4 ms·

Yet again the workers suffer from the incompetence of the ownership class.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Yes that's always the case, but it's naive to assume in any employment relationship that the ownership class has any other agenda than enriching themselves through the labor of the working class, same how the working class working for these major companies and enabling them to do what they do (including automating other peoples jobs to make them redundant and save their bosses money) have any other agenda than enriching themselves as well in the process. At least until they themselves eventually find their place on the chopping block as well either through management decisions or automation hits them too. But SW devs never though of this as the market always favored them and they saw themselves as irreplaceable godlike figures at the top of the food chain, so maybe it's time to reconsider that mindset, gain some empathy about other people's jobs and think about unions to push back on certain industry trends that screw over the little guy, since what goes around comes around. Whenever I sign a new employment contract, I'm aware it's not a charity, I'm there because they need me, as I make more money for them than they pay me, and I'm also aware that the moment that math stops being true, they won't hesitate to let me go and replace me with someone who can do the same work cheaper. Such is capitalism.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  This isn't a feature of capitalism as much as it's a feature of an environment with a lack of worker protections and no balance of power between workers and employers.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    On the other hand, places with strong worker protections almost always have higher unemployment rates, especially among new entrants to the labor marketplace (i.e. young adults). So one must pick one's poison.
    - Vilian 3y ago
      source?
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Hate to break it to you but "zero workers' rights" absolutely IS a feature of capitalism, as you maximize profit and minimize costs at the expense of everything else. Workers' rights are social policies which didn't come out of nowhere but sprung up mostly in post-WW1 and post-WW2 times when communist and socialist moves were becoming more and more popular with the labor class due to poor living and working conditions following the destructive wars, so the owner class, in Europe at least, along with governments, had to make concessions on working time, vacation days, sick pay, and implement public pensions, public healthcare, stuff which didn't really exists before, in order to prevent more riots and strikes and have the social stability to start rebuilding the nation. The US didn't, firstly because of strong anti-communist movements and the red scare propaganda, despite socialist-labor movements existing there as well(see Oppenheimer), and secondly because the post-WW2 US workers had it way better than European workers meaning US workers were less incentivized to strike and riot for better living standards when they already had the best living standards in the world at that time, see the baby boomer generation. Only the US workers of today, not counting tech workers, have it (largely) worse than their predecessors in terms of wages, purchasing power, debt, healthcare, education and housing affordability. So time to unionize and strike maybe? Especially that before mass industrialization and urbanization, the US was basically a socialist country due to the way its communities were organized and worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkO63lMyAhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkO63lMyAhE
- aplusbi 3y ago
  Most workers do have an agenda other than enriching themselves though: * Self-satisfaction * Sense of identity * Belief in the company * Desire to improve the world * Puritanical work ethic * etc
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    I'd be surprised if that's "most workers". Some workers sure, especially those who already have some wealth like an already paid for house and can afford to be picky with their careers, but most workers who do not, are chasing wealth building and financial security first before being picky about the ethics and other aspects of their career.
    - aplusbi 3y ago
      Perhaps I worded it a bit poorly - I don't think most workers have a purely non-financial agenda. But most workers have multiple agendas for working, the financial agenda probably being the strongest. But it's not a purely transactional agreement like you make it out to be.
tasubotadas 3y ago
Workers are free to start and run better companies.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  They would if there was less tolerance for monopolies and fair rules. It would appear that the only way to achieve that is through radical political change. Essentially we need to revert back to capitalism and end the ongoing gilded age.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > Essentially we need to revert back to capitalism and end the ongoing gilded age. For what it's worth, government spending as a fraction of GDP was single-digit percent in the actual Gilded Age, compared to almost 40% today.
- eikenberry 3y ago
  No they are not.. worker owned companies don't have the same legal structures as capital owned companies, at least in the US. Which is why you see almost no co-ops or other worker/employee owned business here.
  - fl7305 3y ago
    Why can't 100 employees incorporate and get 1% of the shares each?
  - tracerbulletx 3y ago
    Most of these smaller companies that get bought out and eviscerated start out as mildly profitable stable founder run small companies. If they had kept going like that everyone would basically have the best of both worlds.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    worker owned companies don't have the same legal structures as capital owned companies, at least in the US. This is false. In the U.S., worker-owned coops are just corporations. Or partnerships. Or LLPs. or LLCs. Or a variety of other business entity types. (The point is, in the U.S., the ownership structure does not necessarily determine the legal entity type.) For example: every law firm in the U.S. is employee-owned, by law. Most accounting firms are employee-owned, also by law. For specific examples of employee-owned businesses that aren't law firms or accounting firms: Publix Super Markets, WinCo, Brookshire, WL Gore, Gensler, HAC.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
modernpink 3y ago
Workers aren't entitled to profit off other's risks indefinitely.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  I see the hacker mindset has become a 'pro-profit' enterprise! Perhaps consider a worldview where the many talented people who actually write the code can be properly compensated for the fruits of their labor, rather than someone far-removed from the process simply holding a paper that says they own the deed to the company.
  - jnwatson 3y ago
    Among the riskiest economic decisions you can make is to hire a software developer. A bunch of things have to line up just right to even break even on a developer's output.
- calamari4065 3y ago
  But managers are?
- aplusbi 3y ago
  Fortunately owners will forever remain entitled to the profits of others' work.

Yes that's always the case, but it's naive to assume in any employment relationship that the ownership class has any other agenda than enriching themselves through the labor of the working class, same how the working class working for these major companies and enabling them to do what they do (including automating other peoples jobs to make them redundant and save their bosses money) have any other agenda than enriching themselves as well in the process. At least until they themselves eventually find their place on the chopping block as well either through management decisions or automation hits them too. But SW devs never though of this as the market always favored them and they saw themselves as irreplaceable godlike figures at the top of the food chain, so maybe it's time to reconsider that mindset, gain some empathy about other people's jobs and think about unions to push back on certain industry trends that screw over the little guy, since what goes around comes around. Whenever I sign a new employment contract, I'm aware it's not a charity, I'm there because they need me, as I make more money for them than they pay me, and I'm also aware that the moment that math stops being true, they won't hesitate to let me go and replace me with someone who can do the same work cheaper. Such is capitalism.

ryandrake 3y ago
This isn't a feature of capitalism as much as it's a feature of an environment with a lack of worker protections and no balance of power between workers and employers.
- gottorf 3y ago
  On the other hand, places with strong worker protections almost always have higher unemployment rates, especially among new entrants to the labor marketplace (i.e. young adults). So one must pick one's poison.
  - Vilian 3y ago
    source?
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Hate to break it to you but "zero workers' rights" absolutely IS a feature of capitalism, as you maximize profit and minimize costs at the expense of everything else. Workers' rights are social policies which didn't come out of nowhere but sprung up mostly in post-WW1 and post-WW2 times when communist and socialist moves were becoming more and more popular with the labor class due to poor living and working conditions following the destructive wars, so the owner class, in Europe at least, along with governments, had to make concessions on working time, vacation days, sick pay, and implement public pensions, public healthcare, stuff which didn't really exists before, in order to prevent more riots and strikes and have the social stability to start rebuilding the nation. The US didn't, firstly because of strong anti-communist movements and the red scare propaganda, despite socialist-labor movements existing there as well(see Oppenheimer), and secondly because the post-WW2 US workers had it way better than European workers meaning US workers were less incentivized to strike and riot for better living standards when they already had the best living standards in the world at that time, see the baby boomer generation. Only the US workers of today, not counting tech workers, have it (largely) worse than their predecessors in terms of wages, purchasing power, debt, healthcare, education and housing affordability. So time to unionize and strike maybe? Especially that before mass industrialization and urbanization, the US was basically a socialist country due to the way its communities were organized and worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkO63lMyAhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkO63lMyAhE
aplusbi 3y ago
Most workers do have an agenda other than enriching themselves though: * Self-satisfaction * Sense of identity * Belief in the company * Desire to improve the world * Puritanical work ethic * etc
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  I'd be surprised if that's "most workers". Some workers sure, especially those who already have some wealth like an already paid for house and can afford to be picky with their careers, but most workers who do not, are chasing wealth building and financial security first before being picky about the ethics and other aspects of their career.
  - aplusbi 3y ago
    Perhaps I worded it a bit poorly - I don't think most workers have a purely non-financial agenda. But most workers have multiple agendas for working, the financial agenda probably being the strongest. But it's not a purely transactional agreement like you make it out to be.

tasubotadas 3y ago

Workers are free to start and run better companies.

gumballindie 3y ago
They would if there was less tolerance for monopolies and fair rules. It would appear that the only way to achieve that is through radical political change. Essentially we need to revert back to capitalism and end the ongoing gilded age.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Essentially we need to revert back to capitalism and end the ongoing gilded age. For what it's worth, government spending as a fraction of GDP was single-digit percent in the actual Gilded Age, compared to almost 40% today.
eikenberry 3y ago
No they are not.. worker owned companies don't have the same legal structures as capital owned companies, at least in the US. Which is why you see almost no co-ops or other worker/employee owned business here.
- fl7305 3y ago
  Why can't 100 employees incorporate and get 1% of the shares each?
- tracerbulletx 3y ago
  Most of these smaller companies that get bought out and eviscerated start out as mildly profitable stable founder run small companies. If they had kept going like that everyone would basically have the best of both worlds.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  worker owned companies don't have the same legal structures as capital owned companies, at least in the US. This is false. In the U.S., worker-owned coops are just corporations. Or partnerships. Or LLPs. or LLCs. Or a variety of other business entity types. (The point is, in the U.S., the ownership structure does not necessarily determine the legal entity type.) For example: every law firm in the U.S. is employee-owned, by law. Most accounting firms are employee-owned, also by law. For specific examples of employee-owned businesses that aren't law firms or accounting firms: Publix Super Markets, WinCo, Brookshire, WL Gore, Gensler, HAC.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

modernpink 3y ago

Workers aren't entitled to profit off other's risks indefinitely.

wildrhythms 3y ago
I see the hacker mindset has become a 'pro-profit' enterprise! Perhaps consider a worldview where the many talented people who actually write the code can be properly compensated for the fruits of their labor, rather than someone far-removed from the process simply holding a paper that says they own the deed to the company.
- jnwatson 3y ago
  Among the riskiest economic decisions you can make is to hire a software developer. A bunch of things have to line up just right to even break even on a developer's output.
calamari4065 3y ago
But managers are?
aplusbi 3y ago
Fortunately owners will forever remain entitled to the profits of others' work.