5 ms·

Second hand information: Apple on average takes 2 years to fill an empty position. They almost never lay anyone off, just find another role for someone. It's w

Second hand information: Apple on average takes 2 years to fill an empty position. They almost never lay anyone off, just find another role for someone. It's where the evil corporation narrative falls down, apple makes sure they hire the right people and then keep them. It's the way it should be. But even for other tech companies, people on HN need to look outside of tech and see what life is like, there are people on here who literally had the best possible jobs in the entire history of humanity, with prepaid 3 meals a day, free daycare, free gym, free everything, yet somehow think that these companies were evil exploitative capitalists. I'm sorry - no. These were the best employers in the world. Now there's a serious downturn in the economy, they are firing like 5-10% of staff. That's nothing. Try being a factory worker at a Tyson food factory in the midwest, or a foxconn factory in china, then you'll understood how good these tech companies treat their employees.

toyg 4y ago
The fact that they coddle some of their workers (typically a very small minority), doesn't mean they are not exploitative capitalist enterprises. The two are different concepts.
jonathankoren 4y ago
I’m sorry, but this is just class war crap. Instead of pitting workers against each other like the plutocrats want, always ALWAYS remember that even with all that non-monetary compensation, the executives are still taking more 100x of the value created by the worker. This is like complaining about some athlete getting paid millions to risk their health for entertainment, while not once giving a thought about the billionaire that pays them. No one is buying a ticket to watch Jerry Jones sit up in a skybox. Similarly, no one buys a piece of software or a chicken breast because of some exec cruising away on inertia.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Bingo. Billionaires win when they convince thousandaires that millionaires are the real problem.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    They used to not be paid so much in the past. What's the scientific rationale that they should be pay more than before? I don't think there's any science involved on either side, it's simply a cultural practice that has arise with the growth of corporate earnings. On the flip side, if average worker comp has arisen only 12% since 1978, maybe that's not a scientifically-determined outcome either. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percent-and-now-make-278-times-the-average-worker.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percen... https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
    - cloutchaser 4y ago
      Actually there is a reason for the increase recently, globalisation and the internet. While a top exec in the 1960 might be serving a few million customers, maybe tens of millions, now it is in the billions (also population has increased). By the way, do you support the corporate raiders of the 1980s who were also extremely annoyed at how much execs got paid and fired them and reduced their pay? And they actually did it by putting their money where their mouth was and became shareholders in these companies, at great personal risk to themselves.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Why hasn't worker pay arisen proportionally, since if they're working for multinationals they are similarly serving millions to billions? > And they actually did it by putting their money where their mouth was and became shareholders in these companies, at great personal risk to themselves. Judging by the steady growth in exec comp in Figure A of the second link, it doesn't seem like their efforts were very successful.
        cloutchaser 4y ago

toyg 4y ago

The fact that they coddle some of their workers (typically a very small minority), doesn't mean they are not exploitative capitalist enterprises. The two are different concepts.

jonathankoren 4y ago

I’m sorry, but this is just class war crap. Instead of pitting workers against each other like the plutocrats want, always ALWAYS remember that even with all that non-monetary compensation, the executives are still taking more 100x of the value created by the worker. This is like complaining about some athlete getting paid millions to risk their health for entertainment, while not once giving a thought about the billionaire that pays them. No one is buying a ticket to watch Jerry Jones sit up in a skybox. Similarly, no one buys a piece of software or a chicken breast because of some exec cruising away on inertia.

ryandrake 4y ago
Bingo. Billionaires win when they convince thousandaires that millionaires are the real problem.
cloutchaser 4y ago
[flagged]
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  They used to not be paid so much in the past. What's the scientific rationale that they should be pay more than before? I don't think there's any science involved on either side, it's simply a cultural practice that has arise with the growth of corporate earnings. On the flip side, if average worker comp has arisen only 12% since 1978, maybe that's not a scientifically-determined outcome either. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percent-and-now-make-278-times-the-average-worker.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percen... https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    Actually there is a reason for the increase recently, globalisation and the internet. While a top exec in the 1960 might be serving a few million customers, maybe tens of millions, now it is in the billions (also population has increased). By the way, do you support the corporate raiders of the 1980s who were also extremely annoyed at how much execs got paid and fired them and reduced their pay? And they actually did it by putting their money where their mouth was and became shareholders in these companies, at great personal risk to themselves.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Why hasn't worker pay arisen proportionally, since if they're working for multinationals they are similarly serving millions to billions? > And they actually did it by putting their money where their mouth was and became shareholders in these companies, at great personal risk to themselves. Judging by the steady growth in exec comp in Figure A of the second link, it doesn't seem like their efforts were very successful.
      - cloutchaser 4y ago