4 ms·

Thanks for the measured response, and I do appreciate the perspective. I personally think that unions are a solution to many problems, but come with a set of t

• WorldMaker 3y ago
  You seem to be taking "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" as some sort of name calling or insult, but it's an old "term of art" name for a systemic problem (often attributed to John Steinbeck, though the notorious quote was a paraphrase/"calque" of what Steinbeck actually wrote). Systemic issues aren't an "unseen force" in terms of a mystery of how they happened and being able to blame it solely on outside "ne'erdowells" (though yes I did use "the industries" as a handwave and really meant "the systems in place"), but a lot of established status quo things and a lot of unchecked assumptions and a lot of PR and propaganda and mystique like "The American Dream". This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). I think it particularly is applicable to mention as one of the biggest chicken-and-egg/catch-22 reasons that tech workers in general have many specific issues with the concept of unionization because it is often successful in strategies that break solidarity, because we tech workers still feel close to the VC seats of power and "recent/near" to massive wealth bubbles like the 90s dot-com boom. I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them. You can't solve problems you intentionally leave in a blindspot.
  • tqi 3y ago
    I'm familiar with the idiom and origins. The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich ("tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper management and riches") is patronizing. Assuming that people must be opposed to unionization because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda is patronizing. I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them as well. I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want and assuming it is because they are misinformed or selfish is helpful. > This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
    • WorldMaker 3y ago
      I think you are in danger of trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. You definitely are right on the knife's edge of an ad hominem attack of accusing me of patronizing and I certainly don't appreciate that. > The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich I never said all. I said it is a common problem that is hard to solve. I said it was one complication among others, a complicated reason not necessarily "the" reason. I also never said opposed to unions. I said it was a perception problem that often causes people to even overlook unions as a possible solution. I said it was a solidarity problem when people do try to unionize that can drive wedges into groups and send some people "back to the sidelines". > I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want I didn't offer a solution. I offered a problem that I don't know the solution for. I think it is a twisty, complicated problem. > because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda I didn't use the word misinformation. Not all PR/propaganda is misinformation (or at least not just misinformation). I specifically gave several reasons why for tech workers especially it is not just propaganda but facts about recent history (90s dot-com boom) and current prosperity (this site is VC-adjacent and many of us that comment here, myself often included, think we're one good idea from VC funding). Again, you seem to think I'm making some sort of moral judgment here and are trying to put words into my mouth that I think this is a moral failing of some sort. There is nothing wrong with believing things like I'm one good OKR from having real ownership in my employer and being lightly rich, or I'm one good idea away from getting a lot of VC money to do something cool as an owner and a founder. I have these beliefs at times, personally. If I think there is a solution to this problem I know it isn't telling people with this mindset they are wrong and are morally failing: it's in growing the common ground between tech workers of all classes (all of the actual classes, the perceived classes, and the dreamed/preferred/hoped for classes). It's in crossing that divide between "I think this is a good idea, but I don't see why I need to be involved" to "everyone should be involved, and here's empathetic reasons to and here's why even if it doesn't help you personally today or even tomorrow it's not just a good idea but something that you should be actively involved in at every stage". I don't have good enough ideas of how we do that. It's a collective problem that needs collective solutions and I mentioned the problem to work the problem. I don't know why you are trying to put words in my mouth that I'm offering some sort of solution just calling people names and blaming their mindset for their problems. > Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general. Yes, but more specifically he pointed the finger at middle-class would-be-Communists that talked a good talk but never walked a good walk. They acted like they were in the game, but when the time came to put skin and real sweat into the game they were still on the sidelines. That thought Communism (and unions) were good ideas, but they engaged with it in only in salons/parties and as academic thought experiments. I think it applies to a lot of Americans even given how specific the original context was. I think there are a lot of reasons it got paraphrased so strongly soon after it was written as a specific concept. But even if it doesn't apply that generally to all Americans, it certainly seems to apply to discussions like this one in places like HN where we talk about it a lot but aren't really actually trying to put skin into the game to work the problems and get caught up in ten dollar words like "ad hominem" and academic discussions about the "well, actually" specifics of important reading in the historical context and sometimes we believe that to be just as useful to working the problem.