room here.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  > These are the folks who were left behind by the Democrats in 2016 Left behind? Wasn’t it their official party platform to offer social programs to help retrain these “left behind” workers for new opportunities? Instead they decided to vote for the party that promised them they would bring back 19th century industry, like coal mining.
  - frockington1 7y ago
    The midwest is region that values hardwork and personal responsibility. The government offering retraining programs was not going to win any proud midwestern workers. I am not arguing against retraining the workers, just the view of it over here in fly over country
  - _delirium 7y ago
    Both the Republicans and Democrats support job-retraining programs, and some do already exist for a few decades now. It's not clear they have much of a track record of success, though, and they've gotten a pretty bad reputation as a result. Proposing "more job retraining" nowadays as your solution is just met by cynicism. The Democrats did lean for a bit towards offering something stronger, but proposals like universal health insurance were voted down by the centrist/neoliberal faction in internal party politics, and didn't make it into the 2016 platform. It definitely wasn't a focus of the campaign either, which somewhat infamously chose to write off blue-collar voters and try to win by flipping moderate Republicans in affluent suburbs instead (Chuck Schumer articulated the strategy as, "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia").
    - cycrutchfield 7y ago
      >Both the Republicans and Democrats support job-retraining programs Care to point me to campaign promises in 2016 to this effect? Or perhaps actions by the current administration in this direction? All I've seen or heard is pining for "clean coal" in various forms. >The Democrats did lean for a bit towards offering something stronger, but proposals like universal health insurance were voted down by the centrist/neoliberal faction in internal party politics, and didn't make it into the 2016 platform So these voters were so distressed by this that they decided to vote for the party whose stated goal was to remove health insurance from the poor and sick? This argument doesn't seem to hold water.
      - _delirium 7y ago
        It long predates 2016: the Reagan admistration enacted a job-retraining program in 1982 that was supposed to help people displaced by deindustrialization, offshoring, etc., and some version of it has been supported by every administration of either party since. It doesn't seem to have worked and I don't think any of the target audience believes it will work now, so it's not much of a vote-winner as a policy, unless you can convince people you mean something really different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Training_Partnership_Act_of_1982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Training_Partnership_Act_o...
- frockington1 7y ago
  As someone who lives in a 'fly-over state', this is not accurate at all. Thanks to new tax policies companies are building/hiring more than ever and the midwest has some of the best degree values with flagship state schools. The 2016 Democrat failures also stem from the arrogance of the coastal populations. A lot of my progressive friends didn't vote because they were sick of being looked down on because they didn't live in California or New York.
- phenkdo 7y ago
  >Re 1: Mid-western/"fly-over" state folks have been hit by large amounts of change in the last few decades. The "white working class" (especially male) was overthrown by globalization, immigration, by a renewed push for women's rights, LGBTQ rights and so-on. Wages went down, social rank went down and opportunities dwindled. No training programs, no social programs, no healthcare, nothing. In other words, white male hegemony in the Post WW2 period especially in the US had ended, and rightly so. The rest of the world was in shambles and the US was the de facto hyperpower. With rise of China and others, that ship has sailed and this is the new reality and people have to deal with it.
  - frockington1 7y ago
    Calling it white male hegemony is precisely why the Democrats lost 2016. If they want 2020 to be competitive the message has to be more inclusive
- nightski 7y ago
  HN has such an absurd view of the Midwest. I live in the Midwest. We have a large MS campus here along with quite a few smaller tech companies. The main economic drivers here are tech, agriculture, and oil (not manufacturing, mining, or conservative ideologies whatever that means). My group of friends averages in the 150-250k range of income which is high for the area for sure but it's evidence of the thriving technology scene. It's also low compared to the farmers around here which do quite well in good years. Nothing in your description comes close to accurately describing our small city in the Midwest.
  - uncletaco 7y ago
    > My group of friends averages in the 150-250k range of income which is high for the area for sure but it's evidence of the thriving technology scene. That's honestly not evidence of a thriving technology scene, its evidence that you and your friends make a lot of money. Would you say you and your friends are representative of the typical worker in the Midwest? I could see how it is low compared to farmers, but most farm income goes into operating costs. Farmer Joe could be making 500k a year but that doesn't mean he's taking home much in profit, in a lot of cases he's taking far less.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    The "midwest" is probably not the right description since it of course includes, like, Illinois. I was referring I guess to "rural America."
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    HN has such an absurd view of the Midwest. It's not just HN, I keep reading many opinions and thinkpieces that reference "the situation in the midwest" when trying to talk about jobs, job markets and localized economies that are often frustratingly and annoyingly WELL off the mark. I share your frustration. Signed, Northern Indiana
    - SauciestGNU 7y ago
      I live in Michigan and I've spent a bit of time in northern Indiana. My observation is that it was one of the most impoverished, destitute, and hopeless places I've ever visited, and I've also spent considerable time in sub-Saharan Africa. I've never lived there though, so I'm curious to hear how far off the mark you consider me to be.
- magduf 7y ago
  >The "white working class" (especially male) was overthrown by ... no social programs, no healthcare, nothing. They don't have social programs and healthcare because they consistently vote against anyone who proposes these things. So they're really to blame for their own problems. Sure, globalization et al have been big factors, but they shot themselves in the foot by voting against policies that would benefit them, and instead voting directly against their own economic interests.
Goronmon 7y ago
1. The average US employer is entitled and arrogant. The "everything is belong to me" attitude is rampant. 2. The idea that "There is no shortage if you pay enough" is BS is just whining because employers just really want to underpay and overwork people and are defensive anytime they aren't able to accomplish exactly that.
- phenkdo 7y ago
  100% agreed. sauce for the goose == sauce for the gander. Hence, I find the argument that "there There is no shortage if you pay enough" so entitled and arrogant. The high-tech industry is already paying salaries, that most any other professions would kill for. So what is that "magic number" when your blue-collar guy will hang up his hard-hat and switch to coding? I am not aware of any untapped geniuses now toiling as coal miners, truck drivers or construction workers waiting for the salaries to hit a magic number for them to unleash their talents.
  - majormajor 7y ago
    > I am not aware of any untapped geniuses now toiling as coal miners, truck drivers or construction workers waiting for the salaries to hit a magic number for them to unleash their talents. That's not who would be most affected by a long term trend of high salaries. It's the kids who would go to biz school or wall street or law school (or med school, but that's less of a positive, hah) instead because that's where the money has been in the past.
    - phenkdo 7y ago
      You are arguing against yourself there. Please define "high salaries". Wall st, Doctors, IT Professionals are already the highest paid professionals, and paid anywhere between 3x to many x more than your typical blue-collar salary. Are you saying this multiple needs be even more for the "kids" to work hard and become scientists, doctors or programmers? I think we all know the answer to that.
  - spamizbad 7y ago
hanniabu 7y ago
I think this comes from an over correction in views of work. The younger generation has seen their parents enslaved their entire lives and know they don't want to live that life. I believe this is where the entitlement comes from, it's not that they think they deserve to be paid for nothing, but that if they're going to be forced to be imprisoned in an office all day then they want to be compensated handsomely for that sacrifice. Values are changing. Corporate American is stuck on a 60 hour work week that pays you for 40 hours and the youngest generation values life more (after seeing their parents give up everything for work) and they're also more in tune with the 3 day work week or 5 hour work day schedule. The younger generation values a healthy lifestyle while corporate America wants to work you to your death. Eventually there will be some swing back from the younger population, but I suspect most of the correction will appear on the corporate side.
- somurzakov 7y ago
  + compare US work schedule to european - fewer paid vacation days, nonexistent maternity leave, expensive health insurance
- arcticbull 7y ago
  That's a good point; the default is a realistic work-life balance, and American folks are willing to sacrifice for the company but only if they're compensated appropriately. This hits close to home for sure.
Ancalagon 7y ago
I disagree. Quality of life with regards to access to a lot of important things has been decreasing dramatically. While the cost of a television has gone down significantly in the last few decades, the things that matter: education, healthcare, housing, have all skyrocketed in price. If Americans seem "entitled" or "arrogant", I imagine its simply because its become much harder access these basic necessities.
Miner49er 7y ago
I think the opposite. The average US worker is not entitled or arrogant enough. The GDP has skyrocketed since the 70s, but wages have remained the same. All the wealth should be going to workers, but it's not and they don't feel entitled enough to fight for it.

rublev 7y ago

Wow hot take watch out everyone.

arcticbull 7y ago

IMO that's more of a symptom than it is a cause. Re 1: Mid-western/"fly-over" state folks have been hit by large amounts of change in the last few decades. The "white working class" (especially male) was overthrown by globalization, immigration, by a renewed push for women's rights, LGBTQ rights and so-on. Wages went down, social rank went down and opportunities dwindled. No training programs, no social programs, no healthcare, nothing. This has led to a reactionary position of "returning to the good old days" of manufacturing, of mining, and conservative ideologies. To when they could pursue the American dream. I think it can come across the way you describe but it's driven more by fear and lack of opportunity than by some intrinsic arrogance characteristic. These are the folks who were left behind by the Democrats in 2016. The status quo genuinely wasn't working for them. Not that the alternative was better, but it was an alternative to a system that wasn't working and from their perspective they had nothing to lose. That's why we find ourselves where we do. Re 2: "There is no shortage if you pay enough" has more to do with the zero marginal cost business models that yield staggering quantities of revenue and profit per worker. Apple makes ~$40B per year in net profit off of 123,000 employees. That means could give each of them (including FTE geniuses and sales people) a $350,000 per year raise and still break even. There's tons of head-room here.

cycrutchfield 7y ago
> These are the folks who were left behind by the Democrats in 2016 Left behind? Wasn’t it their official party platform to offer social programs to help retrain these “left behind” workers for new opportunities? Instead they decided to vote for the party that promised them they would bring back 19th century industry, like coal mining.
- frockington1 7y ago
  The midwest is region that values hardwork and personal responsibility. The government offering retraining programs was not going to win any proud midwestern workers. I am not arguing against retraining the workers, just the view of it over here in fly over country
- _delirium 7y ago
  Both the Republicans and Democrats support job-retraining programs, and some do already exist for a few decades now. It's not clear they have much of a track record of success, though, and they've gotten a pretty bad reputation as a result. Proposing "more job retraining" nowadays as your solution is just met by cynicism. The Democrats did lean for a bit towards offering something stronger, but proposals like universal health insurance were voted down by the centrist/neoliberal faction in internal party politics, and didn't make it into the 2016 platform. It definitely wasn't a focus of the campaign either, which somewhat infamously chose to write off blue-collar voters and try to win by flipping moderate Republicans in affluent suburbs instead (Chuck Schumer articulated the strategy as, "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia").
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    >Both the Republicans and Democrats support job-retraining programs Care to point me to campaign promises in 2016 to this effect? Or perhaps actions by the current administration in this direction? All I've seen or heard is pining for "clean coal" in various forms. >The Democrats did lean for a bit towards offering something stronger, but proposals like universal health insurance were voted down by the centrist/neoliberal faction in internal party politics, and didn't make it into the 2016 platform So these voters were so distressed by this that they decided to vote for the party whose stated goal was to remove health insurance from the poor and sick? This argument doesn't seem to hold water.
    - _delirium 7y ago
      It long predates 2016: the Reagan admistration enacted a job-retraining program in 1982 that was supposed to help people displaced by deindustrialization, offshoring, etc., and some version of it has been supported by every administration of either party since. It doesn't seem to have worked and I don't think any of the target audience believes it will work now, so it's not much of a vote-winner as a policy, unless you can convince people you mean something really different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Training_Partnership_Act_of_1982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Training_Partnership_Act_o...
frockington1 7y ago
As someone who lives in a 'fly-over state', this is not accurate at all. Thanks to new tax policies companies are building/hiring more than ever and the midwest has some of the best degree values with flagship state schools. The 2016 Democrat failures also stem from the arrogance of the coastal populations. A lot of my progressive friends didn't vote because they were sick of being looked down on because they didn't live in California or New York.
phenkdo 7y ago
>Re 1: Mid-western/"fly-over" state folks have been hit by large amounts of change in the last few decades. The "white working class" (especially male) was overthrown by globalization, immigration, by a renewed push for women's rights, LGBTQ rights and so-on. Wages went down, social rank went down and opportunities dwindled. No training programs, no social programs, no healthcare, nothing. In other words, white male hegemony in the Post WW2 period especially in the US had ended, and rightly so. The rest of the world was in shambles and the US was the de facto hyperpower. With rise of China and others, that ship has sailed and this is the new reality and people have to deal with it.
- frockington1 7y ago
  Calling it white male hegemony is precisely why the Democrats lost 2016. If they want 2020 to be competitive the message has to be more inclusive
nightski 7y ago
HN has such an absurd view of the Midwest. I live in the Midwest. We have a large MS campus here along with quite a few smaller tech companies. The main economic drivers here are tech, agriculture, and oil (not manufacturing, mining, or conservative ideologies whatever that means). My group of friends averages in the 150-250k range of income which is high for the area for sure but it's evidence of the thriving technology scene. It's also low compared to the farmers around here which do quite well in good years. Nothing in your description comes close to accurately describing our small city in the Midwest.
- uncletaco 7y ago
  > My group of friends averages in the 150-250k range of income which is high for the area for sure but it's evidence of the thriving technology scene. That's honestly not evidence of a thriving technology scene, its evidence that you and your friends make a lot of money. Would you say you and your friends are representative of the typical worker in the Midwest? I could see how it is low compared to farmers, but most farm income goes into operating costs. Farmer Joe could be making 500k a year but that doesn't mean he's taking home much in profit, in a lot of cases he's taking far less.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  The "midwest" is probably not the right description since it of course includes, like, Illinois. I was referring I guess to "rural America."
- dvtrn 7y ago
  HN has such an absurd view of the Midwest. It's not just HN, I keep reading many opinions and thinkpieces that reference "the situation in the midwest" when trying to talk about jobs, job markets and localized economies that are often frustratingly and annoyingly WELL off the mark. I share your frustration. Signed, Northern Indiana
  - SauciestGNU 7y ago
    I live in Michigan and I've spent a bit of time in northern Indiana. My observation is that it was one of the most impoverished, destitute, and hopeless places I've ever visited, and I've also spent considerable time in sub-Saharan Africa. I've never lived there though, so I'm curious to hear how far off the mark you consider me to be.
magduf 7y ago
>The "white working class" (especially male) was overthrown by ... no social programs, no healthcare, nothing. They don't have social programs and healthcare because they consistently vote against anyone who proposes these things. So they're really to blame for their own problems. Sure, globalization et al have been big factors, but they shot themselves in the foot by voting against policies that would benefit them, and instead voting directly against their own economic interests.

Goronmon 7y ago

1. The average US employer is entitled and arrogant. The "everything is belong to me" attitude is rampant. 2. The idea that "There is no shortage if you pay enough" is BS is just whining because employers just really want to underpay and overwork people and are defensive anytime they aren't able to accomplish exactly that.

phenkdo 7y ago
100% agreed. sauce for the goose == sauce for the gander. Hence, I find the argument that "there There is no shortage if you pay enough" so entitled and arrogant. The high-tech industry is already paying salaries, that most any other professions would kill for. So what is that "magic number" when your blue-collar guy will hang up his hard-hat and switch to coding? I am not aware of any untapped geniuses now toiling as coal miners, truck drivers or construction workers waiting for the salaries to hit a magic number for them to unleash their talents.
- majormajor 7y ago
  > I am not aware of any untapped geniuses now toiling as coal miners, truck drivers or construction workers waiting for the salaries to hit a magic number for them to unleash their talents. That's not who would be most affected by a long term trend of high salaries. It's the kids who would go to biz school or wall street or law school (or med school, but that's less of a positive, hah) instead because that's where the money has been in the past.
  - phenkdo 7y ago
    You are arguing against yourself there. Please define "high salaries". Wall st, Doctors, IT Professionals are already the highest paid professionals, and paid anywhere between 3x to many x more than your typical blue-collar salary. Are you saying this multiple needs be even more for the "kids" to work hard and become scientists, doctors or programmers? I think we all know the answer to that.
- spamizbad 7y ago

hanniabu 7y ago

I think this comes from an over correction in views of work. The younger generation has seen their parents enslaved their entire lives and know they don't want to live that life. I believe this is where the entitlement comes from, it's not that they think they deserve to be paid for nothing, but that if they're going to be forced to be imprisoned in an office all day then they want to be compensated handsomely for that sacrifice. Values are changing. Corporate American is stuck on a 60 hour work week that pays you for 40 hours and the youngest generation values life more (after seeing their parents give up everything for work) and they're also more in tune with the 3 day work week or 5 hour work day schedule. The younger generation values a healthy lifestyle while corporate America wants to work you to your death. Eventually there will be some swing back from the younger population, but I suspect most of the correction will appear on the corporate side.

somurzakov 7y ago
+ compare US work schedule to european - fewer paid vacation days, nonexistent maternity leave, expensive health insurance
arcticbull 7y ago
That's a good point; the default is a realistic work-life balance, and American folks are willing to sacrifice for the company but only if they're compensated appropriately. This hits close to home for sure.

Ancalagon 7y ago

I disagree. Quality of life with regards to access to a lot of important things has been decreasing dramatically. While the cost of a television has gone down significantly in the last few decades, the things that matter: education, healthcare, housing, have all skyrocketed in price. If Americans seem "entitled" or "arrogant", I imagine its simply because its become much harder access these basic necessities.

Miner49er 7y ago

I think the opposite. The average US worker is not entitled or arrogant enough. The GDP has skyrocketed since the 70s, but wages have remained the same. All the wealth should be going to workers, but it's not and they don't feel entitled enough to fight for it.