5 ms·

People remain in bad situations for many reasons that have nothing to do with their skills, performance, or quality of work. Maybe they have a medical conditio

People remain in bad situations for many reasons that have nothing to do with their skills, performance, or quality of work. Maybe they have a medical condition and cannot risk disrupting their healthcare even for a short time, maybe their housing is at risk, maybe their partner was just laid off, etc. Please do not insult those with fewer options.

rekabis 3y ago
What you used as an example is fully encapsulated by my use of the term “desperate”. Those chained to their job via the medical insurance it provides, or housing disruption, or family income stream, are indeed desperate for said insurance or housing stability or income stream. This is not insulting in the least, merely factual. And when those who are talented enough with the ability to easily jump ship actually do so in droves, the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining. When you remove 9 of your top 10 people, the company is still being “hollowed out” even if that 10th person is head and shoulders above the other 9. One person cannot shoulder the work of another 9 who have left, that is impossible. The company will decline regardless of how much of a superstar programmer that one remaining person is.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >This is not insulting in the least, merely factual. it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate", yes. I don't know if this is a cultural divide or if English isn't your native language, but "desperate" carries a connotation of being shackled to an unusually low point. Not something that 90+% of the country relies on because the US lacks universal healthcare. >the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining. that wasn't your original argument. I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home.
  - rekabis 3y ago
    > that wasn't your original argument. Yes it was, there was absolutely no shift in subject matter between the two posts. “Hollowing out” is a thing that the company is doing to itself, and has (frequently) very little to do with its employees themselves. You have that equally as much with random mass layoffs as you do with intentional mass employee resignations. The company has done something intentional to cause an exodus which is largely random in nature, and is invariably along lines that has only a dimly vague association with an employee’s competence. We saw that with some very prominent mass layoffs in Silicon Valley in early 2023, where employees of all kinds were sacked regardless of skill level, experience, and employability. It’s no different when employees as a whole reach a breaking point and initiate a wave of resignations - those with the means and resources to either immediately quit or be rapidly re-hired elsewhere will do so, those without those means will linger on and cling to the job. > I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home. Quit sticking additional meaning and intent where there is absolutely none. I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company. So let me re-iterate: Those remaining from Grinder’s mass loss of employees are most likely either people who would have difficulty getting rapidly hired elsewhere due to lower skill levels, or people who have been “locked into” their employment by whatever means and are therefore under a significant disadvantage of choice regardless of their actual skill level. Those that left would have seen the abusive and toxic behaviour of the company for what it is, and chose to execute their much more available options by seeking employment at a less hostile employer. There just isn’t any other way to phrase this. > it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate" Capitalism as is implemented in America makes such desperation a key aspect of its existence. The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM: desperate employees will accept lower wages and more abusive employers, who will cut more corners and squeeze their workforce ever more tightly for concessions in order to maintain those obscenely fat profit margins flowing upward to the Parasite Class. So, “tone deaf”?? To paper over such cruelty-based objectives of Capitalism so as to not offend, is to foster ignorance by omission and is an epithet flung in the faces of the desperate for their crime of being that desperate. I consider ignorance by far the greater offence, and will gladly be “tone deaf” all day long where this subject is concerned. I will gleefully ram such “tone deafness” down the throats of everyone who refuses to acknowledge such inequalities by making it viscerally uncomfortable for them to ignore those inequalities.

rekabis 3y ago

What you used as an example is fully encapsulated by my use of the term “desperate”. Those chained to their job via the medical insurance it provides, or housing disruption, or family income stream, are indeed desperate for said insurance or housing stability or income stream. This is not insulting in the least, merely factual. And when those who are talented enough with the ability to easily jump ship actually do so in droves, the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining. When you remove 9 of your top 10 people, the company is still being “hollowed out” even if that 10th person is head and shoulders above the other 9. One person cannot shoulder the work of another 9 who have left, that is impossible. The company will decline regardless of how much of a superstar programmer that one remaining person is.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>This is not insulting in the least, merely factual. it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate", yes. I don't know if this is a cultural divide or if English isn't your native language, but "desperate" carries a connotation of being shackled to an unusually low point. Not something that 90+% of the country relies on because the US lacks universal healthcare. >the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining. that wasn't your original argument. I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home.
- rekabis 3y ago
  > that wasn't your original argument. Yes it was, there was absolutely no shift in subject matter between the two posts. “Hollowing out” is a thing that the company is doing to itself, and has (frequently) very little to do with its employees themselves. You have that equally as much with random mass layoffs as you do with intentional mass employee resignations. The company has done something intentional to cause an exodus which is largely random in nature, and is invariably along lines that has only a dimly vague association with an employee’s competence. We saw that with some very prominent mass layoffs in Silicon Valley in early 2023, where employees of all kinds were sacked regardless of skill level, experience, and employability. It’s no different when employees as a whole reach a breaking point and initiate a wave of resignations - those with the means and resources to either immediately quit or be rapidly re-hired elsewhere will do so, those without those means will linger on and cling to the job. > I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home. Quit sticking additional meaning and intent where there is absolutely none. I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company. So let me re-iterate: Those remaining from Grinder’s mass loss of employees are most likely either people who would have difficulty getting rapidly hired elsewhere due to lower skill levels, or people who have been “locked into” their employment by whatever means and are therefore under a significant disadvantage of choice regardless of their actual skill level. Those that left would have seen the abusive and toxic behaviour of the company for what it is, and chose to execute their much more available options by seeking employment at a less hostile employer. There just isn’t any other way to phrase this. > it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate" Capitalism as is implemented in America makes such desperation a key aspect of its existence. The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM: desperate employees will accept lower wages and more abusive employers, who will cut more corners and squeeze their workforce ever more tightly for concessions in order to maintain those obscenely fat profit margins flowing upward to the Parasite Class. So, “tone deaf”?? To paper over such cruelty-based objectives of Capitalism so as to not offend, is to foster ignorance by omission and is an epithet flung in the faces of the desperate for their crime of being that desperate. I consider ignorance by far the greater offence, and will gladly be “tone deaf” all day long where this subject is concerned. I will gleefully ram such “tone deafness” down the throats of everyone who refuses to acknowledge such inequalities by making it viscerally uncomfortable for them to ignore those inequalities.