3 ms·

Not much different than arguments about fast food chains overtaking healthy food, or supermarkets eating up local groceries, or homogenous retail chains driving

Not much different than arguments about fast food chains overtaking healthy food, or supermarkets eating up local groceries, or homogenous retail chains driving out the mom-and-pops. The thing about those arguments is, they were right. Those trends did transform our lives in many negative ways (in addition to positive) and we did see it coming. What I don't like is the prognosis, which seems to think we should somehow stop or reverse the current transformation. I just doubt that's possible. Instead, we should take some lessons from the past and this time around we can proactively ameliorate the worst aspects of the ongoing changes. Something we completely failed to do with chain takeovers or mega mergers or outsourcing or all of the other corporate trends that harm, either directly or through side effects, the vast majority of working people.

tablespoon 4y ago
> What I don't like is the prognosis, which seems to think we should somehow stop or reverse the current transformation. I just doubt that's possible. Why not? Sometimes change is just plain for the worse. However, passivity and helplessness in the face of change are attitudes that are common and frequently encouraged in modern society, and that is another problem that needs to be addressed.
- sidpatil 4y ago
  > Instead, we should take some lessons from the past and this time around we can proactively ameliorate the worst aspects of the ongoing changes. That doesn't sound like passivity or helplessness to me.
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
That's a fair train of thought, and I do agree it's better to embrace the future than to resist it. > Instead, we should take some lessons from the past and this time around we can proactively ameliorate the worst aspects of the ongoing changes. Yeah, I like this way of slicing it. What do you think are those downsides, and how could they be ameliorated?
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  I’ve WFH’d for about 8 years now and have loved it, but have also heard so many times how it can lead to social isolation, and I can definitely see how that happens. I also didn’t start it until I was in my 30’s when I’d already had the benefit of working together with people and building a strong social network of friends and colleagues (and the skills to continue making new ones). I think with a more remote-focused industry, it still makes sense to have coworking and neighborhood satellite offices. I think coworking was just a bit ahead of it’s time. The set wave really started breaking with COVID. It might be a little tougher trying to complain about your code or describe your refactor to someone at another company altogether. But it could also be nice to have a completely disinterested (in corporate terms) party who can lend a sympathetic ear. Meetups were already a thing but I’ve petered out on them, not sure if that’s a personal or widespread phenomenon. But I do crave that again. I’ve been wanting to start a book club, as well. The two aren’t entirely mutually exclusive. Sometimes old things can be new again. I also miss attending tech conferences and am looking at some this year. And I know this idea has been done to death, but I also very much value my time at my community garden and athletic clubs (not a gym–a community organization). Doing clinics at both have introduced me to new people to continue enjoying the respective activities, as well as just making general friends that enrich each others’ lives. I used to think social media could help with this kind of stuff but Corporate Social Media fell flat on that promise for me. The only social media I use now are this site, mailing lists for said organizations, and text/calls on my iPhone. Maybe we need a speed-dating thing for making new acquaintances. Online people talk so much about social anxiety, we need to get comfortable with putting ourselves out there and embrace the fact that things might get weird. Sometimes that makes it interesting, and sometimes that is a good thing.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > That's a fair train of thought, and I do agree it's better to embrace the future than to resist it. Would you agree it's better to passively accept some future being pushed on you, or try to influence the shape of that future? There's no such thing as "the future;" there are many possible futures. One of those possibilities "the future" being sold by Uber et. al is rejected, they go bankrupt or pivot to something entirely different, and all except a few are better off for it.
dehrmann 4y ago
> What I don't like is the prognosis, which seems to think we should somehow stop or reverse the current transformation. I just doubt that's possible. I just listened to a podcast episode on musicians going on a recording strike in the 40's because recorded music was killing the careers of live musicians. It did, but you weren't going to stop it, either.
- theironhammer 4y ago
  Maybe because musicians were able to make money from recordings is the reason why it wasn't stopped.
fulafel 4y ago
> The tech industry’s economic dream is building a nightmare for the rest of us: a society more firmly divided between the served and their servants, where the “friction” of human interaction is replaced with digital interfaces. It’s an antisocial future — but it’s one that we still have time to stop. This seems to me suggests adjusting the course toward something better, and we've seen that regulating the market can make a difference in that regard eg in how the EU is (mildly so far) regulating data and tech giants. It certainly seems possible. I wouldn't say "we can't stop so this isn't constructive".
rhaway84773 4y ago
I don’t think we should stop anything necessarily. But we should insist that these companies employees are paid and provided benefits to like employees, and not allow companies to offload all expenses and risks into vulnerable people by calling them “gig workers”. There is massive asymmetry, for example, in the ability of an Uber driver driving their own car and Uber, in the information they have about the actual risks and costs involved in driving that car. Companies take advantage of that asymmetry in information to exploit workers. That is something we should indeed stop and make sure the employees are paid properly, given proper benefits and protections.
winternett 4y ago
For me I think we should think about stopping or reversing some aspects of this toxic work environment transformation, it's about proper regulation against monopolies. We have to admit that the current climate of "struggle until you go viral for 5 seconds" is going to devastate the world and only serve to enrich the already wealthy people that own and run tech platforms. Trust fund babies are able to thrive and become leaders in this type of model because wealth hoarders can easily buy themselves past the threshold of visibility and profit... Right now, the people we are seeing most are people that spend a lot of money on ads and marketing to boost their visibility.. Organic visibility is a dead wish, perpetuated by social and other platforms to keep people struggling towards success without hope. In order to start a business or other venture from scratch, the organization needs to have lots of capital for marketing alone over product development and overhead costs, that makes upward mobility for anyone middle class or below damn near impossible. This is a plague on the entire world right now, as disadvantaged people resort to crime or other negative schemes to fund their goals in legitimate business. The entry bar is set abnormally high, and talent no longer is a measure of success, it simply becomes who had money to rise. This type of controlled opportunity environment breeds negative predatory behaviors all around, wealth hoarding, mediocrity, more monopolies, and inherent unfairness that will eventually keep everyone unemployed and underemployed while creating even more powerful meritocracies and lobbies that impact everything form real estate to politics. This is a very serious issue, and a deep threat towards world economic stability in my opinion.
- jwestbury 4y ago
  > The entry bar is set abnormally high, and talent no longer is a measure of success, it simply becomes who had money to rise. When was this NOT the case, though? The monetarily successful have always been overwhelmingly from monetarily successful backgrounds.
  - tarboreus 4y ago
    I don't know, my immigrant grantparents did legit do very well in the US, like much of their cohort.
  - 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

> What I don't like is the prognosis, which seems to think we should somehow stop or reverse the current transformation. I just doubt that's possible. Why not? Sometimes change is just plain for the worse. However, passivity and helplessness in the face of change are attitudes that are common and frequently encouraged in modern society, and that is another problem that needs to be addressed.

sidpatil 4y ago
> Instead, we should take some lessons from the past and this time around we can proactively ameliorate the worst aspects of the ongoing changes. That doesn't sound like passivity or helplessness to me.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

That's a fair train of thought, and I do agree it's better to embrace the future than to resist it. > Instead, we should take some lessons from the past and this time around we can proactively ameliorate the worst aspects of the ongoing changes. Yeah, I like this way of slicing it. What do you think are those downsides, and how could they be ameliorated?

sixstringtheory 4y ago
I’ve WFH’d for about 8 years now and have loved it, but have also heard so many times how it can lead to social isolation, and I can definitely see how that happens. I also didn’t start it until I was in my 30’s when I’d already had the benefit of working together with people and building a strong social network of friends and colleagues (and the skills to continue making new ones). I think with a more remote-focused industry, it still makes sense to have coworking and neighborhood satellite offices. I think coworking was just a bit ahead of it’s time. The set wave really started breaking with COVID. It might be a little tougher trying to complain about your code or describe your refactor to someone at another company altogether. But it could also be nice to have a completely disinterested (in corporate terms) party who can lend a sympathetic ear. Meetups were already a thing but I’ve petered out on them, not sure if that’s a personal or widespread phenomenon. But I do crave that again. I’ve been wanting to start a book club, as well. The two aren’t entirely mutually exclusive. Sometimes old things can be new again. I also miss attending tech conferences and am looking at some this year. And I know this idea has been done to death, but I also very much value my time at my community garden and athletic clubs (not a gym–a community organization). Doing clinics at both have introduced me to new people to continue enjoying the respective activities, as well as just making general friends that enrich each others’ lives. I used to think social media could help with this kind of stuff but Corporate Social Media fell flat on that promise for me. The only social media I use now are this site, mailing lists for said organizations, and text/calls on my iPhone. Maybe we need a speed-dating thing for making new acquaintances. Online people talk so much about social anxiety, we need to get comfortable with putting ourselves out there and embrace the fact that things might get weird. Sometimes that makes it interesting, and sometimes that is a good thing.
tablespoon 4y ago
> That's a fair train of thought, and I do agree it's better to embrace the future than to resist it. Would you agree it's better to passively accept some future being pushed on you, or try to influence the shape of that future? There's no such thing as "the future;" there are many possible futures. One of those possibilities "the future" being sold by Uber et. al is rejected, they go bankrupt or pivot to something entirely different, and all except a few are better off for it.

dehrmann 4y ago

> What I don't like is the prognosis, which seems to think we should somehow stop or reverse the current transformation. I just doubt that's possible. I just listened to a podcast episode on musicians going on a recording strike in the 40's because recorded music was killing the careers of live musicians. It did, but you weren't going to stop it, either.

theironhammer 4y ago
Maybe because musicians were able to make money from recordings is the reason why it wasn't stopped.

fulafel 4y ago

> The tech industry’s economic dream is building a nightmare for the rest of us: a society more firmly divided between the served and their servants, where the “friction” of human interaction is replaced with digital interfaces. It’s an antisocial future — but it’s one that we still have time to stop. This seems to me suggests adjusting the course toward something better, and we've seen that regulating the market can make a difference in that regard eg in how the EU is (mildly so far) regulating data and tech giants. It certainly seems possible. I wouldn't say "we can't stop so this isn't constructive".

rhaway84773 4y ago

I don’t think we should stop anything necessarily. But we should insist that these companies employees are paid and provided benefits to like employees, and not allow companies to offload all expenses and risks into vulnerable people by calling them “gig workers”. There is massive asymmetry, for example, in the ability of an Uber driver driving their own car and Uber, in the information they have about the actual risks and costs involved in driving that car. Companies take advantage of that asymmetry in information to exploit workers. That is something we should indeed stop and make sure the employees are paid properly, given proper benefits and protections.

winternett 4y ago

For me I think we should think about stopping or reversing some aspects of this toxic work environment transformation, it's about proper regulation against monopolies. We have to admit that the current climate of "struggle until you go viral for 5 seconds" is going to devastate the world and only serve to enrich the already wealthy people that own and run tech platforms. Trust fund babies are able to thrive and become leaders in this type of model because wealth hoarders can easily buy themselves past the threshold of visibility and profit... Right now, the people we are seeing most are people that spend a lot of money on ads and marketing to boost their visibility.. Organic visibility is a dead wish, perpetuated by social and other platforms to keep people struggling towards success without hope. In order to start a business or other venture from scratch, the organization needs to have lots of capital for marketing alone over product development and overhead costs, that makes upward mobility for anyone middle class or below damn near impossible. This is a plague on the entire world right now, as disadvantaged people resort to crime or other negative schemes to fund their goals in legitimate business. The entry bar is set abnormally high, and talent no longer is a measure of success, it simply becomes who had money to rise. This type of controlled opportunity environment breeds negative predatory behaviors all around, wealth hoarding, mediocrity, more monopolies, and inherent unfairness that will eventually keep everyone unemployed and underemployed while creating even more powerful meritocracies and lobbies that impact everything form real estate to politics. This is a very serious issue, and a deep threat towards world economic stability in my opinion.

jwestbury 4y ago
> The entry bar is set abnormally high, and talent no longer is a measure of success, it simply becomes who had money to rise. When was this NOT the case, though? The monetarily successful have always been overwhelmingly from monetarily successful backgrounds.
- tarboreus 4y ago
  I don't know, my immigrant grantparents did legit do very well in the US, like much of their cohort.
- 4y ago