Are you against this? Flexible working hours that can bend to accommodate very malleable human lives seems better than rigid adherence to traditional schedules for the sake of it.
I think many people to fail to realize that writing software is very unlike producing widgets in a factory line. Some people hit periods of high productivity when they work quietly, alone, for an hour or two. And you might get more in that 1-2 hours than you would all day with the constant distractions in the modern office.
My father graduated college making $42k/yr. Inflation adjusted, that was about $60k/yr in today's dollars. I just graduated, have experience in the field, and am getting a salary of $35k/yr in today's dollars. Meanwhile, upper management is getting millions.
In that kind of work environment, why _should_ I care? It's not like they're going to fire me.
I don't mean this to sound challenging out all, I'm just kind of curious.
Under the broad umbrella of jobs-you-can-land-with-a-degree-containing-the-word-"computer", there are a great many that aren't making Facebook creepier, or making Gmail's interface worse, or other, similar, very high-paying jobs.
There are even, believe it or not, many that don't pay as well as not really understanding how to write code, but nonetheless somehow landing a position writing enterprise Java or DotNet at some boring bigcorp, then never leaving because you never actually get any better at programming than when you started, but these people don't seem to care and there are a few competent people here picking up your slack, so why risk going somewhere else? AKA the broad middle-tier of people working as software developers.
With the move to digital when rigor and having tech people who really know there shit Is now important they don't want to pay the rate.
> Or maybe you're just in a rural area?
It's rural compared to the big coastal cities, but is still the third biggest city in my state. IMO, it shouldn't just be giant cities that experience economic growth, it should be everyone. The fact that this hasn't been the case in my area leaves me and many in my area bitter about the state of the economy.
Relocation isn't an option. My family lives here, my wife's family lives here, she has a career started here, and we can't afford the massive amount of instability that a move to a high COL area would bring.
Feel free to ask more questions. The more that rich people hear from folks like me, the more they'll understand the current political climate.
Suppose you could find a job elsewhere for $90k+. If you can't, sure, that's a good reason why relocation isn't an option, and finding a job in a location you don't live in is by no means easy. But if you can, then you ought to consider moving, by yourself (since your wife is busy with a career), live in an apartment with one or two other roommates, and live frugally saving/investing as much as you can. Make visits back home when you can, but at $90k+/yr that shouldn't be so hard, depends on how you want to balance your triple sized income. (Higher COL areas will eat into that, but living frugally, not very much.) Do this for 3-4 years, you'll have made more than 10 years at your current location and pay, handwaving away taxes/bonuses/raises/better opportunities. Then quit and relocate back, except now you have a savings cushion and it only cost you another few years of your time.
Sounds like you want to redistribute the economic gains? Good luck with that, we know where that leads. Economic inequality is fine if people are also raised out of poverty, like over a billion people have been since 1990 while inequality has raised. Inequality can be a good sign. (http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html)
At the very least, America can't have it both ways, being an economic power house and evenly redistributing the fruits internally. You might have a shot if you require Americans roll back into a farming economy where half the population farms for each other and the other half, but you'll have to kill a lot of people and take and salt a lot of land and forbid a lot of machinery to get it done. I don't think that's why Trump got elected. The voters don't tend to want handouts, they just want certain existing handouts to other parties to go away so they can effectively compete again in certain domains. Dissatisfaction with the economy in their area is a big component, sure, and Trump actually cares about making the country's economy better, and he's already done good things to help some areas out, but neither he nor anyone else will ever make e.g. all the state capitals equally economically viable with similar growth rates. Physics is against them, math is against them, human nature is against them, morality is against them. SV and other tech hubs will pass one day, too, just like the ghost towns you can visit all over the western states albeit probably not so dramatically, but that'll just be because the economic centers have moved elsewhere, not because they've been redistributed. Exploit their opportunities while they're there.
IT support in a rural area is more or less what I was suspecting (yes, Springfield is Country). It's ironic that the tech age was supposed to bring in an era of telecommuting, when in fact it's brought in an era of greatly increased centralization. Small towns needed doctors and lawyers, they don't need software developers or high end tech support.
In theory the increase in cloud services could change that, but I don't really see the trend changing.
I do find it ironic for a commenter to be surprised at a lower-wage worker reading a thread about, per the title, blue collar wages. (And that a thread with such a title inevitably turns into a discussion of programmer wages ;-)
Those issues aside, your answer is basically my entire point: "why _should_ I care? It's not like they're going to fire me." I'm not sure why your employer won't fire you. Maybe they have trouble finding decent people to fill positions. I honestly don't know since I don't know what you do or who you work for. But regardless, your comment goes straight to the concept of work ethic.
It sounds like you are throwing work ethic to the wayside simply because you don't feel you get paid enough. That, in my opinion, is not the way to do things. Guess what, a lot of people are underpaid. I also have the viewpoint that you agreed to accepting the salary you are getting paid. They made an offer and you accepted it, presumably because it was the prevailing market rate for your skill set. If you feel that your compensation package is not appropriate then you should have a conversation about that with your manager - and leave the firm if necessary. It wasn't that long ago that I made about 45k. For the first 5 years out of school (starting in 2007) I worked for around that pay level. I did the daily grind and I tried hard to add value to the business where I could, because I wanted to not stagnate and just go through the motions because I viewed that as the worse path to take. I stayed late when necessary. Eventually another firm interviewed a bunch of people in my office, myself included, for a position that paid significantly more because they wanted to poach the right person to take onto their team. Guess who got the job. I even found out about 6 months later when speaking to the MD of my new employer that the CFO called him up and congratulated him on hiring me. I had no idea the CFO of my old company had me on his radar or was the type to make that kind of call. 3 years after that another opportunity presented itself solely because I had a strong reputation. That was another substantial bump on the pay ladder.
My point with the personal story is not to brag at all - hell, I certainly don't have some sort of prestigious job and there are plenty of people on this board alone that make more than I do. My point is that I highly recommend you change your mindset and the way you approach all of this. Ask yourself this. If I didn't work for the man, so to speak, as an underpaid entry level grunt for those 5 years, do you think I would have gotten that other job over my colleagues? That also would have not made the second job change (and pay increase) possible. Bringing it a little closer to home for you...if an employer interviewed you and your colleagues and had a job which paid a lot more, do you think you would get the offer or would someone else? Also, take a look at how someone successful in your line of work operates (a Director or MD, perhaps). Are they the kind of person that would share the same attitude as you? I imagine not. They would most likely either renegotiate their compensation or they would leave. I know that's how the higher ups would act where I am. The idea with all of this is to think and act like a successful person so that you can greatly increase your odds of success. It also has the benefit, in many cases, of also being the "right thing" to do. Contrary to popular belief, being a "company man" is usually still rewarded as long as you work for an employer which has basic common sense when it comes to employee compensation and morale.
And if all of that has not resonated with you at all, then consider this alternative argument. You can view it as that old joke about the two friends who are hiking and they come across a bear and one of them puts on running shoes. The other friend explains they can't outrun the bear and the first guy responds, "I don't need to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you". What I mean by this is that you are always viewed relative to your colleagues. So the first thing you want to ensure is that you are thought well of enough so that if the layoffs come around, you won't be on the list. That might be the case with you since you said they wouldn't fire you. The second part of that is to make it so that when an opportunity arises, you are on that list, whether for promotion, project, etc. My guess here is that you are not. So I assume that you are currently headed towards no-man's-land with your approach. They won't fire you but you will not be given the chance to shine because they see no upside in taking any risk on you. But if you really apply yourself you just might find that after a while your situation is looking very different. I sincerely hope this helps you in some way.
I work because this society threatens us with destitution if we do not. I have plenty of ideas, things to do. I have to put them aside for much of each week because I want to survive.
I work on side projects as I can. I don't quit my job because I don't know if I can survive as easily with my other ideas. It's a risky proposition. I choose less risk. You do the same, but seem upset at that concept.
No, but the extreme automation and beginning of human-like skills across all domains of knowledge are a new thing.
With automation of the essentials plus a bit more, we can finally start free ourselves from a lifetime of work. The wealthy already have, and choose what they wish to do. I only want that.
> As if not being a productive member of society leading to poverty is this evil new capitalistic creation?
No. That threat's always been there. But there wasn't a good answer how to fix it. Communism (ala USSR) certainly didn't work. They just changed the owner from a capitalist to a uncaring state. But one thing Marx failed to grasp was that computerization and automation was the way out of both old systems. That way, there's no compulsed labor.
> It's amazing to me that you choose to work for someone for an agreed upon salary, providing stability and security to you, and then have an issue with the concept of work ethic because if you don't work for them or someone else you will be poor.
Because it's not so egalitarian like you put it. You should full realize that there's a tremendous amount of asymmetry - They have the money, the legal, the govt clout. What do you have? Your labor. That's it. And you, the individual are expendable. I mean, who cares about where you sleep, what you eat, and basic necessities of life? I guess sleeping under a bridge is illegal for both the poor as it is the rich.
Unions served as a balance to that implicit, ever present threat. But they've been demonized long enough in this country, that US union membership is what, 15%? And in the tech sector, unions are non-existent. I certainly would want one myself.
Let's also not forget that the government has effectively stolen a large portion of the additional wealth/productivity generated over the past several decades via deficit spending. Mathematically, that's no different than a tax in the end. The only difference is that the tax is not felt immediately.
FWIW - I worked for a union once due to a peculiarity in one of my employer's older business units to which I was lumped purely due to legacy reasons. It was awful. And I wasn't the only one who thought so. It was one of the rare instances that people actually voted out their union. It happened only when we separated from the older business unit and were split into a separate LLC as part of a new business venture. 74% voted the union out. It was glorious.
http://www.industryweek.com/sites/industryweek.com/files/upl...
Take a close look at what you are cheerleading: Crushing student debt. Opioid abuse. Medical bankruptcy. Social immobility. Poverty.
No, really.
The internet provides the perfect counter example to this. It was (and remains) nearly entirely unregulated. And yet Google and Facebook are monsters with immense anti-competitive power.
The evidence really does not support the idea that big business is entirely the result of big government. Quite the opposite in fact. The last time we had this much concentration of economic power was the gilded age, an age of relatively small government. We had a period of lower wealth/power concentration in the 50s and 60s, but that was linked to strong anti-trust laws (administered by government) and 90% top marginal tax laws. Since then, neoliberal ideology has been used to chip away at the restraints on big business in government and now we currently have the worst of both worlds -- corrupt government beholden to vast concentration of economic power generated by big business.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the only way to avoid this is to look at the core of the systematic issue -- allowing equity financing concentrates wealth. Concentrating wealth concentrates power and naturally causes consolidation and centralization. In a world with equity financing, the only way to keep business small and competitive is with strong anti-trust laws and highly progressive taxation.
I think we could have a world of small government and small business, but only if we universally replace the Stock Corporation with the Worker Cooperative. That, of course, is a novel idea and requires a lot more support than I can put in HN post. Maybe some day I'll get to a point where I can stop developing full time to support myself and write that book...
You know any old LLC can be structured as a co-op with a bit of effort.
But I don't know that I've really seen anyone make a strong case for it (in a way digestible to the layment). Richard Wolff wrote about it in Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism but not in a way that was very digestible for the average reader. Gar Alperovitz has also written about it in What Now Must We Do? and America Beyond Capitalism, but in both cases he wasn't specifically making the argument for universally replacing the Stock Corporation with Worker Cooperatives, but more generally increasing the prevalence of cooperatives (worker, member, and multi-stakeholder) and decreasing the power of capital.
I'd really like to write a book, digestible by the average American, making the case for the universal replacement of the stock corporation with the worker cooperative and speculating about what impacts that might have on society (using evidence to support the speculation as much as possible).
[1] https://thenextsystem.org/ [2] https://democracycollaborative.org/ [3] http://neweconomics.org/
Personally, I don't think capitalism is going away any time soon, it's just a question of which version of it will be the most effective. Co-ops would need to be able to compete and win against the current shareholder model, without government intervention, which may not be possible.
Anyway, shoot me an email if you'd like to discuss more in a few months.
Another good book, more about the practical realities of creating a worker co-op in the current context, is Companies We Keep: Employee Ownership and the Business of Community and Place by John Abrams[1]. It's more a story about his experience founding and running his construction company as a worker cooperative. It would probably be a lot more relevant to pondering whether and how to form a cooperative business in the current world.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Companies-We-Keep-Ownership-Community...
> Contrary to popular belief, being a "company man" is usually still rewarded as long as you work for an employer which has basic common sense when it comes to employee compensation and morale.
It is mind-blowing that anyone could write this summary, expecting it to be generally applicable, when every study of wages shows they have stagnated since the 1970s, and at the same time every study of production through the same time shows it is through the roof.
In short, you advocate enshrining a work ethic, while pretending it's okay for ownership to totally ignore a pay ethic.
It's something akin to Stockholm Syndrome, if you ask me.
It's not mind-blowing when you consider that productivity is heavily linked to technological advances. Let's take a historical example - the barcode scanner. Prior to its creation, cashiers had to know the price of all items or check the price tags that were manually stickered onto every item by someone else in the store. Then someone came along and made it possible to have UPC's printed right onto the original packaging and then scanned instantaneously at the register, with essentially no errors ever. That both reduced the skill required by the cashiers as well as boosting (drastically) productivity. Yet no additional effort, creativity, or skill was required on the part of the cashier. If a tool comes along that makes my job easier and/or more accurate my employer will pay for it, but I'd be really surprised if they suddenly gave me a pay boost because of it.
The other half of this is that welfare programs subsidize the lower income workers. WalMart would not be able to pay <$10 an hour if welfare did not exist. If people didn't have the government as a backstop, you can guarantee they would stand up and demand a higher wage so that they could meet their basic needs.
Wages aren't stagnant by accident -- far from it. The constantly repeated, default decision by boardrooms to unlink compensation from productivity and thereby suppress wages is in fact the overwhelming, prevailing "common sense" of the really existing world. This goes hand in hand with the systematic expropriation by ownership of the surplus value created by workers.
This situation persists because persons with your perspective cheerlead it on, in part by moralizing on worker compensation while totally ignoring the moral calculus of ownership's claim to the surplus value created by workers. That's what you did here:
>Yet no additional effort, creativity, or skill was required on the part of the cashier [...] [therefore they deserve no share of their expanded productivity]
Fact: if additional effort, creativity and skill was a bona fide prerequisite for receiving expanded compensation linked to productivity, then dividend compensation for nonworking stockholders would never flow -- let alone grow to the astronomic, middle-class-savaging intensity it has today.
Where we probably disagree on the reason, though. To me, it comes down to an individual's overall slice of the monetary pie. Since money is just a representation of value, it's basically just a number inside of a larger system that we utilize. All that matters really is your portion of the whole. Let's use GDP as a gauge. The US has ~18.5T in GDP per year. Let's cut off some zeroes (6 of them) to get some more usable numbers. For a person making $10 an hour, that's about 20k a year, or 20,000/18,500,000=0.108%. If GDP increases 4% in 2 years but their wage only goes up 2.5% that would be 20,500/19,240,000=0.1065%. This means that they now have lost some purchasing power relative to everyone else because their share of GDP has decreased.
Now that's a moral argument, to be sure, because there is still supply and demand for labor that is a dominant for in the labor markets. So if someone else is going to work for $9 an hour, that's going to be a problem. There are many factors at at play.
But thanks for getting me to re-think my position on this.
I'm equally grateful you considered our conversation.
Worker ownership and worker governance of enterprises, in my view, is the general way forward. I suggest to anybody reconsidering commerce under capitalism take a look at the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation for a living example of super-productive commerce and industry that employs tens of thousands without the baked-in inequality that drives so many social ills.
Cheers!
Because it actually is the prevailing market rate for their role and they know that. Also, let's not forget that there is always a large risk when hiring someone, especially as in the OPs case where they are recently graduated. The value can't be certain, so businesses are conservative until it can be proven to be higher. This is logical and expected.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea that the business, the entity with all the power in the relationship, is entitled to be conservative but no one else is.
My mind is blown at reading this sentence.
My 'ethic' cannot be measured (or compensated, or matched) with money, no matter much money is offered; I dearly hope yours' the same.
If I don't think the pay is fair, I will just quit the job. I won't bother with complaining to the employer about money=work ethics.
I will decide what my ethic is, thank you.
Edit: And I am getting down mod for saying my ethics can't be bought. Jesus.
The senior executives at my company are very responsible people, however, how could they be irresponsible? They make millions/yr, they have secretaries, and they a lot of autonomy in deciding how they should be judged. It'd be unusual for someone to be irresponsible in those conditions.
Meanwhile, worker bees balance sick kids, uncooperative coworkers, shifting priorities/deadlines, and taking the time to be price-conscious because they can't really afford to waste money. Is it any surprise that sometimes things fall through the cracks?
Sure, there are people who turn up on a tuesday and that's ill-advised. But presumably they're an at-will employee. If it's a problem, replace them with someone better. IF you can't find someone better at the same price, that's your sign that you're not paying enough for what you want. If you like the person, make the investment in their responsibility.
Previous generations had jobs for life. For a while now many companies have proved they don't care about the staff, and so it's not particularly surprising that staff don't care about the work.
"I'm feeling sleepy and will be in later" is an employee being upfront and direct that they will not be productive and do not want to be the source of waste in the office. This is an employee that should be rewarded and encouraged. An office culture where this type of message is ok should be encouraged.
What you don't want is a toxic culture where everything needs to be explained and justified to an office full of scorekeepers and clock watchers. The people that do care are the ones that shouldn't care and should probably be minding their own business.
In dionidium's scenario it is very possible that employee worked it out with their manager and the message was a courtesy message. It is very possible they are tired from putting in a late night the night before. It is very possible they are tired due to "truly unforeseen and unusual circumstances." Etc.
To me, dionidium is the problem in this scenario.
I might say the same thing for this comment :/
I guess it boils down to a matter of trust. You've hired someone to get a job done. If you don't trust them to do it, fire them and replace them with someone you do trust.
The whole "you need to be in your chair at 9am daily because it's the only way I know you'll show up to client meetings and meet project deadlines" seems bizarre and gaslighty. Why not allow people the autonomy to do their job in a way that best suits them in terms of maximizing productivity? If someone misses a client meeting or deadline, that's the signal that you have a problem.
Or businesses can make demands, but in this labor market they'll have to pay for people to meet 'em.
I can promise to be in my chair at 9 am everyday, but I want to leave at 5 and if I'm tired, the business gets to pay for a less than productive day.