3 ms·

I wish this was true. Yet, I think we all have some skin in the game to why this article rings false. When it comes to getting an advantage, people often look

I wish this was true. Yet, I think we all have some skin in the game to why this article rings false. When it comes to getting an advantage, people often look the other way at meanness. For example, it’s easy to complain about how Amazon treats their employees. Yet, we choose to buy from Amazon because it’s convenient, cheap, and everyone else is doing it. We might see an organization treat someone else unfairly but when resources are scarce, we often look the other way because it feels like there is nothing one person can do. I like the old black and white movie, The Invisible Man, to demonstrate the situation of a specific type of meanness that seems ever present today. The enemy is invisible and is only defeated when the entire community gets involved.

stickfigure 8mo ago
I don't think Amazon treats their employees badly. Warehouse workers aren't compensated like software engineers, but what do you expect? I'm sure there are shitty managers at Amazon (in warehouses and in software) but by and large I believe blue collar Amazon workers have it about as well as blue collar workers everywhere. Maybe better. I don't really see the problem here.
- butlike 8mo ago
  Amazon could remove the timer on bathroom breaks to restore some of their humanity, e.g.
- JoshTriplett 8mo ago
  The issue isn't about pay. It's about measuring so aggressively and turning the screws until you extract every last bit of value out of someone. If a company is measuring the duration and frequency of bathroom breaks (to pick one of many examples that's been highlighted in the press), something has gone fundamentally wrong.
  - sailfast 8mo ago
    This. Humans are people, not machines. They are your neighbors. They deserve dignity. Exploiting people’s desperation for full employment is wrong.
- wat10000 8mo ago
  Low-wage workers are generally treated pretty badly. Maybe Amazon is the same as the rest, but that doesn't mean they treat their workers well.
- sailfast 8mo ago
  What if I mentioned to you that a solid chunk of those employees could be given a couple of shares of stock that made a few lucky people billionaires - some that still work there - and it would be a life-changing amount of money? In addition to some truly gnarly stories / conditions and their staunch anti-Union stance it is also a relativity issue. There is much to go around but it’s not always spread around with consideration for your employees. And there really isn’t a good reason for that in my opinion. I hear the argument “well I guess they don’t deliver as much value / leverage for the company as others”. I get it, but at a certain point that rings as a completely hollow and greedy justification. Where that is for you is subjective. But for me? Where there are billionaires there is room for generosity.
jraph 8mo ago
> I wish this was true. Exactly what I was thinking as I was tapping the thread link, strange to see the exact same words on the screen a second later. Either what pg considers means is radically different from what I consider mean, or we have different things in mind when thinking about success, or he lives in a different world. Several counter examples immediately come to mind, and not only in the startup world. Granted, it's probably easier today than in 2014 but still. It feels utterly naive. The whole piece. For instance: > Startups don't win by attacking. They win by transcending. Well, sure, if eliminating all your competitors by burning investor cash and if breaking the law left and right or disregarding ethics or the environment is considered transcending and not attacking or being mean. Now, maybe that stuff is considered fair game in pg's world.
akudha 8mo ago
It is very time consuming, tiring and takes effort to do principled shopping. For most people, convenience and price are more important than principles. I can’t think of many (any?) big companies that I’d be happy to give my money to, they all behave badly - only question is the degree to which each one behaves badly. This isn’t complaining, just pointing out the reality - we actually don’t have as many options as we think we do. If one has extra money, they can spend a little more and shop at smaller but expensive places, most people are going to shop at Walmart or Amazon

stickfigure 8mo ago

I don't think Amazon treats their employees badly. Warehouse workers aren't compensated like software engineers, but what do you expect? I'm sure there are shitty managers at Amazon (in warehouses and in software) but by and large I believe blue collar Amazon workers have it about as well as blue collar workers everywhere. Maybe better. I don't really see the problem here.

butlike 8mo ago
Amazon could remove the timer on bathroom breaks to restore some of their humanity, e.g.
JoshTriplett 8mo ago
The issue isn't about pay. It's about measuring so aggressively and turning the screws until you extract every last bit of value out of someone. If a company is measuring the duration and frequency of bathroom breaks (to pick one of many examples that's been highlighted in the press), something has gone fundamentally wrong.
- sailfast 8mo ago
  This. Humans are people, not machines. They are your neighbors. They deserve dignity. Exploiting people’s desperation for full employment is wrong.
wat10000 8mo ago
Low-wage workers are generally treated pretty badly. Maybe Amazon is the same as the rest, but that doesn't mean they treat their workers well.
sailfast 8mo ago
What if I mentioned to you that a solid chunk of those employees could be given a couple of shares of stock that made a few lucky people billionaires - some that still work there - and it would be a life-changing amount of money? In addition to some truly gnarly stories / conditions and their staunch anti-Union stance it is also a relativity issue. There is much to go around but it’s not always spread around with consideration for your employees. And there really isn’t a good reason for that in my opinion. I hear the argument “well I guess they don’t deliver as much value / leverage for the company as others”. I get it, but at a certain point that rings as a completely hollow and greedy justification. Where that is for you is subjective. But for me? Where there are billionaires there is room for generosity.

jraph 8mo ago

> I wish this was true. Exactly what I was thinking as I was tapping the thread link, strange to see the exact same words on the screen a second later. Either what pg considers means is radically different from what I consider mean, or we have different things in mind when thinking about success, or he lives in a different world. Several counter examples immediately come to mind, and not only in the startup world. Granted, it's probably easier today than in 2014 but still. It feels utterly naive. The whole piece. For instance: > Startups don't win by attacking. They win by transcending. Well, sure, if eliminating all your competitors by burning investor cash and if breaking the law left and right or disregarding ethics or the environment is considered transcending and not attacking or being mean. Now, maybe that stuff is considered fair game in pg's world.

akudha 8mo ago

It is very time consuming, tiring and takes effort to do principled shopping. For most people, convenience and price are more important than principles. I can’t think of many (any?) big companies that I’d be happy to give my money to, they all behave badly - only question is the degree to which each one behaves badly. This isn’t complaining, just pointing out the reality - we actually don’t have as many options as we think we do. If one has extra money, they can spend a little more and shop at smaller but expensive places, most people are going to shop at Walmart or Amazon