5 ms·
I have to agree. I do understand human desire to put themselves and their families first, and that it's a job at corporations, and that some people view themsel
by ngokevin 5y ago
I have to agree. I do understand human desire to put themselves and their families first, and that it's a job at corporations, and that some people view themselves as cogs in capitalism no matter what
However when one the pick of the litter, there's a spectrum between getting $1M for a company responsible for polarization, breeding hate, and damaging democracy...to living well comfortably on $200k+ (or even $300k+) to at least try to do something meaningful. It's 8 hours a day of your time, you vote with how you want it to affect the world
- fires10 5y agoSome people the money is necessary for survival. Those salaries are not easy to replicate outside of big tech. Making six figures is difficult in a lot of places. When I interviewed for Meta I knew I would accept what they gave me as they were offering remote at the time. I did not get the job, but I do actually need to support a family. Heck, where I live in the US, I would jump for less than $200k right now.
- tnel77 5y agoLess than $200k? Might as well off yourself. Just kidding. It shouldn’t need to be said, but don’t actually off yourself.
- germinalphrase 5y agoThen don’t say it?
- germinalphrase 5y agoEdit for sensitivities: then (choose) not to say it (because you identified that you may be causing harm to someone for no more benefit than an ounce of mirth)?
- alistairSH 5y agoYou do realize that $200k is a massive salary damn near anywhere in the world, right? That’s nearly double the median household in San Jose CA. And 40% above the median household in Sunnyvale. Somewhere near the top-5% nationally.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y agoInvariably big companies are causing some harm as a side-effect of their business. They’d usually be better off if their business didn’t cause this harm. This means they employ people whose entire job is to reduce the harm. If your goal is to make the world a better place, these roles can be a good opportunity to do that given the scale involved. From a utilitarian perspective, it’s easy to argue that a person in that position is doing more good than most people in the world. On the other hand, if someone is just trying to make the most money, they may end up causing harm. There are many jobs like that - but the scale is more at bigger companies. I don’t think it makes sense to judge someone based on the company they work for if you don’t actually know whether that individual’s actions are making the world a better place or a worse place.
- rand846633 5y agoWhy would you judge someone purely for their individual actions and not for the action of the group they are actively contributing and thereby enabling? If you are, let’s say the boat mechanic of someone making a business of dumping toxic chemicals in the sea, then you are clearly doing evil. Similarly, if you are doing “harm reduction” at Facebook, you are still enabling them to exist, thereby enabling them to get away with doing more harm overall.
- jseban 5y agoHaha there are crackpots in moral philosophy too, not only physics
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y agoCapitalism is destructive, America is destructive. There’s valid arguments to remove yourself from the system or work within it to make it better.
- newfriend 5y ago> company responsible for polarization, breeding hate, and damaging democracy Oh please.
- 0xy 5y agoI don't think there's anything noble about throwing away millions of dollars (compounding interest when you invest the extra salary) because you're on a single-minded pursuit of a political cult in the name of a company. You tipped your hand with the 'damaging democracy' phrase, which boils down to "my political opponents are allowed to speak on the platform". In pursuit of your quest to destroy the freedom of expression for your political opponents, you severely damage your retirement (in my opinion, deservedly).