Hacker News Reader

Comment by firebones | Hacker News Reader

To everyone criticizing the author for various "failings" such as lack of personal finance skills, getting an English degree, choosing to live in the Bay area: exactly whom do you think is going to fill this role under the parameters the employer is offering? Would it help you be happier if it was someone in the same situation who chose not to raise the issue publicly?

View on HN

Nobody, until the employer puts up wages to make the job pay enough? That's how a free market works - if people are willing to do the work at an absurdly low wage, that's what'll happen.

If you want a different outcome, you either need some form of housing change in SF, organised labour, or realistic minimum wage laws.

All of this anger is not about the wage the employee agreed to, it's a result of the perceived expectations that were set.

Maybe OP was stupid to believe the employer or maybe OP completely misread the expectations from the get-go. Regardless, it is BEST for the employer to ensure proper expectations from the start so they don't end up with a mess like this.

If there are not tons of opportunities and room for growth, employees will still agree to work for companies! I had similar expectations at my first company because I was told I could have them. I do not have similar expectations going into my next company, but my job search was filled witch a barrage of recruiters and hiring managers saying they want someone to be committed to the company for long-term and there's lots of room for growth.

I'm taking a job based on what is great in the here and now with expectations to move in at least two years. I think it's a better way, but was painful to learn.

> That's how a free market works - if people are willing to do the work at an absurdly low wage, that's what'll happen.

Or if companies only pay low wages then the workers are screwed and have to live poor. There is a reason unions were formed.

How was this person screwed, in particular? Was it not simple jealousy stemming from the fact that she worked in the same building with high earning engineers?

It's fallacious to suppose you deserve more money, merely because others in your proximity make more money. This is pure entitlement, devoid of ambition to achieve through hard work.

What? Maybe she deserves more money because she works full time and can't afford to eat? Where are you getting this jealousy angle from?

If you read the article, you would discover that she's jealous of the engineers and others who get more freebies, better pay, etc.

The author has failed the open letter litmus test, where the positive result is reserved for thoughtful discourses of potential public interest or concern. This Medium post read more like something you tell your friends after a few drinks - and even then, they would be silently thinking, "We're all in the same boat but I haven't sunk yet so quit complaining!"

At the end of the day, the author - like anybody living in the free world - has the choice to pack and move to a more accommodating work/home situation.

It is of public interest. It may sound like someone just complaining about a bad job, but I'd say companies have responsibility to make sure that they pay a livable wage to their employees. And that should be of interest to the public.

I'll concede to the fact that this has stirred a debate the public cares for. Also, I am genuinely sympathetic to the plight of workers being exploited by their employers.

However, the post risks polarizing readers, most of whom could start to see or confirm that managers don't care about the plight of their lowest rung. At my work, our lowest level employees get paid ~$23/hour, but even at that level, a few still complain about their wages being too low to live on. Managers are perhaps myopic in thinking about living wages, but they don't have much choice.

Companies like Yelp are coming of age, and that means they need to turn profits, not just grow. Most such businesses have strict wage budgets, usually a % of revenue, to control operating costs. In this case, if Yelp's CEO capitulates and increases wages, his team will have to hire less people than before.

Perhaps once again, a lose-lose situation. The business loses servicing power and less people get the opportunity to work towards their dream of working in media.

You seem to be under impression that the issue she raises is somehow not 'Talia is an entitled person unable to critically evaluate and plan her life'

> exactly whom do you think is going to fill this role under the parameters the employer is offering? Would it help you be happier if it was someone in the same situation who chose not to raise the issue publicly?

Thats something for employer to think about and solve, not internet mobs.

Often employers would choose to not think or solve it without fear of internet mob or of bad publicity.

"who", not "whom"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com