5 ms·

I'm really getting tired of these articles bemoaning perks in larger companies. Who cares that they have a shuttle bus with wi-fi? Why would it actually matter

by kposehn 15y ago

I'm really getting tired of these articles bemoaning perks in larger companies. Who cares that they have a shuttle bus with wi-fi? Why would it actually matter to the author that there is free lunch and dinner? Since when does it mean they have lost their way? Google+ is having trouble with reaching mobile users because the concept itself does not fit with mobile. This social layer of plus-related features does not translate easily onto a mobile platform (imho) and that is the cause of their ill - as opposed to office perks that make working there actually, you know, fun. I do understand the argument of "if you want your company to act like a startup, you have to change things". However, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to take away what they've built up for employees. In the end, I think the author just sounds jealous ( ~_~)-p

kaichanvong 15y ago
Tend to think there is a greater problem with people talking about things they have no 1st hand experience with and coming up with hot air for their articles. But we have to realise the aim of this is to get people to talk about it and question it. Sadly if people do not question the validity the origin of the question comes from then we're all just going to go around talking about what "we think/imagine". The last point is the greatest danger to us - assumptions.
- kposehn 15y ago
  Very well put!
- j_baker 15y ago
  That's a very big assumption, wouldn't you agree? I agree with what you're saying, but you have to be practical. Verifying things rather than just assuming things based on superficial observation is important. But we simply don't have time to verify everything, as your post demonstrates. So sure, encourage people to verify things instead of spouting off hot air. But realize that superficiality is a necessary evil. Sometimes, you just need to make an inference off of a few observations, and that's ok as long as you realize the inherent limitations of superficiality.
  - kposehn 15y ago
    I do agree that we cannot always challenge the validity of all information we are exposed to. However, in this article I think it is clear the author didn't really do anything to validate his assumptions either, sadly.
  - kaichanvong 15y ago
    True, I should have done a full background check on the author to validate that before asserting my assumption. :)
jerf 15y ago
This may be one case where "consider the source" is relevant. An author for the New York Times, working in an industry declining every year, working for a company declining every year [1], it isn't even remotely difficult to imagine some personal feelings getting into a story like this. I don't think the NYT is a happy place right now. [1]: https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:NYT https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:NYT , use the 10y view
- gordianknot 15y ago
  "Consider the source" is always relevant, and always a weak argument. Regardless of who wrote it, the main point of the article seems to be that hackers working in essentially utopian communities risk being out of touch with their users. It's basically Gibbons' thesis on Roman decline. Becoming complacent is a risk. OTOH, most people are alienated, synchronous workers. They don't have control over the means of production, don't have equity or profit-sharing, and earn a wage for their time itself rather than their products. Many HN'ers are post-capitalists, and are naturally becoming more and more distant from that world. I know I am. I visit family, or go see old non-technical friends, and fuck, so much complaining about things they wish they could control, lusting for things they wish they could afford, and hyper-attachment to their existing life and possessions. I remember the onset of that feeling, when I had stayed to long at a non-software job after college. I don't think working remotely and earning a decent salary makes me out of touch, just ahead of the curve. Same for Google and Facebook. We don't need to "get in touch with the common man"; it's like suggesting Rome should've reverted to a violent warrior culture to combat the tribes. What Rome actually did is what Google is doing. Rome didn't fall; as they had gone from Kingdom to Republic to Empire, they continued evolving, into Church. The Roman Church was able to achieve way more than the Empire, since they got an information advantage over the tribes and could conduct invasions non-violently (and way more successfully) as "missionaries" instead of military. Christianity proved to be a cultural advantage over paganism. In turn, Google is making self-driving cars. Your own traveling mini-Googleplex. They'll buy an airline in the next few years. Facebook will start building places for more people to get online, to breed new hackers. They're starting a HS internship program in Menlo Park. They'll realize, if they haven't already, that it's cheaper to make smart kids into engineers than hire them out of college. And so on. As the merchants overthrew the nobility, we're watching the hackers overthrow the capitalists.
Aloisius 15y ago
In the end, I think the author just sounds jealous ( ~_~)-p I've never been comfortable with accusing others of jealousy when they criticize behavior that potentially hits too close to home. The author has a point. If you add enough perks that your employees never have to leave the office or worse, are only friends with other people at your company, it can create an insular environment which is not conducive to being responsive to changing behaviors and attitudes that happen outside your bubble. Now, the creation of that bubble doesn't necessarily require perks and it won't necessarily form if there are a lot of perks, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking they don't exist and companies like Google, whose HQ is physically segmented from outside distractions (like a city) and whose employees' social circles seem to be heavily work-related, isn't in an insular bubble right now.

by kposehn 15y ago

kaichanvong 15y ago

Tend to think there is a greater problem with people talking about things they have no 1st hand experience with and coming up with hot air for their articles. But we have to realise the aim of this is to get people to talk about it and question it. Sadly if people do not question the validity the origin of the question comes from then we're all just going to go around talking about what "we think/imagine". The last point is the greatest danger to us - assumptions.

kposehn 15y ago
Very well put!
j_baker 15y ago
That's a very big assumption, wouldn't you agree? I agree with what you're saying, but you have to be practical. Verifying things rather than just assuming things based on superficial observation is important. But we simply don't have time to verify everything, as your post demonstrates. So sure, encourage people to verify things instead of spouting off hot air. But realize that superficiality is a necessary evil. Sometimes, you just need to make an inference off of a few observations, and that's ok as long as you realize the inherent limitations of superficiality.
- kposehn 15y ago
  I do agree that we cannot always challenge the validity of all information we are exposed to. However, in this article I think it is clear the author didn't really do anything to validate his assumptions either, sadly.
- kaichanvong 15y ago
  True, I should have done a full background check on the author to validate that before asserting my assumption. :)

jerf 15y ago

This may be one case where "consider the source" is relevant. An author for the New York Times, working in an industry declining every year, working for a company declining every year [1], it isn't even remotely difficult to imagine some personal feelings getting into a story like this. I don't think the NYT is a happy place right now. [1]: https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:NYT https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:NYT , use the 10y view

gordianknot 15y ago
"Consider the source" is always relevant, and always a weak argument. Regardless of who wrote it, the main point of the article seems to be that hackers working in essentially utopian communities risk being out of touch with their users. It's basically Gibbons' thesis on Roman decline. Becoming complacent is a risk. OTOH, most people are alienated, synchronous workers. They don't have control over the means of production, don't have equity or profit-sharing, and earn a wage for their time itself rather than their products. Many HN'ers are post-capitalists, and are naturally becoming more and more distant from that world. I know I am. I visit family, or go see old non-technical friends, and fuck, so much complaining about things they wish they could control, lusting for things they wish they could afford, and hyper-attachment to their existing life and possessions. I remember the onset of that feeling, when I had stayed to long at a non-software job after college. I don't think working remotely and earning a decent salary makes me out of touch, just ahead of the curve. Same for Google and Facebook. We don't need to "get in touch with the common man"; it's like suggesting Rome should've reverted to a violent warrior culture to combat the tribes. What Rome actually did is what Google is doing. Rome didn't fall; as they had gone from Kingdom to Republic to Empire, they continued evolving, into Church. The Roman Church was able to achieve way more than the Empire, since they got an information advantage over the tribes and could conduct invasions non-violently (and way more successfully) as "missionaries" instead of military. Christianity proved to be a cultural advantage over paganism. In turn, Google is making self-driving cars. Your own traveling mini-Googleplex. They'll buy an airline in the next few years. Facebook will start building places for more people to get online, to breed new hackers. They're starting a HS internship program in Menlo Park. They'll realize, if they haven't already, that it's cheaper to make smart kids into engineers than hire them out of college. And so on. As the merchants overthrew the nobility, we're watching the hackers overthrow the capitalists.

Aloisius 15y ago

In the end, I think the author just sounds jealous ( ~_~)-p I've never been comfortable with accusing others of jealousy when they criticize behavior that potentially hits too close to home. The author has a point. If you add enough perks that your employees never have to leave the office or worse, are only friends with other people at your company, it can create an insular environment which is not conducive to being responsive to changing behaviors and attitudes that happen outside your bubble. Now, the creation of that bubble doesn't necessarily require perks and it won't necessarily form if there are a lot of perks, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking they don't exist and companies like Google, whose HQ is physically segmented from outside distractions (like a city) and whose employees' social circles seem to be heavily work-related, isn't in an insular bubble right now.