7 ms·

It persists partially because tech industry workers are especially susceptible to class confusion. That is, the startup culture stock option lottery deludes the

by gnu8 12y ago

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
Well put. Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote also comes to mind here. It has far more broad application than merely as a suggested explanation for the failure of socialism to take root in America. I find it is a very useful shorthand to describe a great many interactions between labor and ownership in this country, whatever the industry. The tech industry is especially bad in that regard. It's not just the startup culture; it's more general than that. Many programmers have serious ego issues (as in, big egos and unjustifiable arrogance) and, in a somewhat amusing and baffling way, believe very strongly in the notion that the software industry is a meritocracy.
- zhng 12y ago
  http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
michaelochurch 12y ago
It persists partially because tech industry workers are especially susceptible to class confusion. That is, the startup culture stock option lottery deludes them into thinking they are a part of the ownership class rather than the working class. Thus, they allow basically all of the fruits of their labor to be stolen from them. Very well said. They take everything literally and accept management's account of all things uncritically, which makes it really easy to run divide-and-conquer games over them. It also lowers their status (as I discussed here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other...) because they out themselves as chumps when they take a shitty deal. If you make it clear that you'll let people take advantage of you, they never stop doing so. On the other hand, those who show themselves to be politically astute are either tapped for executive roles or "culture fitted" (read: fired for their threat to the cult of cluelessness, although it's often dressed as performance-based). Which of those two outcomes one gets tends to happen for political, rather than "meritocratic" reasons, and can be hard to predict before the fact. So that's a risky avenue, too.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  For some reason I find this topic fascinating, and at the same time I feel completely hopeless in navigating in any of it. What do you think of The Gervais Principle? http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o... High Status = Sociopath, Low Status = Losers destined for Cluelessness?
  - kyllo 12y ago
    Ha. michaelochurch almost literally wrote a book about the Gervais Principle, see his 26-part blog series on the topic: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/gervais-macleod-26-r-and-k-selection-in-organizations-and-capitalism/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/gervais-macle... And I don't think there are really any Losers destined for Cluelessness. The Clueless are the people who don't understand office politics, or think they can climb the career ladder simply by working hard and being loyal employees (not through strategic social climbing). Losers are people who understand and see the ladder there but choose not to be social climbers. They gossip, do crossword puzzles, punch out and go spend time with their kids. There are lots of Clueless destined to become Losers once they get burned out and realize what's up. Once you've learned that you can't unlearn it.
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    High status: Sociopath. Low status people tend to divide into three camps: delusional, apathetic, and confrontational. Low status, delusional: Clueless. Low status, apathetic: Losers. The confrontational ones either (a) learn how to play the game and become Sociopaths, (b) consciously develop apathy and learn how to slack and become losers, or (c) continue raging until they're expelled/fired from the organization.
toehead2000 12y ago
There are a lot of comments like this in this thread, the gist of which being "people who don't demand overtime pay are deluded/stupid/victims of false consciousness/act against their own interest." Pretty much everyone is an at will employee, free to go find another job. Since these exempt positions tend to be high skill, the logic behind these laws is that these kinds of employees don't need this extra layer of government protection between them and their paycheck. They have the wherewithal to go find another employer if they feel they're being treated unfairly. The left wing side of this argument is certainly getting a hearing, but coming to a different conclusion doesn't make you a deluded member of the under class (if I'm interpreting your claptrap correctly).
- johnward 12y ago
  You are free to go find another position that also will not pay you for overtime.
  - cpwright 12y ago
    Or if you think that getting paid overtime is important, you are free to work in a field that pays overtime. I am fairly certain that even if you include work outside of the 40 hours, my hourly rate is better than I would do otherwise. On top of that, I can probably continue at this career for the next 35 years without a significant physical toll on my body. If I thought otherwise, I would probably want to be an electrician; where if I owned my own business I still end up as an exempt employee.
    - johnward 12y ago
      The physical toll is there for many in this career but it's damage from a lack of physicality vs the damage from being over physical such as construction. Almost all of my family are pipefitters and I often envy them for doing something physical but it has also taken a toll on my father. They also get paid time and 1/2 and double time as required. They make about what I make in this industry but tend to work more paid hours to do it. I understand you are taking the "free market" side of the argument but at a certain point employers hold too much power and employees start fight back. Things like that are why unions exist which are also a part of the free market.

by gnu8 12y ago

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

Well put. Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote also comes to mind here. It has far more broad application than merely as a suggested explanation for the failure of socialism to take root in America. I find it is a very useful shorthand to describe a great many interactions between labor and ownership in this country, whatever the industry. The tech industry is especially bad in that regard. It's not just the startup culture; it's more general than that. Many programmers have serious ego issues (as in, big egos and unjustifiable arrogance) and, in a somewhat amusing and baffling way, believe very strongly in the notion that the software industry is a meritocracy.

zhng 12y ago
http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/

michaelochurch 12y ago

It persists partially because tech industry workers are especially susceptible to class confusion. That is, the startup culture stock option lottery deludes them into thinking they are a part of the ownership class rather than the working class. Thus, they allow basically all of the fruits of their labor to be stolen from them. Very well said. They take everything literally and accept management's account of all things uncritically, which makes it really easy to run divide-and-conquer games over them. It also lowers their status (as I discussed here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other...) because they out themselves as chumps when they take a shitty deal. If you make it clear that you'll let people take advantage of you, they never stop doing so. On the other hand, those who show themselves to be politically astute are either tapped for executive roles or "culture fitted" (read: fired for their threat to the cult of cluelessness, although it's often dressed as performance-based). Which of those two outcomes one gets tends to happen for political, rather than "meritocratic" reasons, and can be hard to predict before the fact. So that's a risky avenue, too.

bentcorner 12y ago
For some reason I find this topic fascinating, and at the same time I feel completely hopeless in navigating in any of it. What do you think of The Gervais Principle? http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o... High Status = Sociopath, Low Status = Losers destined for Cluelessness?
- kyllo 12y ago
  Ha. michaelochurch almost literally wrote a book about the Gervais Principle, see his 26-part blog series on the topic: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/gervais-macleod-26-r-and-k-selection-in-organizations-and-capitalism/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/gervais-macle... And I don't think there are really any Losers destined for Cluelessness. The Clueless are the people who don't understand office politics, or think they can climb the career ladder simply by working hard and being loyal employees (not through strategic social climbing). Losers are people who understand and see the ladder there but choose not to be social climbers. They gossip, do crossword puzzles, punch out and go spend time with their kids. There are lots of Clueless destined to become Losers once they get burned out and realize what's up. Once you've learned that you can't unlearn it.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  High status: Sociopath. Low status people tend to divide into three camps: delusional, apathetic, and confrontational. Low status, delusional: Clueless. Low status, apathetic: Losers. The confrontational ones either (a) learn how to play the game and become Sociopaths, (b) consciously develop apathy and learn how to slack and become losers, or (c) continue raging until they're expelled/fired from the organization.

toehead2000 12y ago

There are a lot of comments like this in this thread, the gist of which being "people who don't demand overtime pay are deluded/stupid/victims of false consciousness/act against their own interest." Pretty much everyone is an at will employee, free to go find another job. Since these exempt positions tend to be high skill, the logic behind these laws is that these kinds of employees don't need this extra layer of government protection between them and their paycheck. They have the wherewithal to go find another employer if they feel they're being treated unfairly. The left wing side of this argument is certainly getting a hearing, but coming to a different conclusion doesn't make you a deluded member of the under class (if I'm interpreting your claptrap correctly).

johnward 12y ago
You are free to go find another position that also will not pay you for overtime.
- cpwright 12y ago
  Or if you think that getting paid overtime is important, you are free to work in a field that pays overtime. I am fairly certain that even if you include work outside of the 40 hours, my hourly rate is better than I would do otherwise. On top of that, I can probably continue at this career for the next 35 years without a significant physical toll on my body. If I thought otherwise, I would probably want to be an electrician; where if I owned my own business I still end up as an exempt employee.
  - johnward 12y ago
    The physical toll is there for many in this career but it's damage from a lack of physicality vs the damage from being over physical such as construction. Almost all of my family are pipefitters and I often envy them for doing something physical but it has also taken a toll on my father. They also get paid time and 1/2 and double time as required. They make about what I make in this industry but tend to work more paid hours to do it. I understand you are taking the "free market" side of the argument but at a certain point employers hold too much power and employees start fight back. Things like that are why unions exist which are also a part of the free market.