Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoffeeOnWrite | Hacker News Reader

> I have been working remote for 17 years

This suggests you are likely a member of the professional class. A lot of labor regulation in the US (my country) is intended to protect the working class, not the professional class. Perhaps that was the intention of your politicians?

(This legislation does sound like treating a symptom, and not unlikely to have unintended detrimental consequences. But we should still empathize with and consider the needs of those workers less privileged than ourselves)

View on HN

That the law might work in one case doesn't justify it as a good law - the law should consider at least some of the edge cases, especially if it's going to negatively impact such a large class of workers as the "professional class".

It's also unclear that there's no scenario in which the non "professional class" would benefit from being able to be texted by their boss.

Where in my comment are you getting that I think it’s a good law? Bluntly, with my very limited context (no, I didn’t read the article), it sounds like a dumb law. I take to heart original commenter’s complaint that their country’s politicians produce a large volume of dumb laws, I hope disgust with the median politician is something we can all agree on.

Hard to read your comment as anything other than defending the law as "something must be done" to protect the poor non-professionals.

'treating a symptom [not the cause]' is basically an idiom for 'at best meh'.

>> But we should still empathize with and consider the needs of those workers less privileged than ourselves

Why? Or else what? They might look for better jobs?

Not everyone can have a better job. Sorry but your comment reveals how little empathy we, software engineers, can have at times.

>> Not everyone can have a better job

I'd counter that your comment reveals disdain for people who you wrongly assume can't improve their skills or economic outlook.

I could make a long list of people I know who taught themselves new skills and leveled up to new jobs - code or otherwise - without the need for "empathy" from someone who was certain they were less "privileged" and therefore should be pitied.

So for the 97% of humanity that are worse off than american software engineers, you think they are just not trying hard enough?

You might have way too high an idea of the place software engineers occupy in the economic and social hierarchy. We're trash compared to the money people.

I just choose not to be angry about it, so I hope the guy serving me a burger chooses not to be angry about my job placement too; I'm more than happy to tutor him.

Reasonable employment standards aren't "pity." Nor is empathy, actually.

I read that remark as, "in the grand scheme of things, we can't all have it good." - not as anything marked with disdain.

As for my own opinion? I don't think there's a stone software engineers are cut from, but I don't think most people could be effective at working on technology without dramatic improvements in a few different key areas between analytical (data driven) thinking and layered abstractions.

It's not that these things can't be learned - I certainly didn't learn these from my blue collar parents. It's that it takes significant investment of time that many adults can't dedicate.

I view us (coders) as plumbers or car mechanics; and I'm certainly not a good plumber, and only a very primitive mechanic. One will pay me $200/hr for my time fixing software and I'll pay them $200/hr back to fix my car or my plumbing.

Anyone can learn a trade if they take the time to study and become proficient. I don't think it requires "privilege". Maybe twenty years ago you grew up too poor to have a computer in the house, but you certainly had a car or a toilet. And so some people learned to be proficient at fixing things, and other people ...? Not so much. But that's okay, because as you said, not everyone can be effective at working on technology.

However, that doesn't mean that the world needs to bend over backwards for people who can't get proficient at something.

Any individual can get a better job. But not every individual. There aren't enough good jobs, and society would collapse if all the retail workers, bin men, teachers, nurses, etc suddenly became software engineers.

Okay, but you're disregarding both new hires and seniority. I know a garbage man who's a poet and makes $100k a year, with health care and a pension. Other people who have that job for a year or two might decide to move into a different field. There are more people being born all the time. They start somewhere and move on. I served when I was in my 20s. Now I'm served by people in their 20s. So?

Others already replied in useful ways that reflect my thoughts here.

I know some people can and will make it, but it’s definitely not for everyone or even the majority of them, especially here in southern Europe. Think mums with kids doing 9 to 6, men in their 50s doing shitty jobs in shitty companies, young professionals living with their parents because they can’t afford to pay rent. Yes, they could go abroad and reinvent themselves, making a substantial improvement to their quality of life, etc. But in the meantime I like that our governments take steps to regulate overworking and crazy demands for those who don’t give a shit about their work beyond getting their salary and moving on with their life. I empathise and understand their context, even if I’m in a quite different situation. That’s empathy, not pitying others because they are less privileged than me. Maybe they are even happier than I am, who am I to judge?

Drug use, crime, violence, short-term thinking, ad nauseum.

The majority of the population is working low-skilled, low-pay, low-satisfaction jobs. The people that do the shitty work (cleaning, cooking, serving, building, maintaining, etc.) are supporting the more privileged way of life.

Circumstances aren't bad enough yet for all of them to go full Roman and stab the professional ("laptop") class while they're walking in the street or working in a cafe; but that doesn't mean all that negative emotional tension brought upon the working class is simply isolated, and has no reverberating impact on the greater world.

However, were these circumstances left to deteriorate enough -- i.e. the negative emotions start overflowing and can no longer be subdued by drug use and other outlets, e.g. when one is starving -- then you're one internet meme away from getting your house molotov'ed and dragged out into the street.

I for one don't mind making life a little bit easier for the working class. In this case it would likely be preventing managers from texting un-scheduled workers: "I need you to come in tomorrow to fill someone's shift" (a request that usually entails one's job being on the line).

I vote left because I consider it this type of value proposition: If people have no help and no way out of poverty, they'll revolt, and that'll be bad for me.

But there is another, countervailing aspect. People think they have no alternative if they live in a society that provides no upward mobility.

I happen to live in a country (the US) that provides the greatest degree of upward mobility in the world, which is why immigrants from every other country come here. But there are people here who, out of a form of sanctimony disguised as "empathy", want to insist to people in service jobs that they are permanently stuck there and should view themselves as members of a oppressed class, rather than emphasizing (let alone providing) the opportunities for people to reach their highest potential.

We're not the UK, let alone Russia. I was a taxi driver. Numerous former bartenders I know own houses and work in tech. Friends who were barely employable ten years ago are now master carpenters, mechanics, or truck drivers with several trucks. And some are "professional", if you consider coding professional. I think it's more like plumbing without a license.

My point is that pity and putting people in a box with hoity-toity empathy and little handouts is degrading and belittling, and saying they have to have those jobs forever is essentially a backhanded way for people to seem empathetic but actually guarantee that the existing hierarchy remains.

I think this is slippery slope / weird thinking. The idea is to give those folks the actual freedom to "level up" as you put it. It's hard to do that if your working multiple minimum wage jobs, or just 60hrs a week at one. The USA is incredibly anti-worker / anti-mobility, despite the great propaganda we receive our entire lives here. Go overseas, talk to folks, and widen your viewpoint a bit. You'll realize a lot more folks are happy in places like Australia than the USA. Way cleaner and safer too, also better food! A lot of immigration as well!

A lot of the USA is setup to unfortunately keep a certain amount of folks in a perpetual system of being poor, while telling them it's way worse in other countries (we're the best!). It keeps them too busy to pay attention to anything but survival paycheck to paycheck, which is good for the ruling class.

It's also funny that you are literally degrading / belittling (while saying regulations meant to protect them are degrading) people who are in jobs that you view as below you (service), but would likely miss a great deal if folks didn't do them.

But hey, you seem big on anecdotes, here is some data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

Literally, the USA is ranked 27 in upward mobility in the world. Stop spouting propaganda and go talk to some real folks in service jobs. Ask them what their schedule is, what their home life is (are they taking care of their parents, others with chronic conditions, do _they_ have a chronic condition, etc.), and get to know them.

Go overseas if you can, and see how the rest of the world lives. You'd be surprised how good other countries have it, even the "service" class in those countries, as you would put it.

I couldn't agree more about the "Ra Ra America is the Greatest" attitude as being ignorant and unfounded - and unfortunately abundant among people who've never traveled and seen what other countries offer their citizens. And a lot of that is sustained by a propaganda machine geared toward small-minded, untraveled and ignorant people who can't differentiate.

I'm not one of those. I've been to more than forty countries and lived a year or longer in a dozen of them. I've been enmeshed in societies that are strictly founded on familiar and tribal ties, as well as ones that are strictly postmodern and corporate, and some that are socialist-leaning. Some have been communist in policy but have incredible personal ambition embedded and passed on (e.g. Vietnam). Some are essentially capitalist but yearn for work-free socialism (e.g. Argentina). All have complaints according to their own drawbacks. I've also joined left-wing rallies and still made friends with people from all sides of the spectrum in places I've lived.

As a kid who turned 21 under 9/11 and the advent of the Patriot Act and the endless wars in the middle east, I've hated America for a lot of reasons, but one thing I can't hate it for is the "propaganda machine" that tells all comers that it is possible to succeed here. As far as I've observed, there are only a few other countries where people are as free to re-invent themselves, detach themselves from their birth circumstances, and become whoever they want to be. [edit: The new American obsession with attaching your identity to your birth circumstances is anathema to me and most other children of immigrants, and smacks of "privilege" - our families view our history as a challenge and struggle to get over it]. Western Europe, Aus/NZ, Canada. But there, you still don't have the benefit of an economy that rewards achievement. You might find that a matter of personal taste, but to me, the valuing of achievement is something I've only seen in eastern cultures (Thailand, Vietnam, China) outside the US. The other Western countries besides the US seem to have lost their taste for it.

That's why I say - from my own imperfect point of view - that the US does offer a combination of personal and economic opportunity that doesn't exist in any other country.

So I apologize if you took my statement as a rehash of some propaganda, but hopefully this clarifies that it's a precise opinion I came to after a great deal of hating much about America while also admiring it.

> I vote left because I consider it this type of value proposition: If people have no help and no way out of poverty, they'll revolt, and that'll be bad for me.

Wow, that's a wonderful mechanism to construct a morality. /s

I'm a fellow Yank, and I've been tipping takeout orders ~18% every time because I want my local restaurants to remain open. Life sucked when everything was closed, and since I'm (currently) in the "laptop" class I figure I can afford to add $2 to my burrito order.

Maybe that's ugly self-interest, too, but at least I think I'm being consistent with my larger beliefs, which doesn't seem true in your case.

No, I worked in the service industry for a decade, so I always tip well - and not only because I'm worried someone will spit in my drink. But really, if you want credit for being a better person I'll refer you to my original point; self-interest. The only difference is, I'm worried about a riot and you're worried about what people think of you.

[edit: not what the workers at the bar will think of you. What the other diners at the table, or the people on the internet will think, when they ask themselves whether your motives are pristine. Trying to prove the righteousness of your self-negation is, uh, not exactly self-negating is it?]

> I happen to live in a country (the US) that provides the greatest degree of upward mobility in the world

As far as my short search has lead me this appears not to be true. US doesn't seem to be in top 20 which is dominated by Europe.

That is interesting -- can you share your sources? There are, of course, a lot of ways of measuring upward mobility:

* inter-generational upward mobility -- are you richer than your parents?

* intra-generational mobility - has the older you climbed to a higher position than the younger you?

For the above, it makes a difference whether you are talking about absolute gains or relative gains (e.g. bottom quintile to top quintile).

And also whether you are measuring income or wealth and if income, whether you are looking at after tax income or market income. With wealth, it depends very much on how you measure things like government benefits.

Finally, mobility measures need to be taken across the business cycle rather than just, this year versus 5 years ago.

It's not a simple issue, and I've seen studies that go either way on this, but I'm always interested in getting more data on this important topic.

Good post, and I have a side note that I think is universally overlooked right now. I say this as a Gen Xer and part of the first generation to know we'd have less of an easy path than our parents:

Upward mobility, richness of life, and success, has absolutely nothing to do with how much better other people did in the same time period. I went from $20k debt and dropping out of college to $300k savings. Am I supposed to be angry that someone I know went from a $3M inheritance to $300M? Why should I care? My own upward movement hasn't been hampered by theirs. I don't need anything they have, or envy it. If anything, they envy me because I earned what I have.

In real terms, I've already moved up far more than they have. This idea that an increasing divide makes upward mobility for the lower echelon less meaningful is just totally false. The difference between being able to buy a place versus the difference between how big a place you buy is only one of degree. The difference between $300k and $300M is aesthetics. But the difference between $3k and $30k is survival.

So when I'm talking about upward mobility in America, I mean getting out of debt and poverty... getting to a place where you can have a good life. Too many people think it means comparing yourself to or becoming Elon Musk. And that's a credit to America too, because they've never lived in another country where even basic survival is difficult.

Europe? Upward mobility?

Please do post your source. In my own experience and research, that is very limited in Europe.

I would argue that there are actually more disincentives than incentives for class mobility in Europe (which is where I live).

This line of thinking falls apart if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. Unfortunately, people don't do that and end up creating legislation with this assumption... That people could just get better jobs (and the implication that they don't because they're lazy).

It makes no sense, though. Who is going to clear tables and wash dishes? Who is going to pick fruit? I picked fruit as a teenager. It sucked. I hated every minute of it, but it has to happen. Your suggestion seems to be making it suck more than it has to in the name of what... motivation? Why not make it possible for every member of our society to live a decent life, even if they happen to not have the necessary faculties (not to mention money, support and time) to be an engineer?

> I picked fruit as a teenager. It sucked. I hated every minute of it, but it has to happen.

And I dug holes by hand and loaded trucks with tractors.

I've started to realize that when I share that fact with people, they either look down on you as an animal, or they realize you can do more than close Jira stories.

I don't think the second group is common.

Personally, working non-software jobs has been hugely helpful for me in my professional work. I've learned things from every "lesser" job. Many people who have only had professional jobs, especially those in the former group you mention, have no idea how limited their perspectives are.

Nothing of the kind.

I think everyone should have to pick fruit, wash cars, wait tables, drive taxis, stock shelves, work construction, answer phones, cook at a fast food restaurant, or join the military.

Not go to college and eat on their parents dime.

And they should do those things as a life lesson on their way to becoming a doctor, an engineer, an artist, a jurist, a philosopher or a writer.

This is how life is actually discovered. People who are born rich never do anything of value.

Bitching about picking fruit, while you're doing it, is fine. But then let's get on with it and stop viewing it as if it's a permanent form of oppression.

FWIW I'd definitely hire someone who picked fruit and could write decent code versus someone who had a CS degree.

Thanks for clarifying. I took a less charitable interpretation of your view, can't disagree with this though!

I generally agree with most of what you have said on this page, but I think you are being too hard on rich people here. Newton, Gates, Zuckerberg off the top of my head. People are complicated and there are a lot of different paths.

Zuckerberg does not belong in the same complimentary sentence as Newton. Newton pushed humanity forward, Zuckerberg is ripping society apart for money.

The omnissiah hasn't quite reached us yet.

You think you'll keep your quality of life if literally no one wants to lay bricks and stack shelves?

Let people's lives be miserable enough and they'll stab you and eat you instead of working.

Or else you are not a good person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com