8 ms·

Of course the reason it works this way is that it works. As much as we'd like accountability to happen on the basis of principle, it actually happens on the bas

by ajkjk 11mo ago

Of course the reason it works this way is that it works. As much as we'd like accountability to happen on the basis of principle, it actually happens on the basis of practicality. Either the engineers organize their power and demand a new relationship with management, or projects start going so poorly that necessity demands a better working relationship, or nothing changes. There is no 'things get better out from wisdom alone' option; the people who benefit from improvements have to force the hand of the people who can implement them. I don't know if this looks like a union or something else but my guess is that in large part it's something else, for instance a sophisticated attempt at building a professional organization that can spread simple standards which organizations can clearly measure themselves against. I think the reasons this hasn't happened is (a) tech has moved too fast for anyone to actually be able to credibly say how things should be done for longer than a year or two, and (b) attempts at professional organizations borrowed too much from slower-moving physical engineering and so didn't adapt to (a). But I do think it can be done and would benefit the industry greatly (at the cost of slowing things down in the short term). It requires a very 'agile' sense of standards, though.. If standards mean imposing big constraints on development, nobody will pay attention to them.

malfist 11mo ago
I agree wholeheartedly that collective action is how we stop balancing poor management on the backs of engineers, but good luck getting other engineers to see it that way. There's heaps of propaganda out there telling engineers that if they join a union their high salary will go away, even though unions have never been shown to reduce wages.
- ajkjk 11mo ago
  My hunch is that software engineers are averse to unions because they correctly perceive that unions are a wide angle away from the type of professional organization that would be most beneficial to them. The industry is sufficiently different that the normal union model is just not very good and has a 'square leg round hole' feeling. For instance by and large the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities... Wasted work, lack of forethought, bad management, arbitrary layoffs, etc. So it is much more about governing management with good practices than about keeping wages up; at least for now wages are generally high anyway. there are also reasons to dedend jobs/wages in the face of e.g. outsourcing... But it's almost like a separate problem. Maybe there needs to be both a union and a uncoupled professional standard or something?
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    what type of professional organization is most beneficial? Standards are already out there, but they need a union or government regulation to be enforced. Devs who want real change need to pick their medicine, or continue to let the industry stagnate. >the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities agreed. And I think that's why it's going to really start taking hold as we enter year 4 of mass layoffs in the US (because outsourcing). Alongside overwork from the "survivors" and abusive PIPs to keep people on edge.
    - fugalfervor 11mo ago
      > year 4 of mass layoffs in the US (because outsourcing) A lot of the layoffs appear to be about conserving cash for investment in AI. In many cases the jobs that are cut are not backfilled by workers in the US or abroad.
    - nradov 11mo ago
      It's wild to claim that the industry is stagnating. By any objective measure the industry is larger, more influential, and more innovative than ever before. Perhaps the problems that people are complaining about here just don't matter very much?
      - franktankbank 11mo ago
        > By any objective measure the industry is larger, more influential, and more innovative than ever before What objective measures would you use?
        nradov 11mo ago
        Pick any measure you like: total employment, revenue, patents, new venture formation, products shipped, etc. There are fluctuations from year to year due to the business cycle but overall the trend is up.
      - venturecruelty 11mo ago
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  Guess that's why gamedev is the one region where this is really starting to gain momentum. High salaries were already not a thing, and tend to mean nothing if you're laid off after 3 years of development for the release of a new game. Though I think Gen Z in general will be making waves in the coming years. They can't even get a foot in the door, so why should they care about "high salaries"?
- nitwit005 11mo ago
  People aren't going to try to wrest control from management because some project is going off the rails. No one has any particular faith their coworkers will run anything better, and the pay checks show up regardless.
- nradov 11mo ago
  A union might help improve wages and working conditions in some organizations (although I personally wouldn't want one). But there is zero chance that a union could ever achieve widespread improvement in software architecture, methodologies, or project management. We don't have much consensus on the right way to do things, and what worked well in one circumstance often causes disaster in another.
- pluralmonad 11mo ago
  I've worked places that refuse to fire low performers and its hard for it to not be toxic. I'm not saying this outcome is a forgone conclusion of unions, but my union experience is that poor performers take even longer to get rid of and I'm not sure I would be interested in that sort of environment again. This is more of an implementation problem than philosophical, but theoretically good and practically bad is still just bad.
  - __loam 11mo ago
    Until healthcare and housing aren't tied to employment, making it easier to fire people will always be the monstrous position. If you want firing people with abandon to be socially acceptable then you need a public safety net. Until that's in place, I'm always going to be on the side of labor organizations demanding dignity than the people destroying lives.
    - pluralmonad 11mo ago
      How do you feel about consensual relationships? I don't impose myself on my employer, we have a mutual and consensual relationship. I don't understand, what do you want peoples material resources tied to if not their own assets?
      - davkan 11mo ago
        My relationship with my employer is coercive, not consensual. They have something I need in order to survive. If I leave it will have deleterious effects on the quality of my life. You could make the argument that they are not the ones coercing me, society is or something, but I do not associate with them freely. This was even more apparent before the ACA passed, when insurance providers were not prevented from denying or charging more for customers with pre-existing conditions. Hate your job but have cancer? Better not leave, you might not even be able to get insured at your next job.
  - ghosty141 11mo ago
    You don't have to fire "low performers" you just have to be realistic about their skillsets and use them that way. If you see an engineer is out of his depth then change his position, no need to fire them since like others have pointed out, that can have severe consequences in their personal lives and most of the time they can still be useful if they get more adequate work.
- mgfist 11mo ago
  I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me. I also think people here misunderstand what unions do. Unions are inherently conservative (small c) institutions that aim to protect the status quo. Improving processes is not a fundamental goal to unions. We saw this with the ILA that fought to essentially ban automation in the ports that would drastically increase efficiency because of the belief that this would reduce union jobs. It's foolish to think software unions wouldn't end up becoming like this.
  - __loam 11mo ago
    I'd rather have the protections for my working conditions than worrying about whether my co-workers are contributing enough to the company's bottom line but maybe that makes me an outlier here.
    - mgfist 11mo ago
      I'd say it does. I take pride and meaning in working. Life's too short to not care about a thing you do 8 hours a day. And bad colleagues doesn't just include people not contributing enough.
    - DangitBobby 11mo ago
      It doesn't make you an outlier. Most people work to live, not live to work.
  - ghosty141 11mo ago
    > I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me. In MANY other countries there is already WAY more regulations regarding layoffs and firing employees that has nothing to do with unions. In Germany there is a probationary period in which you can just fire somebody for no reason basically. That time can be like half a year (in my case) and in most cases it becomes clear if the new hire fits your team or doesn't. All unrelated to unions though. The big unions in Germany for example have a lot of power and if you are just a simple welder for example you'd have no chance getting anything done without a union.
- stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
  How about licensure and liability instead? That’s the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the rest of the engineering world. Sure it’s a guild system with a new name, but if the bridge collapses, somebody is going to be in a courtroom.
  - LtWorf 11mo ago
    And the one in the courtoom is the head of the engineering firm, not the low level guy :)
  - nradov 11mo ago
    Customers are free to demand that software vendors take liability for certain defects or failures as part of contract negotiation. There's no need for governments to get involved. For software that's actually safety critical, like avionics, there are already sufficient regulatory controls.
    - knollimar 11mo ago
      There's a better sense of safety if you do so from within, but we can't agree on what best standards are as an industry, let alone enforce them.
    - stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
      Actually it is necessary. That’s why your bridge engineer has to satisfy a licensing board that he or she knows what they’re doing before they seal a set of plans. Clients can’t distinguish good from bad engineering. They shouldn’t have to figure out if you know what you’re doing.
      - nradov 11mo ago
        Actually it isn't necessary. Unlike bridges, very little software is safety critical. Clients don't need to try to distinguish good from bad software development, they can just require a certain level of performance and reliability in the contract with clear financial penalties for failure.
- ghosty141 11mo ago
  I don't think unions are the right thing here, you just need to get together as a team and talk with your higher ups, that's a far smaller scope than where unions normally come in. But I totally agree, I think people are too compliant and fear banding together to have influence on higher ups. I'd argue in most places the engineers have far more power than they realize since they are in high demand due to shortages of qualified personnel. (at least in many countries in Europe) There are tons of factors in play though that I believe contribute to this like some employees being friends with their higher ups not wanting to hurt their careers, not wanting the tough discussions, the repercussions if management says "no" etc..
  - pdimitar 11mo ago
    > you just need to get together as a team "Just". Come on, man, you know better than that. I too like my sci-fi to be over the top unrealistic. Truth is, nobody ever thinks about their rights before it's too late. The paycheck shows up on time every month and people just don't want to rock the boat. Not to mention all the opportunists that will tell on you immediately to gain the favor of the upper class. These things are well-known and apparently nothing ever changes before the guillotines start working. I don't think anything will ever improve in our area. Nobody is bothered. The people who are have zero power. And so it goes.
    - ghosty141 11mo ago
      The "just" was more in the sense that it technically is not that hard to get together, there is nothing directly preventing that. I honestly think it's just people who don't mind these problems and are fine working under those conditions, or they just quit once they are too annoyed. Change is way harder just than just leaving, I think that's also part of the reason why this keeps going on.
      - pdimitar 11mo ago
        Absolutely not, barely anyone is okay with it -- only the most naive and fresh of young workforce, and then not even half of them by my observations chatting with many people 20+ years younger than me. It's just that people have too much at stake to risk it. Families, mortgage, basic respectful existence even. Nobody wants to live under a bridge. It's extremely sad. I did not want to live in such times but oh well, good thing anyone asked us, right?
johnnyanmac 11mo ago
You forgot c) we're in a culture where people jump ship every 3-5 years. There's no incentive to learn from mistakes that you don't talk about at the next company, nor any care for the long term health of the current company. >a sophisticated attempt at building a professional organization that can spread simple standards which organizations can clearly measure themselves against. We have that as a form of IEEE, but it really doesn't come up much if you're not already neck deep in the organization.
- jakub_g 11mo ago
  > 3-5 years That's maybe in Europe. Plenty of US developers those days have a litany of ~1-2 year stints at FAANGs and startups du jour in their CV.
  - asa400 11mo ago
    Speaking as someone in the US, I've worked at multiple companies (some startups, some small businesses, some larger) that have either outright imploded or had mass department-level layoffs inside that 1-2 year timeframe. Some of them I would have stayed at longer than 1-2 years if I had the choice. I'm not claiming it's universal by any means, but there is a lot of volatility at US businesses in my personal experience.
    - venturecruelty 11mo ago
      And as usual, the employees get blamed. Maybe people wouldn't jump ship if companies didn't lay people off with reckless abandon, or hire sociopathic bosses to manage people, or screw them out of raises, or overwork them, or lie during the interview process. The little people are going to do what they need to do to survive. If these multi-billion or even multi-trillion dollar companies feel some type of way about it, well, they're the ones with all the power, not us. They're more than welcome to change the culture at any time.
      - acessoproibido 11mo ago
BrenBarn 11mo ago
It "works" only on a certain timescale. We don't have sufficient incentives and penalties to make things fail quickly. A relevant example in the tech world is data breaches. If data breaches resulted in a thorough public audit and financial/criminal penalties for the managers who pushed for speed over safety, they would no longer "work". > If standards mean imposing big constraints on development, nobody will pay attention to them. Unless there are penalties for not doing so. > tech has moved too fast for anyone to actually be able to credibly say how things should be done for longer than a year or two But that's just it. If things are moving so fast that you can't say how things should be done, then that tells you that the first thing that should be done is to slow everything way down.
stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
Has union labor resulted in measurable improvement in production outcomes in any industry they’re found in? I don’t think going from “managers are unaccountable for failure” to “nobody is accountable for failure” is a good thing. I think introducing more competition at higher levels may be better than eliminating it below. This should be happening because I’m pretty sure most PMs could be replaced by an LLM.
- __loam 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pdimitar 11mo ago
    While I too doubt that unions would be a net negative and I might even suspect interference by paid malicious actors to discourage people to unionize and thus never have power, I can't agree with your skepticism that PMs cannot be replaced by LLMs. Most PMs I've ever met had zero clue what they are doing. And no it's not only N=1 sample, same anecdote is heard from many, many other people. But sadly enough, undeniable human incompetence there is not even the biggest problem. The "we will never make more reasonable deadline" is. Most managers, not just PMs, are an objective net negative. As any ruling class always does, they get complacent and think that just putting their foot down is going to magically change reality.
    - parineum 11mo ago
      > Most PMs I've ever met had zero clue what they are doing. And no it's not only N=1 sample, same anecdote is heard from many, many other people. Most people say that because they have no idea what a PM's job is and are upset that the PM isn't doing what they want.
      - pdimitar 11mo ago
        Highly irrelevant. Not my role as an individual contributor to hone and fine-tune their job description. Fact on the ground is that they usually optimize the entirely wrong indicators and never ever optimize for avoiding future problems. In my consulting and contracting stints I made it a habit to write down what crisis is looming on the horizon and making bets with my wife which one is going to arrive first. A fun little game. Watching train wrecks in slow motion stopped being fun with time. What PM's job is is above my pay grade. I want them to enable me and the team, not be a mouth piece of people with zero understanding of product _and_ of engineering. They are just there to ask you how is stuff going.

by ajkjk 11mo ago

malfist 11mo ago

I agree wholeheartedly that collective action is how we stop balancing poor management on the backs of engineers, but good luck getting other engineers to see it that way. There's heaps of propaganda out there telling engineers that if they join a union their high salary will go away, even though unions have never been shown to reduce wages.

ajkjk 11mo ago
My hunch is that software engineers are averse to unions because they correctly perceive that unions are a wide angle away from the type of professional organization that would be most beneficial to them. The industry is sufficiently different that the normal union model is just not very good and has a 'square leg round hole' feeling. For instance by and large the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities... Wasted work, lack of forethought, bad management, arbitrary layoffs, etc. So it is much more about governing management with good practices than about keeping wages up; at least for now wages are generally high anyway. there are also reasons to dedend jobs/wages in the face of e.g. outsourcing... But it's almost like a separate problem. Maybe there needs to be both a union and a uncoupled professional standard or something?
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  what type of professional organization is most beneficial? Standards are already out there, but they need a union or government regulation to be enforced. Devs who want real change need to pick their medicine, or continue to let the industry stagnate. >the role of organizing to not to get more money but rather to reduce indignities agreed. And I think that's why it's going to really start taking hold as we enter year 4 of mass layoffs in the US (because outsourcing). Alongside overwork from the "survivors" and abusive PIPs to keep people on edge.
  - fugalfervor 11mo ago
    > year 4 of mass layoffs in the US (because outsourcing) A lot of the layoffs appear to be about conserving cash for investment in AI. In many cases the jobs that are cut are not backfilled by workers in the US or abroad.
  - nradov 11mo ago
    It's wild to claim that the industry is stagnating. By any objective measure the industry is larger, more influential, and more innovative than ever before. Perhaps the problems that people are complaining about here just don't matter very much?
    - franktankbank 11mo ago
      > By any objective measure the industry is larger, more influential, and more innovative than ever before What objective measures would you use?
      - nradov 11mo ago
        Pick any measure you like: total employment, revenue, patents, new venture formation, products shipped, etc. There are fluctuations from year to year due to the business cycle but overall the trend is up.
    - venturecruelty 11mo ago
johnnyanmac 11mo ago
Guess that's why gamedev is the one region where this is really starting to gain momentum. High salaries were already not a thing, and tend to mean nothing if you're laid off after 3 years of development for the release of a new game. Though I think Gen Z in general will be making waves in the coming years. They can't even get a foot in the door, so why should they care about "high salaries"?
nitwit005 11mo ago
People aren't going to try to wrest control from management because some project is going off the rails. No one has any particular faith their coworkers will run anything better, and the pay checks show up regardless.
nradov 11mo ago
A union might help improve wages and working conditions in some organizations (although I personally wouldn't want one). But there is zero chance that a union could ever achieve widespread improvement in software architecture, methodologies, or project management. We don't have much consensus on the right way to do things, and what worked well in one circumstance often causes disaster in another.
pluralmonad 11mo ago
I've worked places that refuse to fire low performers and its hard for it to not be toxic. I'm not saying this outcome is a forgone conclusion of unions, but my union experience is that poor performers take even longer to get rid of and I'm not sure I would be interested in that sort of environment again. This is more of an implementation problem than philosophical, but theoretically good and practically bad is still just bad.
- __loam 11mo ago
  Until healthcare and housing aren't tied to employment, making it easier to fire people will always be the monstrous position. If you want firing people with abandon to be socially acceptable then you need a public safety net. Until that's in place, I'm always going to be on the side of labor organizations demanding dignity than the people destroying lives.
  - pluralmonad 11mo ago
    How do you feel about consensual relationships? I don't impose myself on my employer, we have a mutual and consensual relationship. I don't understand, what do you want peoples material resources tied to if not their own assets?
    - davkan 11mo ago
      My relationship with my employer is coercive, not consensual. They have something I need in order to survive. If I leave it will have deleterious effects on the quality of my life. You could make the argument that they are not the ones coercing me, society is or something, but I do not associate with them freely. This was even more apparent before the ACA passed, when insurance providers were not prevented from denying or charging more for customers with pre-existing conditions. Hate your job but have cancer? Better not leave, you might not even be able to get insured at your next job.
- ghosty141 11mo ago
  You don't have to fire "low performers" you just have to be realistic about their skillsets and use them that way. If you see an engineer is out of his depth then change his position, no need to fire them since like others have pointed out, that can have severe consequences in their personal lives and most of the time they can still be useful if they get more adequate work.
mgfist 11mo ago
I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me. I also think people here misunderstand what unions do. Unions are inherently conservative (small c) institutions that aim to protect the status quo. Improving processes is not a fundamental goal to unions. We saw this with the ILA that fought to essentially ban automation in the ports that would drastically increase efficiency because of the belief that this would reduce union jobs. It's foolish to think software unions wouldn't end up becoming like this.
- __loam 11mo ago
  I'd rather have the protections for my working conditions than worrying about whether my co-workers are contributing enough to the company's bottom line but maybe that makes me an outlier here.
  - mgfist 11mo ago
    I'd say it does. I take pride and meaning in working. Life's too short to not care about a thing you do 8 hours a day. And bad colleagues doesn't just include people not contributing enough.
  - DangitBobby 11mo ago
    It doesn't make you an outlier. Most people work to live, not live to work.
- ghosty141 11mo ago
  > I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me. In MANY other countries there is already WAY more regulations regarding layoffs and firing employees that has nothing to do with unions. In Germany there is a probationary period in which you can just fire somebody for no reason basically. That time can be like half a year (in my case) and in most cases it becomes clear if the new hire fits your team or doesn't. All unrelated to unions though. The big unions in Germany for example have a lot of power and if you are just a simple welder for example you'd have no chance getting anything done without a union.
stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
How about licensure and liability instead? That’s the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the rest of the engineering world. Sure it’s a guild system with a new name, but if the bridge collapses, somebody is going to be in a courtroom.
- LtWorf 11mo ago
  And the one in the courtoom is the head of the engineering firm, not the low level guy :)
- nradov 11mo ago
  Customers are free to demand that software vendors take liability for certain defects or failures as part of contract negotiation. There's no need for governments to get involved. For software that's actually safety critical, like avionics, there are already sufficient regulatory controls.
  - knollimar 11mo ago
    There's a better sense of safety if you do so from within, but we can't agree on what best standards are as an industry, let alone enforce them.
  - stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
    Actually it is necessary. That’s why your bridge engineer has to satisfy a licensing board that he or she knows what they’re doing before they seal a set of plans. Clients can’t distinguish good from bad engineering. They shouldn’t have to figure out if you know what you’re doing.
    - nradov 11mo ago
      Actually it isn't necessary. Unlike bridges, very little software is safety critical. Clients don't need to try to distinguish good from bad software development, they can just require a certain level of performance and reliability in the contract with clear financial penalties for failure.
ghosty141 11mo ago
I don't think unions are the right thing here, you just need to get together as a team and talk with your higher ups, that's a far smaller scope than where unions normally come in. But I totally agree, I think people are too compliant and fear banding together to have influence on higher ups. I'd argue in most places the engineers have far more power than they realize since they are in high demand due to shortages of qualified personnel. (at least in many countries in Europe) There are tons of factors in play though that I believe contribute to this like some employees being friends with their higher ups not wanting to hurt their careers, not wanting the tough discussions, the repercussions if management says "no" etc..
- pdimitar 11mo ago
  > you just need to get together as a team "Just". Come on, man, you know better than that. I too like my sci-fi to be over the top unrealistic. Truth is, nobody ever thinks about their rights before it's too late. The paycheck shows up on time every month and people just don't want to rock the boat. Not to mention all the opportunists that will tell on you immediately to gain the favor of the upper class. These things are well-known and apparently nothing ever changes before the guillotines start working. I don't think anything will ever improve in our area. Nobody is bothered. The people who are have zero power. And so it goes.
  - ghosty141 11mo ago
    The "just" was more in the sense that it technically is not that hard to get together, there is nothing directly preventing that. I honestly think it's just people who don't mind these problems and are fine working under those conditions, or they just quit once they are too annoyed. Change is way harder just than just leaving, I think that's also part of the reason why this keeps going on.
    - pdimitar 11mo ago
      Absolutely not, barely anyone is okay with it -- only the most naive and fresh of young workforce, and then not even half of them by my observations chatting with many people 20+ years younger than me. It's just that people have too much at stake to risk it. Families, mortgage, basic respectful existence even. Nobody wants to live under a bridge. It's extremely sad. I did not want to live in such times but oh well, good thing anyone asked us, right?

johnnyanmac 11mo ago

You forgot c) we're in a culture where people jump ship every 3-5 years. There's no incentive to learn from mistakes that you don't talk about at the next company, nor any care for the long term health of the current company. >a sophisticated attempt at building a professional organization that can spread simple standards which organizations can clearly measure themselves against. We have that as a form of IEEE, but it really doesn't come up much if you're not already neck deep in the organization.

jakub_g 11mo ago
> 3-5 years That's maybe in Europe. Plenty of US developers those days have a litany of ~1-2 year stints at FAANGs and startups du jour in their CV.
- asa400 11mo ago
  Speaking as someone in the US, I've worked at multiple companies (some startups, some small businesses, some larger) that have either outright imploded or had mass department-level layoffs inside that 1-2 year timeframe. Some of them I would have stayed at longer than 1-2 years if I had the choice. I'm not claiming it's universal by any means, but there is a lot of volatility at US businesses in my personal experience.
  - venturecruelty 11mo ago
    And as usual, the employees get blamed. Maybe people wouldn't jump ship if companies didn't lay people off with reckless abandon, or hire sociopathic bosses to manage people, or screw them out of raises, or overwork them, or lie during the interview process. The little people are going to do what they need to do to survive. If these multi-billion or even multi-trillion dollar companies feel some type of way about it, well, they're the ones with all the power, not us. They're more than welcome to change the culture at any time.
    - acessoproibido 11mo ago

BrenBarn 11mo ago

It "works" only on a certain timescale. We don't have sufficient incentives and penalties to make things fail quickly. A relevant example in the tech world is data breaches. If data breaches resulted in a thorough public audit and financial/criminal penalties for the managers who pushed for speed over safety, they would no longer "work". > If standards mean imposing big constraints on development, nobody will pay attention to them. Unless there are penalties for not doing so. > tech has moved too fast for anyone to actually be able to credibly say how things should be done for longer than a year or two But that's just it. If things are moving so fast that you can't say how things should be done, then that tells you that the first thing that should be done is to slow everything way down.

stocksinsmocks 11mo ago

Has union labor resulted in measurable improvement in production outcomes in any industry they’re found in? I don’t think going from “managers are unaccountable for failure” to “nobody is accountable for failure” is a good thing. I think introducing more competition at higher levels may be better than eliminating it below. This should be happening because I’m pretty sure most PMs could be replaced by an LLM.

__loam 11mo ago
[flagged]
- pdimitar 11mo ago
  While I too doubt that unions would be a net negative and I might even suspect interference by paid malicious actors to discourage people to unionize and thus never have power, I can't agree with your skepticism that PMs cannot be replaced by LLMs. Most PMs I've ever met had zero clue what they are doing. And no it's not only N=1 sample, same anecdote is heard from many, many other people. But sadly enough, undeniable human incompetence there is not even the biggest problem. The "we will never make more reasonable deadline" is. Most managers, not just PMs, are an objective net negative. As any ruling class always does, they get complacent and think that just putting their foot down is going to magically change reality.
  - parineum 11mo ago
    > Most PMs I've ever met had zero clue what they are doing. And no it's not only N=1 sample, same anecdote is heard from many, many other people. Most people say that because they have no idea what a PM's job is and are upset that the PM isn't doing what they want.
    - pdimitar 11mo ago
      Highly irrelevant. Not my role as an individual contributor to hone and fine-tune their job description. Fact on the ground is that they usually optimize the entirely wrong indicators and never ever optimize for avoiding future problems. In my consulting and contracting stints I made it a habit to write down what crisis is looming on the horizon and making bets with my wife which one is going to arrive first. A fun little game. Watching train wrecks in slow motion stopped being fun with time. What PM's job is is above my pay grade. I want them to enable me and the team, not be a mouth piece of people with zero understanding of product _and_ of engineering. They are just there to ask you how is stuff going.