3 ms·

My takeaway from what you said is that the employee-company relationship is inherently adversarial to a degree and to not forget that. In general, I wholehearte

My takeaway from what you said is that the employee-company relationship is inherently adversarial to a degree and to not forget that. In general, I wholeheartedly agree. However, > don’t pay any mind to burning bridges not all bridges should be burned. If you mean the bridge between you and a company, yes, said bridges should not be treated as anything more than a rope bridge over a canyon. I would limit burning bridges between individuals because the relationships you create are more important than just about everything else you will do on the job. Unless I really hated my boss or supervisor, I would not be so quick to burn that level of bridges.

jojobas 4y ago
>is inherently adversarial Until they invented stock options and started handing them out left right and centre.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  This did not change the inherently adversarial nature. It just obscured it by adding a veneer of "see? our interests are the same as your interests!", despite this being true of just one (small) aspect of the union of all interests.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    Well then any kind of trade is adversarial as it's beneficial to defraud your trade partners. Something something prisoner's dilemma Nash equilibrium tit for tat.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      No, the dilemma with employers and employees comes from the differing numbers thereof. The fact that there are (relatively) few employers, and that these employers have already chosen to seek their fortune (or that of their shareholders) by tapping the excess value of their employees, means that it is much easier for their interests to all align, without coordination. However, the vastly greater numbers that make up the employees have no natural alignment, and tend to be too diverse in their own personal agendas to align even deliberately. This asymmetry is the principle reason why unions, though imperfect, are a great idea. They attempt to gloss over the vast range in the agendas of individual employees by forcing employers to deal with an aggregate. The alignment of interests among the employees may not be perfect with a union, but it is a lot closer than it would be otherwise, and can offer (sometimes) a real balance to the easily aligned interests of employers.
      - jojobas 4y ago
        The inherent problem with a union is that, unlike with metalworkers, stonemasons or train drivers, there is still no way to tell a capable software developer from a bootcamp wannabe, and people in the same position can differ 10-100x in output. Call me an elitist gatekeeper, I don't want to pay dues to protect dunces and have my employers keep paying them.
        ticviking 4y ago
        I want a guild that can drum dunces out and refuse to promote them past apprentice.
- somsak2 4y ago
  who's handing out equity "left right and centre?" Any place that I've worked or heard of has given comparative peanuts to workers while the people at the top / founders are paid 100-1000x.

jojobas 4y ago

>is inherently adversarial Until they invented stock options and started handing them out left right and centre.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
This did not change the inherently adversarial nature. It just obscured it by adding a veneer of "see? our interests are the same as your interests!", despite this being true of just one (small) aspect of the union of all interests.
- jojobas 4y ago
  Well then any kind of trade is adversarial as it's beneficial to defraud your trade partners. Something something prisoner's dilemma Nash equilibrium tit for tat.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    No, the dilemma with employers and employees comes from the differing numbers thereof. The fact that there are (relatively) few employers, and that these employers have already chosen to seek their fortune (or that of their shareholders) by tapping the excess value of their employees, means that it is much easier for their interests to all align, without coordination. However, the vastly greater numbers that make up the employees have no natural alignment, and tend to be too diverse in their own personal agendas to align even deliberately. This asymmetry is the principle reason why unions, though imperfect, are a great idea. They attempt to gloss over the vast range in the agendas of individual employees by forcing employers to deal with an aggregate. The alignment of interests among the employees may not be perfect with a union, but it is a lot closer than it would be otherwise, and can offer (sometimes) a real balance to the easily aligned interests of employers.
    - jojobas 4y ago
      The inherent problem with a union is that, unlike with metalworkers, stonemasons or train drivers, there is still no way to tell a capable software developer from a bootcamp wannabe, and people in the same position can differ 10-100x in output. Call me an elitist gatekeeper, I don't want to pay dues to protect dunces and have my employers keep paying them.
      - ticviking 4y ago
        I want a guild that can drum dunces out and refuse to promote them past apprentice.
somsak2 4y ago
who's handing out equity "left right and centre?" Any place that I've worked or heard of has given comparative peanuts to workers while the people at the top / founders are paid 100-1000x.