3 ms·
You are arguing more with an imagined opinion and worldview than you are arguing with the comment that you replied to. The comment you replied to refers to the
by tks2103 13y ago
You are arguing more with an imagined opinion and worldview than you are arguing with the comment that you replied to.
The comment you replied to refers to the perceived difference between what "the startup mythology" promises and the reality that many software engineers at startups are given in hard benefits.
Some software engineers at startups work 100-hour weeks because they think they will receive massive compensation in the form of stock. They perceive the stock they have already received to provide a much larger amount of raw wealth than it would if they crunched the numbers. They perceive that their company might provide them with much larger grants of stock if they perform exceedingly well in building the product. Sometimes their bosses guarantee them that they will receive a massive cut of the company, if they just work a little bit harder for a little bit longer.
I don't know how common situations similar to the above are, but they do exist. I imagine many folks reading Hacker News have been on one or both sides of the table in that situation (stock-granting and stock-receiving). I believe that is what the comment you responded to is criticizing.
Nowhere was there a comparison made to victorian textile workers.
Nowhere was there a claim that '(not) getting as rich as you thought' was the worst complaint about the software industry.
You made the latter two arguments up, and then knocked them down.
- timr 13y ago"Nowhere was there a comparison made to victorian textile workers." Yeah, no kidding. I'm the one who made the comparison, because everything he's complaining about depends on an assumption of victimization that just doesn't apply to software engineers. You're exactly right that modern workers are nothing like victorian textile workers -- and that's my point. You're empowered to do whatever you like with your career, but the complaint is...that other people are exploiting you? No. If you're being exploited, it's because you made a bad decision. Are there naive people who make bad bets and work hard for little gain? Sure. But as in all things, caveat emptor -- it's not your employer's job to second-guess your motivations, and make sure that you're always acting in your own rational best interest. And while we all make bad bets from time to time, I've never experienced the sort of Machiavellian scheming from employers that the rest of you are complaining about.
- rdtsc 13y ago> No. If you're being exploited, it's because you made a bad decision. And of course because they are software engineers they will always act like perfectly logical proof machines and if they don't know laundry list of startup terminology and financial details of stocks and options well yeah sucks to be them. /s > You're empowered to do whatever you like with your career, but the complaint is...that other people are exploiting you? Yes employers exploit employees. Is this that surprising? This perfect balance of power between the two exists in simplified models of the world we like to build in our heads. Yes they should know better, they should know the financial details. They don't seem to act rational working 100 hours a week for a %0.01 of equity. Good, we've got that squared away. Now how come so many of the supposed rather rational individuals end up in that situation? That's where it is interesting. Survivorship bias and hanging out on HN might help reinforce it as well. Maybe there are other factors? Are some idealists and like to believe in a cause? Ok, now, does the CEO also know that and is exploiting it?