8 ms·

I don't live in NY or Seattle. The tech sector is much smaller where I am. I've never seen it be advantageous to treat other people as someone I'm in competit

by kemiller2002 4y ago

I don't live in NY or Seattle. The tech sector is much smaller where I am. I've never seen it be advantageous to treat other people as someone I'm in competition with. I've been laid off. Yeah it sucks, but no job is forever, and being nice to people means I get to sleep at night. I've also never seen anyone who can't be replaced. Time and time again something wasn't documented, and other devs/dbas/admins stepped in and figured it out. I'd rather be the guy people say, "I help out when there is a problem" instead of, "I hate working with him, because I never know what he's doing." It's nicer, and makes it easier to work with someone you did before. That's just me though. Edit: I've also been on the hiring side and passed on people I know like that. My job is to mitigate risk, and those people are a liability.

eternalban 4y ago
Fine, I'll play the political officer here and try to help you understand the error of your position. /g Your post is entirely singular and individualistic in perspective. We could look at the situation differently, from the perspective of OP. In this case, it would be you and your politically aware colleagues who understand the necessities of the situation. To put it boldly, it is a revolutionary movement that seeks to introduce a much needed balance into the equation of capital and labor in the age of thinking machines. You and your colleagues will get along just fine, if you are clear eyed comrades. And you will sleep even more soundly, knowing that you are not only helping your contemporaries, but also laying the foundation for a more equitable society for your progeny.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
"In competition" is a fundamental misunderstanding of the interests at play. It's adversarial whether you integrate that understanding into your actions or not. And acknowledging the adversarial nature of workers and owners doesn't mean you have to be nasty to anyone on an interpersonal level.
- qsort 4y ago
  Some aspects are adversarial, some aspects aren't. How much compensation I get is adversarial. How much documentation I write or how many internal tools I develop isn't adversarial, not even if you put la liberté guidant le peuple above the fold.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    > How much compensation I get is adversarial. It's not adversarial, it's set by market conditions. Only collusion can turn it into an adversarial matter, as seen e.g. when Big Tech CEO's were shown to have entered into a secret agreement not to poach each other's employees.
    - qsort 4y ago
      A specific instance of a salary negotiation can be reasonably modeled as a zero-sum game. My broader point is that zero-sum sub-games don't make the entire game zero-sum.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Exactly. The company (owners plus workers) getting a big pot of money is not adversarial, it's cooperative. Dividing the pot of money is where it gets adversarial. But spend all your time focusing on how to divide the pot always (at least in the long run) means the whole group loses out on the big pot of money.
    - jgeada 4y ago
      Management decides what portion of the pot gets to be divided by the workers, and much of that pot you might get. You're not even a part of that discussion. You are an individual, management is not. They have negotiating power because they see what everyone else gets paid, you don't. Your only viable threat is walking away, and for most people that is not a credible threat. Your perception of your negotiation skills is likely very biased by the Dunning-Kruger effect: you rarely use negotiation skills in adversarial settings, so your perception of how good you are at it compared to professional negotiators is likely highly inflated.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > acknowledging the adversarial nature of workers and owners It is not adversarial. It is a mutually beneficial, win-win relationship. It's the unions who (mistakenly) frame it as a win-lose relationship, which is why businesses don't like dealing with them.
  - l33t233372 4y ago
    It is absolutely adversarial. One side wants one thing, the other side wants the opposite. That’s what an adversarial situation is.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Of course it is adversarial (in a game theoretical sense). You are not doing any favours to the company and the company is not doing any favours to you; both are trying to extract as much value from the other as possible. Now if we were talking about a worker's co-operative (or any company where a significant portion of ownership laid with the workers), now that's a different story...
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Smart businesses know that in order to prosper, you have to make win-win deals. Free market economies grow and prosper because people are making win-win deals. Win-lose deals are the path to poverty and misery.
      - guelo 4y ago
        The point is that capital is currently trying to change the deal to win-lose and it's stupid to carry on as if we're still in the win-win glory days.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        If you think you're on the losing end, say "no".
      - 4y ago
shrimpx 4y ago
> treat other people as someone I'm in competition with Your coworkers are not your adversaries, your employer is. When the going's good, each side is generous. When your employer withdraws their generosity, it pays to think twice whether your continued generosity works in your interest, and more broadly in the interest of the industry, and society. The limit being a grueling, subpar environment where underpaid and overworked employees find solace in comradery.
- foobarian 4y ago
  I mean... at the end of the day there is no union, and the rest is up to supply and demand. If there is too much supply then it doesn't matter how much knowledge we withdraw or how little we work.
  - shrimpx 4y ago
    It's hard to argue with that. I guess this article is a call to arms of sorts. There's no formal union but there can be a viral thought movement.
m463 4y ago
One time I was at a company that had layoffs. The effect on the culture was pronounced and teamwork went out the window. Everyone was worried they were next, so they put their head down, concentrated on their own tasks and didn't help each other. Layoffs can really destroy a company's culture, especially multiple rounds.
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
One of the things that the colonial powers did, in Africa and South America, was to pit the various tribes and factions against each other. The British even moved northern tribes and Indian workers into their southern colonies. It was pretty damn effective. The damage still resonates to this day, long after the colonial powers left. No one paid any attention to the man behind the curtain; they were too busy killing each other.

eternalban 4y ago

Fine, I'll play the political officer here and try to help you understand the error of your position. /g Your post is entirely singular and individualistic in perspective. We could look at the situation differently, from the perspective of OP. In this case, it would be you and your politically aware colleagues who understand the necessities of the situation. To put it boldly, it is a revolutionary movement that seeks to introduce a much needed balance into the equation of capital and labor in the age of thinking machines. You and your colleagues will get along just fine, if you are clear eyed comrades. And you will sleep even more soundly, knowing that you are not only helping your contemporaries, but also laying the foundation for a more equitable society for your progeny.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

"In competition" is a fundamental misunderstanding of the interests at play. It's adversarial whether you integrate that understanding into your actions or not. And acknowledging the adversarial nature of workers and owners doesn't mean you have to be nasty to anyone on an interpersonal level.

qsort 4y ago
Some aspects are adversarial, some aspects aren't. How much compensation I get is adversarial. How much documentation I write or how many internal tools I develop isn't adversarial, not even if you put la liberté guidant le peuple above the fold.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > How much compensation I get is adversarial. It's not adversarial, it's set by market conditions. Only collusion can turn it into an adversarial matter, as seen e.g. when Big Tech CEO's were shown to have entered into a secret agreement not to poach each other's employees.
  - qsort 4y ago
    A specific instance of a salary negotiation can be reasonably modeled as a zero-sum game. My broader point is that zero-sum sub-games don't make the entire game zero-sum.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Exactly. The company (owners plus workers) getting a big pot of money is not adversarial, it's cooperative. Dividing the pot of money is where it gets adversarial. But spend all your time focusing on how to divide the pot always (at least in the long run) means the whole group loses out on the big pot of money.
  - jgeada 4y ago
    Management decides what portion of the pot gets to be divided by the workers, and much of that pot you might get. You're not even a part of that discussion. You are an individual, management is not. They have negotiating power because they see what everyone else gets paid, you don't. Your only viable threat is walking away, and for most people that is not a credible threat. Your perception of your negotiation skills is likely very biased by the Dunning-Kruger effect: you rarely use negotiation skills in adversarial settings, so your perception of how good you are at it compared to professional negotiators is likely highly inflated.
WalterBright 4y ago
> acknowledging the adversarial nature of workers and owners It is not adversarial. It is a mutually beneficial, win-win relationship. It's the unions who (mistakenly) frame it as a win-lose relationship, which is why businesses don't like dealing with them.
- l33t233372 4y ago
  It is absolutely adversarial. One side wants one thing, the other side wants the opposite. That’s what an adversarial situation is.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Of course it is adversarial (in a game theoretical sense). You are not doing any favours to the company and the company is not doing any favours to you; both are trying to extract as much value from the other as possible. Now if we were talking about a worker's co-operative (or any company where a significant portion of ownership laid with the workers), now that's a different story...
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Smart businesses know that in order to prosper, you have to make win-win deals. Free market economies grow and prosper because people are making win-win deals. Win-lose deals are the path to poverty and misery.
    - guelo 4y ago
      The point is that capital is currently trying to change the deal to win-lose and it's stupid to carry on as if we're still in the win-win glory days.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        If you think you're on the losing end, say "no".
    - 4y ago

shrimpx 4y ago

> treat other people as someone I'm in competition with Your coworkers are not your adversaries, your employer is. When the going's good, each side is generous. When your employer withdraws their generosity, it pays to think twice whether your continued generosity works in your interest, and more broadly in the interest of the industry, and society. The limit being a grueling, subpar environment where underpaid and overworked employees find solace in comradery.

foobarian 4y ago
I mean... at the end of the day there is no union, and the rest is up to supply and demand. If there is too much supply then it doesn't matter how much knowledge we withdraw or how little we work.
- shrimpx 4y ago
  It's hard to argue with that. I guess this article is a call to arms of sorts. There's no formal union but there can be a viral thought movement.

m463 4y ago

One time I was at a company that had layoffs. The effect on the culture was pronounced and teamwork went out the window. Everyone was worried they were next, so they put their head down, concentrated on their own tasks and didn't help each other. Layoffs can really destroy a company's culture, especially multiple rounds.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

One of the things that the colonial powers did, in Africa and South America, was to pit the various tribes and factions against each other. The British even moved northern tribes and Indian workers into their southern colonies. It was pretty damn effective. The damage still resonates to this day, long after the colonial powers left. No one paid any attention to the man behind the curtain; they were too busy killing each other.