Hacker News Reader

Comment by SandersAK | Hacker News Reader

It's a little disheartening that people on HN fail to understand that some people don't have a true choice sometimes when it comes to a job.

I'm not posting this to shame anyone, but I would ask that before you say things like "well just quit" or "it's on them when they made the choice," consider that not everyone in the world can make the same choices you can, or have the resources, or know-how to make those choices.

Self-reliance is obviously important, and something that our community values, but I think being empathetic to those who either cannot or don't know how is crucial to creating products and services that add value in the world.

good luck out there, y'all.

View on HN

The one upside of saying "well just quit" is that it creates a community norm of leaving abusive situations while you still can. The objective reality is that these men would have had better lives if they'd quit. It's unfortunate and sad that they suffered, and if the allegations are correct it's awful that Microsoft created an environment where they'd suffer, but the rest of us can learn from this: leave bad jobs early, have a backup plan, keep an eye on your mental health, don't always assume the company will look after you, have enough cash on hand to cover months of living expenses, etc.

Maybe greater attrition rates could have forced MS to improve working conditions, or at least led to higher pay and shorter stints.

yeah i think the issue isn't with the decision, it's more understanding the context around why that may or may not be an option.

Not 100% analogous to addiction treatement but think about how "just quit" isn't really a great way to start that conversation for many addicts. Obviously if they could, they would.

With that said, if there was an open and receptive community that worked to understand the situations of all these people (ie, their financial / family / mental situation), then you create a space where people feel empowered to "just quit"

But creating that space is where actual progress can happen.

On top of that, I think a large crux of the suit here is mostly due to the fact that Microsoft refused to shell out for treatment after the fact, despite doing so for other departments with similar jobs. While the plaintiffs do seem to have a problem with how they were hired, the actual suit seems to be solely based on the fact that their compensation did not cover any medical expenses they have incurred due to their work related trauma with a token clause about warning people properly.

Additionally, a lot of times people might end up in a position where they end up harming themselves or others, by the very force of social conformity. "Oh, if this big prestigious company does this, then it must be alright. This is expected. I must meet expectations."

> people on HN fail to understand that some people don't have a true choice sometimes when it comes to a job.

Nope. We do. Just that Software Engineers don't have a Union for collective bargaining rights like the Auto-industry and other engineering jobs.

I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job. You absolutely have a choice. I really hate this kind of thinking.

So rather than complain, let me ask this to people with kids, which seems to be the people who think they don't have a choice:

What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the company believed/ was doing/ etc? It seems the latter would let your child see you as a genuine human being who doesn't allow money to dictate their lives.

I don't have kids and never intend (on purpose), so please let me know if I am missing something.

I don't talk to my parents because they didn't really provide value in my life. But they did sacrifice things for money. Didn't really work out

You're creating a scenario where there are two options. In my experience that is almost never the case. Sometimes you have many options, sometimes you have none.

You're making assumptions about how family comes to be, who you would define as family, and making assumptions on what a person's obligations to family should be.

In all these cases, you're positing a sort of hegemonic perfect person who has total free agency and no history to contend with.

If that's truly you, that's fantastic. Cherish and enjoy that liberation. But just remember that to have that agency, millions of people have struggled without such things.

I think it's great that you've made a decision about whether or not to have kids in a purposeful manner. Many people don't, and I wish they would. I have a kid and I wouldn't trade him for any fancy startup or company founding in the world. Different strokes.

But it also leads me to believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) you've never had to, or thought to, work and live to serve and enable the lives of another.

I think that's totally ok. I'm not judging you there. But I am asking you to consider that others find value in that path, and in our current society, that path is often derided and consider "unsuccessful."

There are many variables, this is true and unfair of me. It was more to get into the mindset of someone else's thinking.

I have however had to work towards someone else's life (maybe not as extreme as a child) and would love nothing other than to serve humanity in a greater way.

I ask because I genuinely don't understand this thinking so thank you for taking the time to respond and not down voting into oblivion. People like you really are why I come to this site!

Not everyone has good parents. Some people need to still figure things out, even at age 30...

I honestly really do understand your situation in many ways. I know what it's like to fight for something better, and to feel like you're enduring all the stress you can because you think it's worth it. It's really hard to hear people who don't seem to have this mentality and to see them suffer. "IF only they'd just make this one choice" I find myself saying. But that's not the whole story, and I know that now after a lot of failure to reflect on my own situation.

I don't think you should throw that passion away. But I do think, as much as you have learned and gained by getting yourself to a good place in your own way, there's a lot you can gain from pushing yourself to see other angles.

Empathy is like a muscle - the more you use it, the stronger and more effective it becomes.

and I mean yeah, I think everyone has a lot to figure out, no matter their age!

I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job.

With your kids, right? Oh yeah that's right -- you didn't have any.

What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the company believed/ was doing/ etc?

If your kids are taken away from you because you're living in a car and can't afford to feed and clothe them... then I guess you won't get too many chances to tell them stories about how principled you once were and how you stuck it to the man and all, way back when. Now will you?

So please let me know if I am missing something.

The whole point the above commenter was making was just because you felt you faced a similar(-ish) situation to those people once -- that doesn't mean that your boundary constraints (and emotional / psychological history) were the same, or even roughly comparable, to what they were facing. And so what felt like a "true choice" for you, may not have been a "true" (or even remotely viable) choice for these people.

In other words, it all comes down to this thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Thanks! Even though you are condescending, I really appreciate the feedback

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback, also.

Let me put this into terms that you might better relate to.

To a person with kids, being lectured about the right choices to make in their lives with regards to their kids by someone without kids is much like being an engineer forced to endure the ignorant suggestions and misguided directives of a clueless non-technical manager.

Haha I love this metaphor. Very relatable!

However I wasn't lecturing (or trying to). Just providing a paradox that might help me better understand parents perspective.

  > What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the company believed/ was doing/ etc? It seems the latter would let your child see you as a genuine human being who doesn't allow money to dictate their lives.

I'd rather have a job that sucks in order to take care of my kids. It certainly beats telling them the story about how you quit your crappy job because money doesn't dictate your life. And how that's the reason behind why the state took them away and you can only see them during supervised visits once a week at their foster home. You know, because you can no longer adequately provide for them after quitting your job.

The above isn't being facetious; at least in the US, it's entirely possible to have your kids taken away if you end up living out of your car. And it will not look good when you go up to a judge to get your kids back that the circumstances that led to such an outcome were entirely of your own volition (i.e. you quit instead of getting fired).

Not everyone has savings. Not every country has an extensive welfare system. In some places if you don't earn you don't eat. In those circumstances, are you going to starve or turn to crime just because you didn't want a crappy job?

Actually, it's more rational to turn to crime than work a shitty minimum wage job in an economically disadvantaged area. That's why those areas have crime.

The choices are simple.

Work at McDonalds/Walmart

Max weekly earnings: ~$420 assuming CA minimum wage and a 40 hour workweek

Smuggle cocaine from Mexico to USA

85k - 200k per run depending on quantity.

Rational from the perspective of the individualist, but not necessarily from the perspective of the collectivist. If drug smuggling was just about moving drugs from A to B then it wouldn't be so bad, but drug cartels cause a lot of damage in their wake, including some of the gang violence that is having to be watched by the online content moderators in the linked article.

In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, personal safety and physiological needs come first before social needs.

That doesn't mean that moving up that hierarchy is not desirable. Whilst a life of crime may offer an escape route from a life of poverty, there are benefits to society at large if other escape routes out of poverty are within reach. If opportunities are not made easily available, it's up to the individual how much work they're willing to put in to make opportunities for themself.

To be clear, I'm not saying that criminals are automatically bad, some have been faced with tough circumstances and are just doing what they can to survive, what I am saying is that we should encourage alternatives where possible, as society as a whole benefits when we offer other opportunities for getting out of poverty.

With that argument no one would ever volunteer to be a soldier.

Shitty minimum wage job gives you a incentive to improve yourself so you don't have a shitty minimum wage job. Economical disadvantage area gives you a reason to leave said economical disadvantage area.

> I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job

I'm assuming you're male.

You also need a car.

This doesn't provide value : ( Maybe you can help me understand where you are coming from instead of comments like these

Meaning: just because YOU have choice doesn't mean others do. People are not referring to literal free will here—sometimes, you have a job you depend on with no way to change the situation without greatly risking your health or freedom.

I think they are implying you might not feel ok with living in a car if you were not male. They are also pointing out you have to have a car to live in one, since many people choose to not own cars, they don't have the option of living in their car because they do not own one to live in.

> I don't talk to my parents because they didn't really provide value in my life

Wow really? You view your relationship with your parents like a Business deal / transaction? "value". Wow. The biggest "value" they provided you was conceiving and giving Birth to your cold-hearted insensitive ass.

Think about that for a moment. I feel bad for your parents, and sad for you.

Many people have abusive parents. And no one owes their parents (or anyone) a relationship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com