18 ms·

> No, actually I haven't. Ah. Well, second hand anecdotes are certainly appreciated. Thanks for sharing. > The possibility of WFH (for those who want it) is

by noch 2y ago

> No, actually I haven't. Ah. Well, second hand anecdotes are certainly appreciated. Thanks for sharing. > The possibility of WFH (for those who want it) is one of the best that happened to the working class since 5-day workweek. Does "working class" have a different meaning today? When I entered the job market it meant "blue collar" or manual labourer. You seem to be indicating that you're what used to be called "knowledge worker"? Nonetheless I agree with what you and others have said: wfh is great for optimizing an individual's lifestyle. Such a person, focused on their lifestyle, would probably do just as well if they were paid not to work. As a business owner however, the question is: what is best for the business?

pjc50 2y ago
Anyone who is dependent on labour rather than capital for their income is technically working class. The Marxist classifications don't really work for knowledge workers or professionals.
- noch 2y ago
  > The Marxist classifications don't really work for knowledge workers or professionals. I see. Thanks for that clarification. Most of the people I've worked with earn money by running fleets of servers and software that do the work that generates income. It feels weird calling them "working class."
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > earn money by running fleets of servers and software that do the work that generates income If they're owning the servers and/or software, that's a capital asset. That puts them in the "petit bourgeois" category, like small shopkeepers. If they don't own the capital assets they're economically dependent on, that roughly corresponds to sharecropping. We've had a few stories on here of what happens when the landlord decides to obliterate such businesses by changing the terms.
    - noch 2y ago
      > That puts them in the "petit bourgeois" category, like small shopkeepers. Got it. Thanks! :-)
greentxt 2y ago
>As a business owner however, the question is: what is best for the business? I would guess having employees that feel valued for their productivity and contributions would be what is best for the business, no?
- noch 2y ago
  > I would guess having employees that feel valued […] would be what is best for the business, no? It depends. I think what's best for a business is having employees who want to win and want the business to win, as a primary goal. It's not really easy to make an adult feel valued because individuals have very different motivations and personalities, so good feelings as a goal is a shifting target. Of course, if it were easy to answer the question, probably the Harvard Business Review would be a single article and not many decades of publication, and the debate about WFH wouldn't even exist because everyone would feel valued already and the problem would be moot.
  - greentxt 2y ago
    Sure. Employees feeling valued is necessary but not sufficient. Workers most focused on "winning" will have higher salaries (it's what they're optimizing) so just hire over priced people and ensure your employees are all "winners".
benterix 2y ago
> As a business owner however, the question is: what is best for the business? It is very simple: you need best people. In tech industry, people are smart, they know how to optimize things, and they rarely believe in "company values" bullshit. You can choose from a limited talent pool. If you give yourself and them a choice, including the WFH option, you statistically increase your chances of finding the best people. (Also the ones "prioritizing company interest", provided such people exist at all.) Also, if your company is in a remote area or is in a very specific niche, you basically might not even have that much choice.
- noch 2y ago
  > It is very simple: you need best people Would that it were so simple! But are you saying this from your experience hiring for teams that execute well? > you statistically increase your chances of finding the best people Do you have statistics proving this? Please share data. > they rarely believe in "company values" bullshit Are you honestly saying that in all the interviews you've attended, you never ask and you've never been asked "why do you want to work here?" And if the question was asked the answer had nothing to do with the company's mission? That's amazing.
  - benterix 2y ago
    > Would that it were so simple! But are you saying this from your experience hiring for teams that execute well? I oversimplified it not to stray away from the main topic but actually they need to have very specific features like the willingness to collaborate, the ability to communicate when the time is right, being technically proficient and so on. > Do you have statistics proving this? Please share data. Let A be the set of people who like to work remotely and B the set of people who love to do hybrid. (I leave out the set of people who love full RTO because I haven't yet met such a person, even hard-core office lovers admit a day of remote work is doing wonders to them.) Let A1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set A, and B1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set B. From the basic properties of real numbers one can infer that A1 + B1 is at least equal to B1. > Are you honestly saying that in all the interviews you've attended, you never ask and you've never been asked "why do you want to work here?" And if the question was asked the answer had nothing to do with the company's mission? Actually, they rarely ask it these days. Maybe the hiring folks are tired of this meaningless ritual? I once said I applied by mistake and they still wanted to hire me (I declined the offer as it was a different time zone, I realized this too far in the recruitment process and was quite embarrassed by mistake.)
intelVISA 2y ago
> Does "working class" have a different meaning today? When I entered the job market it meant "blue collar" or manual labourer. You seem to be indicating that you're what used to be called "knowledge worker"? If you stopped "working" tomorrow and had no means to generate income e.g. from ownership of capital you're working class. So if you make bread, car wheels or SaaS for a living it doesn't matter, only whether you own the output and can sell it. Social class is a distraction from this economic reality.
scott_w 2y ago
> Does "working class" have a different meaning today? It’s always had multiple meanings depending on context. Working vs capital class, wealth/income-based, job-based. Being British, class here is tied strongly to your birth. My dad rents out multiple properties, I earn a good living as a software engineer. However we’re both working class because we were born working class. No amount of money can buy our way into the upper echelons of society because our accent will shut those doors.

by noch 2y ago

pjc50 2y ago

Anyone who is dependent on labour rather than capital for their income is technically working class. The Marxist classifications don't really work for knowledge workers or professionals.

noch 2y ago
> The Marxist classifications don't really work for knowledge workers or professionals. I see. Thanks for that clarification. Most of the people I've worked with earn money by running fleets of servers and software that do the work that generates income. It feels weird calling them "working class."
- pjc50 2y ago
  > earn money by running fleets of servers and software that do the work that generates income If they're owning the servers and/or software, that's a capital asset. That puts them in the "petit bourgeois" category, like small shopkeepers. If they don't own the capital assets they're economically dependent on, that roughly corresponds to sharecropping. We've had a few stories on here of what happens when the landlord decides to obliterate such businesses by changing the terms.
  - noch 2y ago
    > That puts them in the "petit bourgeois" category, like small shopkeepers. Got it. Thanks! :-)

greentxt 2y ago

>As a business owner however, the question is: what is best for the business? I would guess having employees that feel valued for their productivity and contributions would be what is best for the business, no?

noch 2y ago
> I would guess having employees that feel valued […] would be what is best for the business, no? It depends. I think what's best for a business is having employees who want to win and want the business to win, as a primary goal. It's not really easy to make an adult feel valued because individuals have very different motivations and personalities, so good feelings as a goal is a shifting target. Of course, if it were easy to answer the question, probably the Harvard Business Review would be a single article and not many decades of publication, and the debate about WFH wouldn't even exist because everyone would feel valued already and the problem would be moot.
- greentxt 2y ago
  Sure. Employees feeling valued is necessary but not sufficient. Workers most focused on "winning" will have higher salaries (it's what they're optimizing) so just hire over priced people and ensure your employees are all "winners".

benterix 2y ago

> As a business owner however, the question is: what is best for the business? It is very simple: you need best people. In tech industry, people are smart, they know how to optimize things, and they rarely believe in "company values" bullshit. You can choose from a limited talent pool. If you give yourself and them a choice, including the WFH option, you statistically increase your chances of finding the best people. (Also the ones "prioritizing company interest", provided such people exist at all.) Also, if your company is in a remote area or is in a very specific niche, you basically might not even have that much choice.

noch 2y ago
> It is very simple: you need best people Would that it were so simple! But are you saying this from your experience hiring for teams that execute well? > you statistically increase your chances of finding the best people Do you have statistics proving this? Please share data. > they rarely believe in "company values" bullshit Are you honestly saying that in all the interviews you've attended, you never ask and you've never been asked "why do you want to work here?" And if the question was asked the answer had nothing to do with the company's mission? That's amazing.
- benterix 2y ago
  > Would that it were so simple! But are you saying this from your experience hiring for teams that execute well? I oversimplified it not to stray away from the main topic but actually they need to have very specific features like the willingness to collaborate, the ability to communicate when the time is right, being technically proficient and so on. > Do you have statistics proving this? Please share data. Let A be the set of people who like to work remotely and B the set of people who love to do hybrid. (I leave out the set of people who love full RTO because I haven't yet met such a person, even hard-core office lovers admit a day of remote work is doing wonders to them.) Let A1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set A, and B1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set B. From the basic properties of real numbers one can infer that A1 + B1 is at least equal to B1. > Are you honestly saying that in all the interviews you've attended, you never ask and you've never been asked "why do you want to work here?" And if the question was asked the answer had nothing to do with the company's mission? Actually, they rarely ask it these days. Maybe the hiring folks are tired of this meaningless ritual? I once said I applied by mistake and they still wanted to hire me (I declined the offer as it was a different time zone, I realized this too far in the recruitment process and was quite embarrassed by mistake.)

intelVISA 2y ago

> Does "working class" have a different meaning today? When I entered the job market it meant "blue collar" or manual labourer. You seem to be indicating that you're what used to be called "knowledge worker"? If you stopped "working" tomorrow and had no means to generate income e.g. from ownership of capital you're working class. So if you make bread, car wheels or SaaS for a living it doesn't matter, only whether you own the output and can sell it. Social class is a distraction from this economic reality.

scott_w 2y ago

> Does "working class" have a different meaning today? It’s always had multiple meanings depending on context. Working vs capital class, wealth/income-based, job-based. Being British, class here is tied strongly to your birth. My dad rents out multiple properties, I earn a good living as a software engineer. However we’re both working class because we were born working class. No amount of money can buy our way into the upper echelons of society because our accent will shut those doors.