4 ms·

> I just think a lot of static gets injected into these discussions about wage/employers/comp on HN because a large majority of the commenters here are either c

> I just think a lot of static gets injected into these discussions about wage/employers/comp on HN because a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those I've been reading HN for years and I would assume 90% of the comment section or more is people who only want to be employees. I hate to say it, but HN isn't a great place for genuine startup, management, or operation advice. At all. Even product discussions are very customer-centric rather than company-centric, and companies will get roasted here for making good business decisions that don't directly benefit the users. For example, years ago the common refrain on HN was "charge more" and encouraged businesses to raise prices, fire problematic customers that weren't contributing value, and otherwise focus on the company's bottom line. Now whenever a company pulls a "charge more" and raises prices, reduces the free plan, or discontinues services for non-paying customers it's nothing but rage and pitchforks in the comment section. HN comments can still be useful, but it's definitely not a friendly place for actual founders and business owners making tough decisions.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Don't you think that change in sentiment is connected to macroeconomic trends that go beyond the world of startups?
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  Yes but not in the way I think you're implying. Labor makes a rational decision to make as much money as they can, and as highly paid software jobs have become more common, more labor has entered software. Rather than the past when most people were in software to try something new or start something, most software labor these days is in it just for a living. The distinction between labor and capital itself in software was a bit arbitrary as many engineers would go off and become founding or otherwise early engineers in other firms. Thus it makes rational sense for capital-disinterested labor to maximize what they get out of a job, much as corporations are criticized/observed to try and extract as much labor as possible out of employees. Hence it's become en vogue for labor in software to loudly criticize companies for any small slight to extract as much value as possible much just as corporations make decisions to maximize shareholder value. Just as companies can treat their workers badly, labor can malign capital unfairly. It's the end result of corporations with disinterested labor. The two sides try to fight a war while extracting as much value as possible. Labor isn't interested in joining capital the way it once did when software was newer and sees them as permanent adversaries. It's also probably why we're seeing increased attempts at software unionization despite software being so well compensated; labor doesn't see itself as being similar to capital.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    This take is quite accurate, just a few points: 1. By broader macroeconomic trends, I was suggesting that HN commenters might be criticizing "charge more" simply because consumers in general, who may not be able to afford as much as they used to, would be adversely affected. Of course, tech companies who monetize by pursuing any number of alternate policies (adding ads, selling data, F2P loot boxes) would be just as roundly criticized. Lose-lose. 2. I'm not sure how feasible it is to expect the amount of labor crossing into capital to be on par with how it was in the dot-com bubble, or even just a decade before. Sure, a large amount of dumb money continues to slosh around in tech so long as interest rates and other economic conditions remain favorable for investing, but that doesn't mean the number of entrepreneurs will increase proportionally 3. Tech industry trends have shifted over time, and corporations don't simply make decisions at the expense of labor only for the sake of shareholders, but also for the founders themselves (who are also technically shareholders, sure). Witness this rather curious pre-pandemic thread from December 2019 where the HN commentariat almost overwhelmingly denounces joining startups, in favor of joining FAANG or starting one's own startup instead. (Though the latter would seem to contradict the 'less of software labor wants to join capital' idea.) As the second comment puts it pithily, "the math changed." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21865065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21865065
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      I think we essentially agree. #2 is an interesting point to think about. Especially as the FAANGs continue to consolidate, while there will be a greatly increased appetite for software engineers as labor, thanks to network effects (and a bit of #3) you end up with fewer opportunities for labor to become capital and vice-versa.
raducu 5y ago
> I've been reading HN for years and I would assume 90% of the comment section or more is people who only want to be employees. That is correct, I've also noticed over the years. I'm sure the public of HN broadened over the years. I use HN as a more selective/to the point source of tech news without all the karma-whoring that's present on reddit. I'm delighted to read the comments of really smart people around here, mostly more than the article itself.
skybrian 5y ago
I thought "charge more" was in at least in part about patio11 encouraging people to negotiate for higher salaries, and not sell themselves short? This seems rather pro-worker to me. Though he is of course very pro-business as well. Maybe the difference is that some people think you can be both?
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > I thought "charge more" was in at least in part about patio11 encouraging people to negotiate for higher salaries, and not sell themselves short? Not originally. It was about operating a SaaS and charging your customers more. Straight from the man himself back in 2006: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-to-charge-more/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-... The pivot toward salary negotiation stuff came later, presumably because there's a much bigger audience for employee-directed writing on Hacker News than there is for startup founder advice.

Apocryphon 5y ago

Don't you think that change in sentiment is connected to macroeconomic trends that go beyond the world of startups?

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
Yes but not in the way I think you're implying. Labor makes a rational decision to make as much money as they can, and as highly paid software jobs have become more common, more labor has entered software. Rather than the past when most people were in software to try something new or start something, most software labor these days is in it just for a living. The distinction between labor and capital itself in software was a bit arbitrary as many engineers would go off and become founding or otherwise early engineers in other firms. Thus it makes rational sense for capital-disinterested labor to maximize what they get out of a job, much as corporations are criticized/observed to try and extract as much labor as possible out of employees. Hence it's become en vogue for labor in software to loudly criticize companies for any small slight to extract as much value as possible much just as corporations make decisions to maximize shareholder value. Just as companies can treat their workers badly, labor can malign capital unfairly. It's the end result of corporations with disinterested labor. The two sides try to fight a war while extracting as much value as possible. Labor isn't interested in joining capital the way it once did when software was newer and sees them as permanent adversaries. It's also probably why we're seeing increased attempts at software unionization despite software being so well compensated; labor doesn't see itself as being similar to capital.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  This take is quite accurate, just a few points: 1. By broader macroeconomic trends, I was suggesting that HN commenters might be criticizing "charge more" simply because consumers in general, who may not be able to afford as much as they used to, would be adversely affected. Of course, tech companies who monetize by pursuing any number of alternate policies (adding ads, selling data, F2P loot boxes) would be just as roundly criticized. Lose-lose. 2. I'm not sure how feasible it is to expect the amount of labor crossing into capital to be on par with how it was in the dot-com bubble, or even just a decade before. Sure, a large amount of dumb money continues to slosh around in tech so long as interest rates and other economic conditions remain favorable for investing, but that doesn't mean the number of entrepreneurs will increase proportionally 3. Tech industry trends have shifted over time, and corporations don't simply make decisions at the expense of labor only for the sake of shareholders, but also for the founders themselves (who are also technically shareholders, sure). Witness this rather curious pre-pandemic thread from December 2019 where the HN commentariat almost overwhelmingly denounces joining startups, in favor of joining FAANG or starting one's own startup instead. (Though the latter would seem to contradict the 'less of software labor wants to join capital' idea.) As the second comment puts it pithily, "the math changed." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21865065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21865065
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    I think we essentially agree. #2 is an interesting point to think about. Especially as the FAANGs continue to consolidate, while there will be a greatly increased appetite for software engineers as labor, thanks to network effects (and a bit of #3) you end up with fewer opportunities for labor to become capital and vice-versa.

raducu 5y ago

> I've been reading HN for years and I would assume 90% of the comment section or more is people who only want to be employees. That is correct, I've also noticed over the years. I'm sure the public of HN broadened over the years. I use HN as a more selective/to the point source of tech news without all the karma-whoring that's present on reddit. I'm delighted to read the comments of really smart people around here, mostly more than the article itself.

skybrian 5y ago

I thought "charge more" was in at least in part about patio11 encouraging people to negotiate for higher salaries, and not sell themselves short? This seems rather pro-worker to me. Though he is of course very pro-business as well. Maybe the difference is that some people think you can be both?

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I thought "charge more" was in at least in part about patio11 encouraging people to negotiate for higher salaries, and not sell themselves short? Not originally. It was about operating a SaaS and charging your customers more. Straight from the man himself back in 2006: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-to-charge-more/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2006/08/14/you-can-probably-stand-... The pivot toward salary negotiation stuff came later, presumably because there's a much bigger audience for employee-directed writing on Hacker News than there is for startup founder advice.