4 ms·

I find it hard not to fully agree with this article. Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets

I find it hard not to fully agree with this article. Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? To comment on the writing: that title is genius.

gruez 4y ago
>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies aren't hiring for the sake of headcount. What they're actually after is market dominance, which can be obtained by building a better product, which require people.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  No argument about the point on communism, but as regards the headcount--I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company. It's also a good number to look at for recruiters when said managers start applying for jobs elsewhere.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company How does that translate into tech companies overhiring? Even if managers want more people on their team for progression purposes, they can't exactly expand their team to whatever size they want. They're subject to budgets set by finance.
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
      I could be wrong of course—after all my comment is from the POV of an outsider looking in. But, just going by what you said—if budget is supposed to be a constraint, well, FAANGs have the money to waste, don’t they? Also, hiring for hiring’s sake makes sense from a strategic standpoint especially during their respective growth eras—they needed to deplete the industry of the best programmers around, so that entrepreneurs can’t just startup and compete with them and take away their business.
- xupybd 4y ago
  I think North Korea is doing a good job of limiting growth. Not as a determined goal of their communism but as a result of their corruption, totalitarian control and incompetence. Still credit where credit is due. They are not growing as fast as their capitalist brothers to the south.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    The world will become a north Korea if unchecked growth continues unchecked. When cancer is growing the tumor is healthy and happy. It's when the tumor consumes all available resources and begins dying that it becomes a problem. We are currently in the growth phase of a tumor. The dying phase is for your children or your children's children. Or your children's children's children. We are not sure when it will happen, we only know that it will through logic.
    - grufus 4y ago
      One should not confuse growth as in producing more and more stuff with growth as in progress. Of course you can't produce more stuff ad infinitum. A balance to reach net-zero stuff is necessary to be sustainable. But nothing prevents you from advancing technology ad infinitum. It can be sustainable to keep progressing. You just can't exhaust the resources around you, but you don't have to to keep progressing.
      - kilgnad 4y ago
        No. Technology production requires an energy input. It's fundamental physics. Reversing entropy requires an energy input, and technology is essentially entropy reversing. At the more scientific level you can see this occurring by simply correlating energy expenditure per country per capita with the technological achievements of the respective country. Western countries are among the top energy users and technology developers. The only good thing about technology is it's relatively low rate of decay... or in essence low rate of velocity in the descent back into a high entropy state. Knowledge once gained is kept with minimal additional energy input. But make no mistake, the crystallization of knowledge itself requires a high energy input. Transfer and translations of these technologies also requires energy input which explains why technology doesn't easily cross certain physical boundaries like the borders between countries.
- antifa 4y ago
  > Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth Most are building industrial capacity and modern infrastructure. Degrowth is something you do after growth. Presenting degrowth as something those countries would randomly engage in now is a misunderstanding of what degrowth is and when/why you would do it, and/or complete ignorance of the developmental stage of those countries.

gruez 4y ago

>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies aren't hiring for the sake of headcount. What they're actually after is market dominance, which can be obtained by building a better product, which require people.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
No argument about the point on communism, but as regards the headcount--I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company. It's also a good number to look at for recruiters when said managers start applying for jobs elsewhere.
- gruez 4y ago
  >I was referring to what I've seen mentioned more than a few times in HN comments where, apparently, FAANGs or some teams therein have engineering manager positions where the size of the team that one leads greatly translates to that employee's success (perceived or real) in the company How does that translate into tech companies overhiring? Even if managers want more people on their team for progression purposes, they can't exactly expand their team to whatever size they want. They're subject to budgets set by finance.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    I could be wrong of course—after all my comment is from the POV of an outsider looking in. But, just going by what you said—if budget is supposed to be a constraint, well, FAANGs have the money to waste, don’t they? Also, hiring for hiring’s sake makes sense from a strategic standpoint especially during their respective growth eras—they needed to deplete the industry of the best programmers around, so that entrepreneurs can’t just startup and compete with them and take away their business.
xupybd 4y ago
I think North Korea is doing a good job of limiting growth. Not as a determined goal of their communism but as a result of their corruption, totalitarian control and incompetence. Still credit where credit is due. They are not growing as fast as their capitalist brothers to the south.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  The world will become a north Korea if unchecked growth continues unchecked. When cancer is growing the tumor is healthy and happy. It's when the tumor consumes all available resources and begins dying that it becomes a problem. We are currently in the growth phase of a tumor. The dying phase is for your children or your children's children. Or your children's children's children. We are not sure when it will happen, we only know that it will through logic.
  - grufus 4y ago
    One should not confuse growth as in producing more and more stuff with growth as in progress. Of course you can't produce more stuff ad infinitum. A balance to reach net-zero stuff is necessary to be sustainable. But nothing prevents you from advancing technology ad infinitum. It can be sustainable to keep progressing. You just can't exhaust the resources around you, but you don't have to to keep progressing.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      No. Technology production requires an energy input. It's fundamental physics. Reversing entropy requires an energy input, and technology is essentially entropy reversing. At the more scientific level you can see this occurring by simply correlating energy expenditure per country per capita with the technological achievements of the respective country. Western countries are among the top energy users and technology developers. The only good thing about technology is it's relatively low rate of decay... or in essence low rate of velocity in the descent back into a high entropy state. Knowledge once gained is kept with minimal additional energy input. But make no mistake, the crystallization of knowledge itself requires a high energy input. Transfer and translations of these technologies also requires energy input which explains why technology doesn't easily cross certain physical boundaries like the borders between countries.
antifa 4y ago
> Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth Most are building industrial capacity and modern infrastructure. Degrowth is something you do after growth. Presenting degrowth as something those countries would randomly engage in now is a misunderstanding of what degrowth is and when/why you would do it, and/or complete ignorance of the developmental stage of those countries.