5 ms·

The article is really making the point that shitting on workers is OK—desirable even!—so that individual companies can make trillions of dollars. “Innovation” t

by latexr 1y ago

The article is really making the point that shitting on workers is OK—desirable even!—so that individual companies can make trillions of dollars. “Innovation” to the author equals making money, and being unable to sack hundreds of people at once with complete disregard for them or the social impact it causes is seen as a negative.

Akranazon 1y ago
It objectively is a negative. The American worker is much better off than the European worker. It doesn't matter if it makes you feel sad.
- latexr 1y ago
  > The American worker is much better off than the European worker. In what ways, specifically? And which types of workers? Remember that labor laws aren’t exclusive to developers. > It doesn't matter if it makes you feel sad. Can we skip the transparent rage bait and personal jabs, though? There are other forums if you want to engage in that, I’m personally not interested.
  - Akranazon 1y ago
    > In what ways, specifically? Median wages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income?useskin=vector Average work hours Purchasing power parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... Despite average work hours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_annual_labor_hours?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a... Better youth unemployment than Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemploym... > And which types of workers? High-skill professionals, entrepreneurs, specialized trades, creative workers, young people, immigrants... and most other professions. > Can we skip the transparent rage bait and personal jabs, though? If you make nebulous complaints about "shitting on workers" without considering tradeoffs, you've made a feelings-based argument, so expect that kind of rebuttal.
    - piva00 1y ago
      Median wages while prices are higher doesn't mean much, Americans earn more but also pay quite a bit more in most products and services needed for living: housing, healthy food, transportation, healthcare, etc. After experiencing the American work life I'd never trade my life in Sweden to earn 2-3x more in California, I'm sorry to say but it wasn't better to earn more in the USA, I could buy more trinkets but daily life was just not better. There's a point where you should look past wages, what's the overall quality of life of living in a place where workaholism is rampant, stress from financial anxiety is constant, having to hedge for potential catastrophic events such as a health scare putting oneself into massive debt, losing your job in a downturn (or simply due to an industry going into herd mode and colluding on layoffs), so on and so forth. Or you can keep using wages and money as your only guidance in life, I understand that's the only way most Americans can think about life. It's rather puerile though, as if simple metrics are the determining factor of a good life.
      - Akranazon 1y ago
        I'm not interested in debating the grab-bag of ways life is better in Sweden than in California. I've said this before, but every "US vs Europe work" debate ends with the European patronizingly scolding the American for thinking money is the most important thing in life. I'm also not interested in that. I am only interested in the labor market. You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially an unfalsifiable position. Another factor to consider is the ease of quitting your job. In the US (at least, I have found), it is quite easy to quite your job and find a new one. This matches the logic under which it's easy to fire in the US. Every cost of a regulation has a side-effect. If it's easy to fire, it's easy to hire. The article explains how American companies are more willing to hire for positions which wouldn't otherwise exist. If you are not interested in that, then quit your job and don't work in a position which involves innovation. Which in America, is easy to do.
        piva00 1y ago
        > You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially an unfalsifiable position. Numbers do matter, just not the cherry-picked narrow ones such as "median wage" with disregard for any context, and all other metrics that could somehow quantify quality of life vs purely financial terms. > Another factor to consider is the ease of quitting your job. In the US (at least, I have found), it is quite easy to quite your job and find a new one. Ease of quitting is also a non-problem, most jobs I had in Europe had a 1-3 months notice period which was easily negotiated if you really wanted to quit on the spot, no company wants to keep a disgruntled worker around so it's best to negotiate if said worker explicitly states they would like to shorten it. > The article explains how American companies are more willing to hire for positions which wouldn't otherwise exist. That's great for a selected set of jobs which workers would like to do that while being detrimental to society at large, making precarious conditions the default is not great for the less skilled people who prefer stability to keep their families afloat and secure. > If you are not interested in that, then quit your job and don't work in a position which involves innovation. Which in America, is easy to do. Not working in "innovation" still has the same precariousness, with no upside, making the divide in society between the haves and have-nots even more intense. It works up to a point, leave enough people behind and you get MAGA.
gwbas1c 1y ago
The case is very simple: Working on risky ventures requires the ability to lay people off when the venture is not profitable. When only 1/5 risky ventures is profitable, you can't expect a business to take a risk if the likely result is severe financial penalties for failure.
- latexr 1y ago
  I understand the argument the article is making. The point I’m making is that “innovation” which consists of a select few being better off at the expense of the majority is not something to be celebrated.
  - gwbas1c 1y ago
    > at the expense of the majority I disagree First, the vast majority of tech work is not in risky startups. Second, the risk is known. That is why high salaries are negotiated going into startups. Third, most comprehension is not in equity. Startup employees do invest in their retirement outside of their equity. Fourth, anyone can invest in software in the public market and through institutional investments like mutual funds, ETFs, ect. --- Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism? They're all much worse. Maybe someday someone will care enough to figure out a better system that doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
    - latexr 1y ago
      > I disagree And then all your examples are about tech work and startups. Other types of work exist, and they comprise the majority of jobs. Labour laws don’t exist only for startups and tech workers. You’re also ignoring the argument of the article. > Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism? Let’s please leave out the purposefully exaggerated bad examples and engage in good faith. You don’t have to change the whole system to increase respect and conditions for workers, as proven by the difference between the USA and Europe described in the article.
      - 1y ago

by latexr 1y ago

Akranazon 1y ago

It objectively is a negative. The American worker is much better off than the European worker. It doesn't matter if it makes you feel sad.

latexr 1y ago
> The American worker is much better off than the European worker. In what ways, specifically? And which types of workers? Remember that labor laws aren’t exclusive to developers. > It doesn't matter if it makes you feel sad. Can we skip the transparent rage bait and personal jabs, though? There are other forums if you want to engage in that, I’m personally not interested.
- Akranazon 1y ago
  > In what ways, specifically? Median wages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income?useskin=vector Average work hours Purchasing power parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... Despite average work hours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_annual_labor_hours?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a... Better youth unemployment than Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemploym... > And which types of workers? High-skill professionals, entrepreneurs, specialized trades, creative workers, young people, immigrants... and most other professions. > Can we skip the transparent rage bait and personal jabs, though? If you make nebulous complaints about "shitting on workers" without considering tradeoffs, you've made a feelings-based argument, so expect that kind of rebuttal.
  - piva00 1y ago
    Median wages while prices are higher doesn't mean much, Americans earn more but also pay quite a bit more in most products and services needed for living: housing, healthy food, transportation, healthcare, etc. After experiencing the American work life I'd never trade my life in Sweden to earn 2-3x more in California, I'm sorry to say but it wasn't better to earn more in the USA, I could buy more trinkets but daily life was just not better. There's a point where you should look past wages, what's the overall quality of life of living in a place where workaholism is rampant, stress from financial anxiety is constant, having to hedge for potential catastrophic events such as a health scare putting oneself into massive debt, losing your job in a downturn (or simply due to an industry going into herd mode and colluding on layoffs), so on and so forth. Or you can keep using wages and money as your only guidance in life, I understand that's the only way most Americans can think about life. It's rather puerile though, as if simple metrics are the determining factor of a good life.
    - Akranazon 1y ago
      I'm not interested in debating the grab-bag of ways life is better in Sweden than in California. I've said this before, but every "US vs Europe work" debate ends with the European patronizingly scolding the American for thinking money is the most important thing in life. I'm also not interested in that. I am only interested in the labor market. You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially an unfalsifiable position. Another factor to consider is the ease of quitting your job. In the US (at least, I have found), it is quite easy to quite your job and find a new one. This matches the logic under which it's easy to fire in the US. Every cost of a regulation has a side-effect. If it's easy to fire, it's easy to hire. The article explains how American companies are more willing to hire for positions which wouldn't otherwise exist. If you are not interested in that, then quit your job and don't work in a position which involves innovation. Which in America, is easy to do.
      - piva00 1y ago
        > You can say the numbers don't matter, but then you've adopted essentially an unfalsifiable position. Numbers do matter, just not the cherry-picked narrow ones such as "median wage" with disregard for any context, and all other metrics that could somehow quantify quality of life vs purely financial terms. > Another factor to consider is the ease of quitting your job. In the US (at least, I have found), it is quite easy to quite your job and find a new one. Ease of quitting is also a non-problem, most jobs I had in Europe had a 1-3 months notice period which was easily negotiated if you really wanted to quit on the spot, no company wants to keep a disgruntled worker around so it's best to negotiate if said worker explicitly states they would like to shorten it. > The article explains how American companies are more willing to hire for positions which wouldn't otherwise exist. That's great for a selected set of jobs which workers would like to do that while being detrimental to society at large, making precarious conditions the default is not great for the less skilled people who prefer stability to keep their families afloat and secure. > If you are not interested in that, then quit your job and don't work in a position which involves innovation. Which in America, is easy to do. Not working in "innovation" still has the same precariousness, with no upside, making the divide in society between the haves and have-nots even more intense. It works up to a point, leave enough people behind and you get MAGA.

gwbas1c 1y ago

The case is very simple: Working on risky ventures requires the ability to lay people off when the venture is not profitable. When only 1/5 risky ventures is profitable, you can't expect a business to take a risk if the likely result is severe financial penalties for failure.

latexr 1y ago
I understand the argument the article is making. The point I’m making is that “innovation” which consists of a select few being better off at the expense of the majority is not something to be celebrated.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  > at the expense of the majority I disagree First, the vast majority of tech work is not in risky startups. Second, the risk is known. That is why high salaries are negotiated going into startups. Third, most comprehension is not in equity. Startup employees do invest in their retirement outside of their equity. Fourth, anyone can invest in software in the public market and through institutional investments like mutual funds, ETFs, ect. --- Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism? They're all much worse. Maybe someday someone will care enough to figure out a better system that doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > I disagree And then all your examples are about tech work and startups. Other types of work exist, and they comprise the majority of jobs. Labour laws don’t exist only for startups and tech workers. You’re also ignoring the argument of the article. > Criticize the system if you want. What's better? Feudalism? Communism? Let’s please leave out the purposefully exaggerated bad examples and engage in good faith. You don’t have to change the whole system to increase respect and conditions for workers, as proven by the difference between the USA and Europe described in the article.
    - 1y ago