4 ms·

If they state it up front and people know what they are getting into. What’s the issue? If it’s so horrible, it won’t work right?

willt1979 2y ago
[flagged]
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  I get both you and your parent's PoV but you gotta be aware that the people working on the first iPhone and Android were also working basically 24/7 up until the launch, and Apple even moved them into hotels next to the office so they wouldn't have to commute. Similarly, China is also now in a race of rapid technologization to catch up or surpass the US competitors and you don't get there by working only 40h/week. US big tech success proved that for the right amount of money clearly enough skilled people would work brutal schedules, so I also see no problem if this work relationship is consensual and agreed by both parties and can be terminated at any time if it's not bearable for the workers, especially since those skilled tech workers have plenty of other options for working lax schedules for less money if they wish so. But if they voluntarily choose the brutal schedules for the money, it's their call and why should I or other parties have a say in this?
  - mft_ 2y ago
    Well, a few thoughts. 1) There's a huge difference between a temporary 'crunch' (as in the examples you gave) and a prevailing company culture; organising a company such that the (unwritten?) expectation is of '007' working just shouldn't be an acceptable model. 2) I think you're conflating two different issues, deliberately or not. Fundamentally, yes, I agree that individuals should have a free choice over how they spend their time and their physical capital in return for money; and further, in this case, given we're taking about educated and sought-after workers, some of the arguments that apply to treatment of lower-paid workers don't apply. However, the issue is to what extent one views it as moral that a company is organised, implicity or explicity, along these lines: as the argument often goes, if you can't run your company profitably or effectively without resorting to such measures, you need to rethink your fundamentals. 3) And here, of course, it's probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, given it's R&D and they're apparently offering double the market rate: it's just about an pre-existing toxic company culture. And given what we know about people's output not scaling linearly with extreme hours worked, it doesn't even make rational sense. In theory, they could pay lower (but still attractive) salaries, hire 50% more people, work them less hard, and (all else being equal) probably be even more productive.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Some small fraction of people are perfectly fine working 12 hours a week a day 7 days a week 50 weeks a year, they can do this with the same amount of strain that the median person experiences in regular 8 hours a day, 40 hour weeks. Do you not believe such people exist?
    - maxglute 2y ago
      >probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, TBF Huawei known for shit work culture for past 15 years. Half of which was because they were rapidly expanding global foot print, other half was in survival mode after sanctions. IMO their fundementals were correctly calibrated, first to get as far as they did in as little time as it took, second to survive sanctions that would have killed lesser companies. It's been cycling between opportunity to crisis to opportunity. They're not at position to settle/slow down yet, not if they want to get back to where they were, and beyond. >we know about people's output not scaling linearly Brooks law also states throwing more people at problems don't lead to solutions faster. Besides, East Asian culture is all about squeezing that juice 100% harder to be 20% better than competitors. Also simply not enough supply of skilled talent to hire. SK/JP/TW because they're near peak highskill labour force + demography decline. PRC because they didn't developed talent in semi until recently. Rumors of SMIC being pissed at Huawei for poaching their top talent last few years. There's limited pool of the best, only thing to do is pay them well, crunch them hard, for essentially manhattan project tier effort.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      The US is trying to take Huawei out. And trying to strangle China's technological development and cripple their military options. In the face of that, outrageous hours become an acceptable model. Especially if the workers are agreeing to it voluntarily and are compenstaed fairly for the horrible conditions. Although if I personally were managing the situation I'd be aiming for an 8-8-8 shift schedule where everyone gets lots of rest since I expect that would be more productive. Not to mention 8 is fundamentally more auspicious than 12. China got to where they are by working very hard. They'll likely keep working very hard until it obviously stops working. Haven't talked to anyone in China, but I'm guessing "work hard, get rich" is a message they understand very well at this point both in the pro- and con-.
- blackoil 2y ago
  Huawei is in state of existential crisis. If they (China) don't have a breakthrough in chip manufacturing in 2-5 years, Huawei as the company will be finished and along with China's plan to be independent of Western world. So, think of this as their Manhattan project, not sexy or romantic, but necessary.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    China rarely if ever bets on one horse. This is one of the reasons the west struggles to understand why China isn't collapsing. It's not Soviet style command economy with a single organisational structure in control over one sector. China even has multiple competing state-owned investment banks, and in most fields they have competing both state owned and private companies (note: I'm not assuming there aren't cases where this competition is heavily rigged or biased; the point is not to imply it is a free market, but that it is not the Soviet model). With respect to Huawei, if Huawei goes, Huawei goes, and little else changes other than that the government might need to prop up some of their supply chain. China might find itself struggling to gain full independence on the top end, but they have a range of separately operating foundry companies (SMIC, YMTC, Wingtech, Hua Hong), chip production equipment Manufacturers (Maura, JCET), and a multitude of chip design companies. China can afford a number of these - and Huawei - to fail and still have other bets. I agree with you that the overall "project" is their Manhattan project in a sense, but that does not mean all, or even many, of the companies need to survive - they'll let individual ones fail if they don't feel like they're pulling their weight, and instead fund new/other options. In other words: This might be "necessary" for Huawei, because Huawei wants to survive. But it's not necessary for China for Huawei to survive. Ironically that might be part of the reason for the pressure - they know there's no guarantee they'd be bailed out.
- onethought 2y ago
  [flagged]

willt1979 2y ago

[flagged]

Rinzler89 2y ago
I get both you and your parent's PoV but you gotta be aware that the people working on the first iPhone and Android were also working basically 24/7 up until the launch, and Apple even moved them into hotels next to the office so they wouldn't have to commute. Similarly, China is also now in a race of rapid technologization to catch up or surpass the US competitors and you don't get there by working only 40h/week. US big tech success proved that for the right amount of money clearly enough skilled people would work brutal schedules, so I also see no problem if this work relationship is consensual and agreed by both parties and can be terminated at any time if it's not bearable for the workers, especially since those skilled tech workers have plenty of other options for working lax schedules for less money if they wish so. But if they voluntarily choose the brutal schedules for the money, it's their call and why should I or other parties have a say in this?
- mft_ 2y ago
  Well, a few thoughts. 1) There's a huge difference between a temporary 'crunch' (as in the examples you gave) and a prevailing company culture; organising a company such that the (unwritten?) expectation is of '007' working just shouldn't be an acceptable model. 2) I think you're conflating two different issues, deliberately or not. Fundamentally, yes, I agree that individuals should have a free choice over how they spend their time and their physical capital in return for money; and further, in this case, given we're taking about educated and sought-after workers, some of the arguments that apply to treatment of lower-paid workers don't apply. However, the issue is to what extent one views it as moral that a company is organised, implicity or explicity, along these lines: as the argument often goes, if you can't run your company profitably or effectively without resorting to such measures, you need to rethink your fundamentals. 3) And here, of course, it's probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, given it's R&D and they're apparently offering double the market rate: it's just about an pre-existing toxic company culture. And given what we know about people's output not scaling linearly with extreme hours worked, it doesn't even make rational sense. In theory, they could pay lower (but still attractive) salaries, hire 50% more people, work them less hard, and (all else being equal) probably be even more productive.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Some small fraction of people are perfectly fine working 12 hours a week a day 7 days a week 50 weeks a year, they can do this with the same amount of strain that the median person experiences in regular 8 hours a day, 40 hour weeks. Do you not believe such people exist?
  - maxglute 2y ago
    >probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, TBF Huawei known for shit work culture for past 15 years. Half of which was because they were rapidly expanding global foot print, other half was in survival mode after sanctions. IMO their fundementals were correctly calibrated, first to get as far as they did in as little time as it took, second to survive sanctions that would have killed lesser companies. It's been cycling between opportunity to crisis to opportunity. They're not at position to settle/slow down yet, not if they want to get back to where they were, and beyond. >we know about people's output not scaling linearly Brooks law also states throwing more people at problems don't lead to solutions faster. Besides, East Asian culture is all about squeezing that juice 100% harder to be 20% better than competitors. Also simply not enough supply of skilled talent to hire. SK/JP/TW because they're near peak highskill labour force + demography decline. PRC because they didn't developed talent in semi until recently. Rumors of SMIC being pissed at Huawei for poaching their top talent last few years. There's limited pool of the best, only thing to do is pay them well, crunch them hard, for essentially manhattan project tier effort.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    The US is trying to take Huawei out. And trying to strangle China's technological development and cripple their military options. In the face of that, outrageous hours become an acceptable model. Especially if the workers are agreeing to it voluntarily and are compenstaed fairly for the horrible conditions. Although if I personally were managing the situation I'd be aiming for an 8-8-8 shift schedule where everyone gets lots of rest since I expect that would be more productive. Not to mention 8 is fundamentally more auspicious than 12. China got to where they are by working very hard. They'll likely keep working very hard until it obviously stops working. Haven't talked to anyone in China, but I'm guessing "work hard, get rich" is a message they understand very well at this point both in the pro- and con-.
blackoil 2y ago
Huawei is in state of existential crisis. If they (China) don't have a breakthrough in chip manufacturing in 2-5 years, Huawei as the company will be finished and along with China's plan to be independent of Western world. So, think of this as their Manhattan project, not sexy or romantic, but necessary.
- vidarh 2y ago
  China rarely if ever bets on one horse. This is one of the reasons the west struggles to understand why China isn't collapsing. It's not Soviet style command economy with a single organisational structure in control over one sector. China even has multiple competing state-owned investment banks, and in most fields they have competing both state owned and private companies (note: I'm not assuming there aren't cases where this competition is heavily rigged or biased; the point is not to imply it is a free market, but that it is not the Soviet model). With respect to Huawei, if Huawei goes, Huawei goes, and little else changes other than that the government might need to prop up some of their supply chain. China might find itself struggling to gain full independence on the top end, but they have a range of separately operating foundry companies (SMIC, YMTC, Wingtech, Hua Hong), chip production equipment Manufacturers (Maura, JCET), and a multitude of chip design companies. China can afford a number of these - and Huawei - to fail and still have other bets. I agree with you that the overall "project" is their Manhattan project in a sense, but that does not mean all, or even many, of the companies need to survive - they'll let individual ones fail if they don't feel like they're pulling their weight, and instead fund new/other options. In other words: This might be "necessary" for Huawei, because Huawei wants to survive. But it's not necessary for China for Huawei to survive. Ironically that might be part of the reason for the pressure - they know there's no guarantee they'd be bailed out.
onethought 2y ago
[flagged]