3 ms·

> do not deserve to exist It's an easy position take take when you're a well paid developer and money problems aren't a concern. I used to feel the same way,

> do not deserve to exist It's an easy position take take when you're a well paid developer and money problems aren't a concern. I used to feel the same way, until I started my own business. I couldn't attract venture capital and I had to bootstrap the company. There was no way in hell I was using my house for a loan. Early on I relied on people who wanted to stay relevant, but needed flexibility, and were happy to take a lower hourly wage. For example, a stay at home parent whose SO earned the majority of the household income. My business contributes sincere value to a niche industry that otherwise doesn't get any attention or investment. It's been said by several in my industry that without my company, several hundred community news organizations would likely fail. Today, I can afford to pay a living wage. But now I understand that growing a real revenue generating business (without artificially inflating a company via investment) is difficult, and often requires low cost labor in order to get to the place where you can afford higher cost labor. Try it and you may not be as idealistic.

thenewnewguy 7y ago
Does that mean you _would_ agree with this position if the qualifier "that has existed for more than X months" or "makes more than $X/year" was added?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
That's a good point, and a nice bottom-up view. The other side, the "do not deserve to exist" position however seems also true. It's a top-down view, coming from empirical observation: under competitive pressure, businesses will end up abusing everything and everyone that they can get away with abusing. Your bottom-up view relies on your own moral character - you were able to find people willing to work for below-market rates while making it a win-win and non-abusive situation. Top-down view correctly notes that ethics don't scale under economic pressure - and I have a whole collection of second-hand anecdotes demonstrating that - things people I personally know experienced. My point being, I see both views as correct in principle. The hard challenge lies in reconciling them - letting good people craft better deals, while preventing malicious individuals from abusing their fellow human beings.
em-bee 7y ago
i totally have the same problem. i can't afford the wages that employees ask for. but that doesn't give me an excuse to hire people who are willing to work for less. yes, off-shoring is an option, and financially that would work, and is certainly a better option than underpaying locals who need more to pay their rent. i do not believe that underpaying locals is a better option than off-shoring. even if the unemployment is high enough that people are willing to work for scraps, then i still believe that it is better for changes that allow me to actually pay local employees instead of taking the money out of employees pockets by paying them less. the question should not be: how can we lower employment income so that you can hire more people. but how can we lower other costs so that small businesses can afford to pay people what they need for life. so yes, i am trying for some years now, and i remain as idealistic as ever.

thenewnewguy 7y ago

Does that mean you _would_ agree with this position if the qualifier "that has existed for more than X months" or "makes more than $X/year" was added?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

That's a good point, and a nice bottom-up view. The other side, the "do not deserve to exist" position however seems also true. It's a top-down view, coming from empirical observation: under competitive pressure, businesses will end up abusing everything and everyone that they can get away with abusing. Your bottom-up view relies on your own moral character - you were able to find people willing to work for below-market rates while making it a win-win and non-abusive situation. Top-down view correctly notes that ethics don't scale under economic pressure - and I have a whole collection of second-hand anecdotes demonstrating that - things people I personally know experienced. My point being, I see both views as correct in principle. The hard challenge lies in reconciling them - letting good people craft better deals, while preventing malicious individuals from abusing their fellow human beings.

em-bee 7y ago

i totally have the same problem. i can't afford the wages that employees ask for. but that doesn't give me an excuse to hire people who are willing to work for less. yes, off-shoring is an option, and financially that would work, and is certainly a better option than underpaying locals who need more to pay their rent. i do not believe that underpaying locals is a better option than off-shoring. even if the unemployment is high enough that people are willing to work for scraps, then i still believe that it is better for changes that allow me to actually pay local employees instead of taking the money out of employees pockets by paying them less. the question should not be: how can we lower employment income so that you can hire more people. but how can we lower other costs so that small businesses can afford to pay people what they need for life. so yes, i am trying for some years now, and i remain as idealistic as ever.