Hacker News Reader

Comment by srswtf123 | Hacker News Reader

I can’t imagine why people might be discontent…

All that’s really being asked of us is to give up all our productive years in service to people with no ethics, to make them richer. People who are more than happy to use you up and toss your corpse on the pile when you die. Is that really too much?

How dare you think you deserve something for your toils. Your masters have worked you incredibly hard — harder than you thought possible! Why should you get the credit when their wrist is sore from cracking the whip? You didn’t even think yourself capable, and look what you can do with proper motivation!

Now return to work, or you might find yourself without healthcare in a pandemic.

View on HN

Don't even get me started on these recent, "safety" demands either. Now that some number of peasants have died of this plague, many of them don't want to work under the conditions that make them vulnerable to it. The utter villains!

Honestly, this sentiment is valid for most of the working class. But in our industry, it's not the majority of cases. I feel well compensated and not overworked.

Now, is my work fulfilling? No.

I left work this year and while not overworked, I do feel like employers could increase my time off by 50% while reducing my time-in-seat by 20% but choose not to. I probably would have kept working with more time off, but 3-4 weeks off a year, just wasn't enough for the life my family and I wanted wanted to have.

Compensation was the hardest thing to leave, but when looking at the life I wanted to live I realized I had what I needed to to full-fill that life now. Mentally it is very hard, though. I had a great engineering job at Apple and after over 4 years I had a sizable chunk of RSU's to walk away from. What helped me with the RSU's was realizing that eventually I would leave–whether now or in 20 years–so walking away from RSU's is non-avoidable so I tried to frame it as a sunk cost.

I feel lucky as I now I have 5 paid weeks off a year, which is very generous by North American standards.

It's true time is more valuable than money. However at this point I am very sick of being at home.

Re: the RSUs that is a good point. I've been at Google for coming up on 10 years, and one thing that keeps me here is the RSU "handcuffs", for sure.

It can be both true that you're earning many times more than an average worker, and still severely underpaid compared to the value you've created for your employer.

The wealth inequality in the world is just staggering. You may be well off to the point money is not an problem for you, and still be piss-poor compared to your company's CEO and shareholders.

How can we determine what the percentage is? I'm also in your boat in feeling well compensated and not overworked, but I anecdotally feel like I'm very fortunate in this regard despite what I thought was the norm.

> But in our industry, it's not the majority of cases. I feel well compensated and not overworked.

If you are inclined to compare your compensation to compensation of workers in other industries, take a minute and compare the compensation of your c-suite with those in other industries as well. You will notice that you are underpaid and massive amount of gains are flowing to your execs.

On the flip side, the only time I've ever felt like my work was fulfilling and valuable was when was under-compensated and insanely overworked (like 80 hours was a pretty reasonable work week).

This is a consequence on a shift in society's values and culture: https://m-g-h.medium.com/why-we-are-dispensable-7a577eba4f3e

That article cannot be read unless you install their app or create an account.

A shift in society's values indeed.

>All that’s really being asked of us is to give up all our productive years in service to people with no ethics, to make them richer. People who are more than happy to use you up and toss your corpse on the pile when you die. Is that really too much?

It's been that way for thousands of years -- what's new now?

People have been suffering and dying in terrible ways since the dawn of time. And yet we’re trying to improve on this to reduce suffering and death. What’s your point?

because events are transpiring now, supposedly based on this, yet the described boat is the same from 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and even 2 years ago.

Echo chambers used to be the local pub. Now it's an entire subreddit.

Thousands of years ago, the upper class could kill you if you disobeyed. The stakes aren't as high nowadays. Yay for separating courts from employers.

An insane amount of capital looking for ROI probably also helps put people in a spot where they can afford to take a chance.

Sorry, but what's the alternative exactly? Force people who do actually work, produce, create, etc to pay for people who think working is beneath them? Should you be given free shit simply because you exist?

If you don't want to work for someone else, then start a business. If you don't want to work at all, then figure out how you're going to live. No one is forcing you to do anything.

> Sorry, but what's the alternative exactly?

How about not exploiting people?

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist?

Seems to work for the very wealthy, celebrities, and so on. Why, precisely, isn't this acceptable for everyone?

I'm not against people working. I'm against the wealthy callously exploiting people for grins while they, I dunno, race into space?

Care to explain how I'm paying for the "very wealthy, celebrities, and so on"?

Who says they're being callously exploited? Because some company's founder now has hundreds of billions, that entitles random warehouse workers to share profits?

The warehouse workers worked for it, just like the founder. The distribution of profits between the two isn't a natural law. It's the outcome of a particular regulatory environment that the very wealthy have created over the last half century.

As for how you're paying for the wealthy, there are many ways. You're paying for the US government to negotiate with other countries to change their local laws either directly or via treaties to create a similar regulatory environment globally. You're also paying for externalities, like what happens with a fly ash lake or manure lagoon overflows, or the consequences of air pollution.

> Care to explain how I'm paying for the "very wealthy, celebrities, and so on"?

Sure.

1) Look at financial crisis of 2008 and the banks bail out. I have always been taught there is no such thing as a free lunch in economics. Well, apparently you can overleverage yourself, profit insanely on it and when it finally goes tits up, you cry a bit and yell "too big to fail". I have always been taught that risk is the basic principle of capitalism. If your idea or product is bad, no one gives you money for it, you run out of money and go bankrupt. Obviously not if you are a bank or military contractor (looking at you, Boeing).

2) One of the biggest company in my country, owned by our current prime minister Andrej Babiš... oh sorry, it is owned by 2 trust funds which are indirectly owned by Babiš. Anyway, that company is currently asking for 123 million CZK in subsidies. This is a company with a turnover of 161 billion and 3,8 billion CZK profit. Why are they asking for subsidies? Can't they use ~3,24% of their last year's profit?

3) Continuation of previous point, except in US terms. You can strong arm government into giving you subsidies, otherwise you are gonna leave the city / state / country and it's gonna lose jobs. See here for examples: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents

One of the biggest recipients is Tesla. On this note I find it absurd that tax money collected from normal people is paying for a billionaire's wet dream. Notice how I said normal people. Because the rich have ways to steal... damn, sorry - evade... dang, I did it again. Avoid taxes is what I meant. https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-t...

4) Look at coronavirus V-shaped recovery. It was apparent airlines are gonna be in a bit of a trouble, becaues of the... oh yeah, the global pandemic which put lockdowns in place. Anyway, airlines bought back stock and then asked for bailouts. Which they of course got. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2020/03/18/amer...

I have stopped caring for explaining how you are paying for the very wealthy. If these examples above didn't sway you, nothing will.

"How about not exploiting people?"

? If there is exploitation at large, it's the people reading this that are doing the exploitation by leveraging against workers paid 'barely survival wages' in developing countries will crying about 'not being engaged at work' while earning 10x the global income average doing work that is actually intellectual, whilst the global average worker toils at something generally menial and more classically work.

The modern world is an utter utopia relative to the life of almost any person living at any point in history, if you're reading this, you're living at a higher standard of living that most Kings and Emperors. Probably higher than even the richest people in the world just two generations ago.

Our civilization and high standard of living requires 'work', which fall upon us to do, and whether it is 'engaging' or not is mostly besides the point.

Most companies are made up of regular people doing regular work even at the upper layers, most companies are small or mid-sized and execs. are definitely not rolling in cash, there's actually a very thin slice of people earning truly outsized incomes.

It's ok to vent and be frustrated ... but it's also little bit disturbing to read some of the commentary here.

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist?

Yes?

> Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

> No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

> Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

> Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

> Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

> etc.

> https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

>> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist?

>Yes?

Surely you understand the logistical problem this brings: if you get given free shit, there must also be a party who is giving free shit. Let's say you live on an island with just one other person. You are both entitled to free shit, but somebody has to put in the work to get the shit. Should the other person work to get his own shit and your shit, or should you work to get your shit and also his shit?

Where is the shit going to come from, in a way that doesn't require slavery for others?

Sure. Let's ask for something easier, then; let's only have free stuff which is already in abundance. We aren't living on a remote island; we are living in a society which already has lots of extra stuff which could be given away for free.

For example, how can an all-you-can-eat restaurant stay in business if they let everybody eat as much as they (rationally-economically) want to eat, and labor has to be paid? If food is abundant, then the cost of each individual patron's meal is negligible and it becomes a question of whether enough people come through the door to pay for labor.

On my hypothetical island, pretty much the only thing in abundance is sand. Everything else you have to work for. Who is going to do that work?

Your problem is that you don't see that all that "abundance" of food was grown by people, transported by people, prepared by people, and served by people, and none of them are your slaves. If they had the chance to get their own free shit without having to do all that labour, they totally would. But then who would remain to do the work?

The all you can eat restaurant stays in business by charging enough for meals that they can be reasonably sure that you'll won't eat more than the food is worth. However, that doesn't reduce the value of the food to zero.

Let's try another thought experiment. In my experience, all you "shit should be free" types assume all value flows from the state. That's wrong; it flows from individuals that are taxed by the state. Why don't you, as an individual, open an all you can eat restaurant where people can eat for free? Why not be the change you want to see?

Your position has been examined to death already: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/234

Whereas yours hasn't been challenged nearly enough.

Your position is only tenable if you are part of an upper class that has others in a lower class working for them, and involuntarily donating the fruits of their labor. In another word, you wish to reintroduce slavery.

Sanity check: You think that the existence of all-you-can-eat restaurants, whose basic balance sheets contradict your assertion that food is not abundant, is classist and promotes slavery?

Sanity check: all you can eat restaurants are not free. You still pay for the food. And there's only so much you can eat during opening hours.

Your problem is that you presume food is abundant because it just is. Reality is that food is being produced, by people who want to be paid for it. Take away that payment, and they will stop producing.

I didn't claim that all-you-can-eats were free, only that they could stay in business despite apparently operating at a loss. This is precisely because the food is much cheaper than a rationalist or economist would predict it to be; it's abundant.

Food is abundant because of the Haber process [1] and other industrial-era improvements to food production. Only about 2% of our total labor output is required in order to produce all of our food [2]. The government subsidizes 10% of all food production and purchases [3][4]. If we already can afford to pay 2% of our population to make all of the food, and we already give away 10% of it for free, then it seems like we could reasonably discuss giving away more food for free without disenfranchising farmers.

Edit: I just realized that you might be clueless about this entire corner of sociology, so I should tell you about government cheese [5]. WP says, "Government cheese was created to maintain the price of dairy when dairy industry subsidies artificially increased the supply of milk and created a surplus of milk that was then converted into cheese, butter, or powdered milk." In other words, the government put too much money into making food, and gave away the surplus, and this has been happening continuously for decades.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

[2] https://csanr.wsu.edu/we-are-the-98-percent/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...

[4] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_cheese

I still don't get why you think all you can eat restaurants operate at a loss. Businesses that operate at a loss close after a while; all you can eat restaurants are no different. However, they tend to turn a profit by charging you a pretty sum just for the privilege of eating there (you do know you have to pay for all-you-can-eat restaurants, right?), in the hope that you are not so hungry that you will bankrupt them. In other words, they are taking a gamble - but it's a gamble that usually works out fine for them.

Your link specifically says that 2% of the labor force are farmers. It does NOT say that all people involved in the entire chain of activities that ends with food sitting on your plate represent just 2% of the labor force. Other people involved are the people who make the fertilizer, the people who package the food (for example, by canning it), the people who put it on store shelves, and the people who transport it all at each stage. Your fourth link has a helpful chart: actual farming represents a mere 7.6% of the cost of the food.

Your links do not establish that 10% of the food production was subsidized. Even if they did, a subsidy is not free money; it is paid from taxes that everybody pays. Thus, assuming the 10% number holds up, the only conclusion that you can draw is that 10% of the cost of food production is socialized.

It does not logically follow that if we pay a certain percentage of the labor force for food production, we can therefore afford to give the food away for free. That assumes there is undue profit in the chain that could be removed. Such profit might exist, but you have done nothing to establish that as a fact.

Sociology is not the science of government cheese. Even so, the overproduction only represents yet another failure of central planning; the free market would not have made such a mistake. It is public money, taken from tax payers, and spent on producing unwanted goods. Nothing about it is free.

However, that 'sociology' does explain a lot about why you are so horribly misinformed about how the world works.

I believe the "through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State" line covers that situation.

I think you misread the whole thing you posted. It literally talks about the right to work and the right to leisure with respect to reasonable working hours. I don't see any right to just sit on your ass and consume things.

*Only if you are American. Good luck if you are not.

None of these things indicate that I should be forced to pay for someone who doesn't want to work.

Fresh example of what you've been already forced to pay: https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-h...

I would gladly pay taxes to cover someone who isn't able to work for one reason or another. Because you never know what life gives you. In an unfortunate turn of events, that person can be me or you. I would NOT pay taxes to subsidize Bezos's business so that he can have his space cowboy adventures. That's just the latest and most popular. But the same applies for the 2008 bailouts, Covid stimulus bailouts, corporate tax cuts, corporate tax incentives, corporations paying peanuts forcing people to strain the (already thin) social safety net (see how many fully employed folks are on food stamps) etc.. The latter is perpetual, business as usual and except for some people complaining (the 'radical left') it's regarded as 'the right thing to do'. The former has been beaten out of the American consciousness by decades of rightwing propaganda.

1. Separate health care from employment. 2. Four day work weeks for the same pay. 3. Tax wealthy corporations fairly to provide more social services for those who can't work.

Would be a good start.

I think the animus is against overworking people for low pay with virtual monopoly protection against labor unions or alternatives, although I'm sure there are those who also advocate for universal basic income. I'm not sure that I believe cut-throat capitalism is the only answer, but I feel your sentiment that the alternative solutions are not well presented at the moment.

Most of Europe is a good example of alternatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com