4 ms·
>If there is a company specific hardship That's the issue. 2/3 of my layoffs were not "financial hardships". One was just a medium sized studio who ran out of
by johnnyanmac 2mo ago
>If there is a company specific hardship
That's the issue. 2/3 of my layoffs were not "financial hardships". One was just a medium sized studio who ran out of projects and didn't want me to continue. The other was a large global company who was about to make big purchases (and eventually, change leadership).
Maybe with job #1 I could have saved it, but I was underpaid and already looking out the door, so it wasn't surprising to me. Job #2 was 100% the kind of place a union would have saved my job from. (and if you care, Job #3 was just classic "startup funding pulled". They shut down a year later. It is what it is, but I guess you don't see the red flags when you get a nice pay boost and a shiny company on your resume).
>Easy example is how Big 3 automakers were 100% unionized in the 1970s and have since shed about 500,0000 American jobs despite producing more automobiles than ever.
yes, almost like they spent the last 50 years working with the federal government to break down union powers. Surely isn't a plethora of literature on that.
>Unions tend to be good at bargaining for better pay and benefits, but the current status quo is that most tech workers already have decent pay and benefits anyway.
You forget stability. Making big money one year and none another year just averages out to "okay".
- missedthecue 2mo agoThe big 3 don't employ half a million fewer because they weakened unions. It's because manufacturing needs fewer people now. The UAW can't simply force them to retain half a million people sitting around doing nothing, and they can only do so much to ban the implementation of automated manufacturing systems.
- johnnyanmac 2mo ago> It's because manufacturing needs fewer people now. It's because they outsourced most roles starting in the 90s. They don't need as many people due to efficiency gains, but not "hollow out entire cities" levels of efficiency. Human labor is still necessary, and human labor in other parts of the world will be cheaper than many automation gains for times to come.
- missedthecue 2mo agoBig 3 global workforce headcount today is far far below what it was in 1970. The outsourcing explanation doesn't make sense.
- johnnyanmac 2mo agoAnd they all sell less cars than on the 70's too. But their profits still stay relatively high and revenue is steadily rising. That doesn't tell me we got efficiency gains, they just shifted models on how and what to make. And where they make it. If we had true efficiency gains there'd be more cars sold, perhaps at cheaper prices.
- missedthecue 2mo agoThe big 3 produced 6.47 million passenger cars in 1970. The big 3 produced 15.66 million passenger cars in 2025.
- Apocryphon 2mo agoOne would think the true efficiency gains are better quality cars that last longer and require less replacement
- soco 2mo agoAre your numbers (which I haven't seen) include the headcount of the makers of their outsourced parts?