6 ms·

Holy hell dude, are you calling the working class lazy and the professional class hard-working?! This tells me you don’t have a lot of contact with the working

Holy hell dude, are you calling the working class lazy and the professional class hard-working?! This tells me you don’t have a lot of contact with the working class. The working class busts their asses while most software devs I know work about 2 hours a day from their couch in pajamas. Someone who works at a warehouse or fast food joint is a much harder worker than a software architect. Probably also working 60-80 hours a week across a couple jobs just to pay rent. Meanwhile I just spout bullshit all day and play corporate politics without really knowing anything nor having much ambition, and I’m somehow worth 20-40x what someone at an Amazon warehouse is.

John23832 5y ago
I did not. Reading comprehension is key.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  > You then get a "working class" with no real skills/education/ambition... they do not "do", which leads back to my first comment This you?
  - John23832 5y ago
    > a "working class" ^ This references a segment or variation of the "working class". In my inference, a portion of the working class that isn't actually working, because they do not "do". > the "working class" ^ This is what you're trying to run with. This references the working class as a whole entity. I did not say this. Again, reading comprehension is key.
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      Again, reading comprehension is key. If there's a repeating pattern of people not understanding what you're writing, why not write more clearly? It will make everything better.
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      So are writing skills.
    - tmotwu 5y ago
      Sorry, no. I was with you on your comment on doing. However, "working class" is an actual term [1] that does not fit your intended message. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class
    - drewcoo 5y ago
      Perhaps the refrain "reading comprehension is key" is a sign that comprehensible writing is in order.
- shawnz 5y ago
  I agree with their interpretation. "Be more ambitious" isn't a solution to poverty. There are plenty of ambitious people to compete with at every income level.
  - John23832 5y ago
    Your (and the above's) interpretation of things unsaid are weird. I said "do", as in "to perform an action". Ambition might lead you to do things, but that's not what I address.
    - UK-Al05 5y ago
      The working class perform a lot of action. They work incredibly long hours and are still poor.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      Consider this thought experiment. Think of the people working at your place of employment in low-level positions who make less money than you. Do you think they are on average doing less productive work than you, or less likely to be "doers"? I am guessing you feel the answer is yes. Now think of the people in high-level positions who make more than you. Do you think they are on average doing more productive work than you? I am guessing you feel the answer is not so obvious with this question.
      - username90 5y ago
        It is better to use a peer instead of yourself to reduce bias. Do you think your tech lead does more valuable things than your average peer? Probably yes.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  I am actually unclear on what you mean by "Do". You seem to be using it in a very general sense, as in people who do something, anything, are better off than people who do nothing. That seems pretty obvious, movement is the very definition of work after all. However, the very vague way in which you talk about "Doing" creates a kind of Rorschach test where your readers can take any meaning they would like. So what is it, exactly that you mean? What sort of specific actions should a person take to raise their station in life? What about people not "doing"? Can you describe their life?
iammisc 5y ago
Americans glorify hard work while undervaluing efficiency. For example, I often hear fellow Americans brag about how many hours they put in or how intense their work is. This is true all the way from the blue collar trades to the most white collar (management consultants are notorious for this). In reality, it's better to use fewer hours to accomplish the same goal. There is no inherent value in applying more time to something. The truth is the SW architect, the CEO of many corporations, etc are more efficient than the lowest level workers. I know this is not popular, and it makes many uncomfortable, but it is undeniably true. This is because both the SW architect and the CEO and the management consultant and the operations manager, etc, are all into automation, which is an efficiency increasing process. This is not just automation in terms of building robots (which maybe a SW architect is involved with), but also automation in terms of making the lowest level workers replaceable by developing corporate policy, procedures, etc. The CEO provides the service of automating investment returns to his/her company's shareholders. In this light, it is obvious why certain professions earn more. They are way more efficient with their time. > I’m somehow worth 20-40x what someone at an Amazon warehouse is. Because your work is quite a bit more efficient. I mean, like many here, I write software for a living. Once my software component works, it works. It will work forever with minimal maintenance once it stabilizes, and will provide the company with many many years of value, even if I and my team were to drop dead. In other words, we are automators. The automators are always going to do better. Anyway, going back to the lazy/hard-working dichotomy. These terms are used with unnecessary moralistic overtones. There is nothing wrong with working two hours a day, and there is nothing inherently good about working 14 hours. We need to stop acting as if those who work more have some inherent virtue. This leads to all sorts of social pathologies such as the toxic version of the bootstrap mentality.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  Uh I don't know what management consultants you've met but as an industry it is the opposite of efficient. It's an industry that's built on stealing value from the productive bits of society by leveraging the social status of it's employees. Some software is certainly very efficient and productive but after many years in software I can tell you that a lot of software work is repeated broken window fixing. It's not about lazy / hardworking it's about those with social capital and those without. Those with it prosper and those without it flounder.
imtringued 5y ago
Seller market = high wages, buyer market = low wages. That is all there is to it. The irony about hard work is that everyone can be a hard worker so you are more likely to end up in a buyer market if that is your selling point.

John23832 5y ago

I did not. Reading comprehension is key.

wayoutthere 5y ago
> You then get a "working class" with no real skills/education/ambition... they do not "do", which leads back to my first comment This you?
- John23832 5y ago
  > a "working class" ^ This references a segment or variation of the "working class". In my inference, a portion of the working class that isn't actually working, because they do not "do". > the "working class" ^ This is what you're trying to run with. This references the working class as a whole entity. I did not say this. Again, reading comprehension is key.
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    Again, reading comprehension is key. If there's a repeating pattern of people not understanding what you're writing, why not write more clearly? It will make everything better.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    So are writing skills.
  - tmotwu 5y ago
    Sorry, no. I was with you on your comment on doing. However, "working class" is an actual term [1] that does not fit your intended message. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    Perhaps the refrain "reading comprehension is key" is a sign that comprehensible writing is in order.
shawnz 5y ago
I agree with their interpretation. "Be more ambitious" isn't a solution to poverty. There are plenty of ambitious people to compete with at every income level.
- John23832 5y ago
  Your (and the above's) interpretation of things unsaid are weird. I said "do", as in "to perform an action". Ambition might lead you to do things, but that's not what I address.
  - UK-Al05 5y ago
    The working class perform a lot of action. They work incredibly long hours and are still poor.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    Consider this thought experiment. Think of the people working at your place of employment in low-level positions who make less money than you. Do you think they are on average doing less productive work than you, or less likely to be "doers"? I am guessing you feel the answer is yes. Now think of the people in high-level positions who make more than you. Do you think they are on average doing more productive work than you? I am guessing you feel the answer is not so obvious with this question.
    - username90 5y ago
      It is better to use a peer instead of yourself to reduce bias. Do you think your tech lead does more valuable things than your average peer? Probably yes.
dougmwne 5y ago
I am actually unclear on what you mean by "Do". You seem to be using it in a very general sense, as in people who do something, anything, are better off than people who do nothing. That seems pretty obvious, movement is the very definition of work after all. However, the very vague way in which you talk about "Doing" creates a kind of Rorschach test where your readers can take any meaning they would like. So what is it, exactly that you mean? What sort of specific actions should a person take to raise their station in life? What about people not "doing"? Can you describe their life?

iammisc 5y ago

Americans glorify hard work while undervaluing efficiency. For example, I often hear fellow Americans brag about how many hours they put in or how intense their work is. This is true all the way from the blue collar trades to the most white collar (management consultants are notorious for this). In reality, it's better to use fewer hours to accomplish the same goal. There is no inherent value in applying more time to something. The truth is the SW architect, the CEO of many corporations, etc are more efficient than the lowest level workers. I know this is not popular, and it makes many uncomfortable, but it is undeniably true. This is because both the SW architect and the CEO and the management consultant and the operations manager, etc, are all into automation, which is an efficiency increasing process. This is not just automation in terms of building robots (which maybe a SW architect is involved with), but also automation in terms of making the lowest level workers replaceable by developing corporate policy, procedures, etc. The CEO provides the service of automating investment returns to his/her company's shareholders. In this light, it is obvious why certain professions earn more. They are way more efficient with their time. > I’m somehow worth 20-40x what someone at an Amazon warehouse is. Because your work is quite a bit more efficient. I mean, like many here, I write software for a living. Once my software component works, it works. It will work forever with minimal maintenance once it stabilizes, and will provide the company with many many years of value, even if I and my team were to drop dead. In other words, we are automators. The automators are always going to do better. Anyway, going back to the lazy/hard-working dichotomy. These terms are used with unnecessary moralistic overtones. There is nothing wrong with working two hours a day, and there is nothing inherently good about working 14 hours. We need to stop acting as if those who work more have some inherent virtue. This leads to all sorts of social pathologies such as the toxic version of the bootstrap mentality.

wittycardio 5y ago
Uh I don't know what management consultants you've met but as an industry it is the opposite of efficient. It's an industry that's built on stealing value from the productive bits of society by leveraging the social status of it's employees. Some software is certainly very efficient and productive but after many years in software I can tell you that a lot of software work is repeated broken window fixing. It's not about lazy / hardworking it's about those with social capital and those without. Those with it prosper and those without it flounder.

imtringued 5y ago

Seller market = high wages, buyer market = low wages. That is all there is to it. The irony about hard work is that everyone can be a hard worker so you are more likely to end up in a buyer market if that is your selling point.