3 ms·

Any HNers gotten more interested in organizing tech since this experience?

by wahnfrieden 3y ago

kibwen 3y ago
Techies still see themselves as temporarily embarrassed owners rather than laborers. I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon.
- capitalsigma 3y ago
  Techies (at least at meta) are owners in the sense that a large % of their comp is in the form of equity, so it is in their interest for the company to maximize stock price.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- gfdsgfsdgfs 3y ago
  It's ironic how you replaced "millionaires" in that quote since many engineers are now millionaires.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Your class is not based on the number in your bank account, but on how you make that money. If you are dependent on an Owner to pay you for your time and labor, you are a worker, regardless of what token "riches" you are paid to believe otherwise. You don't go from worker to owner until you buy three properties to rent out or start your own business.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    The quote contrasted “millionaire” with “proletariat” and was clearly a reference to status at least well into the petit bourgeoisie if not the haut bourgeoisie. A mere millionaire is a lot less rich today b/c inflation (though probably still at least petit bourgeois.)
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      A low millionaire today can't even retire - IOW can't even stop working, lol.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        The petit bourgeois as classically defined are dependent on applying their labor to their own capital (though other patterns of mixed capital/labor dependence fit the class, and are perhaps more common now), unlike the haut borgeois who rent labor to apply to their capital and the proletariat who must rent out labor to owners of capital, so not being able to stop working without a significant lifestyle compromise isn’t inconsistent with being petit bourgeois.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        yup, agreed. I'm just highlighting the absurdity of how millionaire status today can sound like safe living or big winners of early employee startup lottery yet still end up as precarious as the rest of us in terms of relying on work day to day. understood the theory isn't all about that. I reflect on work because I think so much of liberation can begin with freeing peoples time/regaining 'real' control of their time
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
humanrebar 3y ago
Why would a union boss be more supportive of WFH and paying for value worked instead of hours worked? I see the incentives plausibly running in the other direction. Not to mention the fact that unions often support politicians I would never vote for, let alone donate to or organize for.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  not necessarily unions. i didn't specify that. wildcat movements are also valuable.

Any HNers gotten more interested in organizing tech since this experience?

kibwen 3y ago

Techies still see themselves as temporarily embarrassed owners rather than laborers. I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon.

capitalsigma 3y ago
Techies (at least at meta) are owners in the sense that a large % of their comp is in the form of equity, so it is in their interest for the company to maximize stock price.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
gfdsgfsdgfs 3y ago
It's ironic how you replaced "millionaires" in that quote since many engineers are now millionaires.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Your class is not based on the number in your bank account, but on how you make that money. If you are dependent on an Owner to pay you for your time and labor, you are a worker, regardless of what token "riches" you are paid to believe otherwise. You don't go from worker to owner until you buy three properties to rent out or start your own business.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The quote contrasted “millionaire” with “proletariat” and was clearly a reference to status at least well into the petit bourgeoisie if not the haut bourgeoisie. A mere millionaire is a lot less rich today b/c inflation (though probably still at least petit bourgeois.)
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    A low millionaire today can't even retire - IOW can't even stop working, lol.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      The petit bourgeois as classically defined are dependent on applying their labor to their own capital (though other patterns of mixed capital/labor dependence fit the class, and are perhaps more common now), unlike the haut borgeois who rent labor to apply to their capital and the proletariat who must rent out labor to owners of capital, so not being able to stop working without a significant lifestyle compromise isn’t inconsistent with being petit bourgeois.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        yup, agreed. I'm just highlighting the absurdity of how millionaire status today can sound like safe living or big winners of early employee startup lottery yet still end up as precarious as the rest of us in terms of relying on work day to day. understood the theory isn't all about that. I reflect on work because I think so much of liberation can begin with freeing peoples time/regaining 'real' control of their time

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

humanrebar 3y ago

Why would a union boss be more supportive of WFH and paying for value worked instead of hours worked? I see the incentives plausibly running in the other direction. Not to mention the fact that unions often support politicians I would never vote for, let alone donate to or organize for.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
not necessarily unions. i didn't specify that. wildcat movements are also valuable.