3 ms·

> WFH needs to die That would be a bit extreme wouldn't it? So no more freelance developers?

toyg 6y ago
If that meant redistributing some of the massive profits that developers generate only to be amassed by companies and execs, I wouldn’t see it as a bad thing. But to be honest I was thinking more about relatively simple works of art. Books, comics, and songs, are typically made by a handful of people, often a single one; these processes should be completely excluded from WFH, since the final product is evidently and inextricably linked to the authors’ own skills and names. (Movies are more complicated, but credits in that area are strictly defined by unions and vigorously enforced.)
- simonh 6y ago
  If these companies and execs are surplus, why don't the devs just create their work and run the business and assume all the risk themselves? In fact some already do. Nobody is making them take employment, earning a guaranteed salary regardless of the success of the business as a whole. They can take the work or not, its a straight forward tradeoff. This is the problem I have with this anti-capitalism rhetoric. There's nothing to stop people forming worker owned cooperatives, creator owned companies, etc if they want. In fact some people do exactly that and can be very successful, so clearly the regulatory framework isn't inimical to that sort of organisation. It's a perfectly legal ownership structure. So go and do it, and let the rest of us exercise our freedoms to do otherwise if we choose.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Why are you so hellbent on dragging this on a completely off-topic discussion...? Nothing in my comments was anti-capitalist, I just said too much surplus is being accrued by certain elements and this might not be the just and ideal balance. Please point to where in my comments I asked for the abolition of capitalism. The real point remains: WFH in certain fields of endeavour is patently ripe for abuse. Or are you sincerely happy with the way DC Comics treated Simon and Schuster? Or the way Marvel treated Jack Kirby? Or, to get back on the issue of the day, what Disney is now doing to Mr. Foster?

toyg 6y ago

If that meant redistributing some of the massive profits that developers generate only to be amassed by companies and execs, I wouldn’t see it as a bad thing. But to be honest I was thinking more about relatively simple works of art. Books, comics, and songs, are typically made by a handful of people, often a single one; these processes should be completely excluded from WFH, since the final product is evidently and inextricably linked to the authors’ own skills and names. (Movies are more complicated, but credits in that area are strictly defined by unions and vigorously enforced.)

simonh 6y ago
If these companies and execs are surplus, why don't the devs just create their work and run the business and assume all the risk themselves? In fact some already do. Nobody is making them take employment, earning a guaranteed salary regardless of the success of the business as a whole. They can take the work or not, its a straight forward tradeoff. This is the problem I have with this anti-capitalism rhetoric. There's nothing to stop people forming worker owned cooperatives, creator owned companies, etc if they want. In fact some people do exactly that and can be very successful, so clearly the regulatory framework isn't inimical to that sort of organisation. It's a perfectly legal ownership structure. So go and do it, and let the rest of us exercise our freedoms to do otherwise if we choose.
- toyg 6y ago
  Why are you so hellbent on dragging this on a completely off-topic discussion...? Nothing in my comments was anti-capitalist, I just said too much surplus is being accrued by certain elements and this might not be the just and ideal balance. Please point to where in my comments I asked for the abolition of capitalism. The real point remains: WFH in certain fields of endeavour is patently ripe for abuse. Or are you sincerely happy with the way DC Comics treated Simon and Schuster? Or the way Marvel treated Jack Kirby? Or, to get back on the issue of the day, what Disney is now doing to Mr. Foster?