Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs137 | Hacker News Reader

The corporate work week was never going to go below 35-40 hours per week. Bosses know they only get 15 good hours out of most people, if that, and it doesn't bother them as much as you'd think it would, because they get enough. It's not about productivity; it's about control. The workweek has to comprise at least 50.1% of a typical person's otherwise discretionary time, because otherwise people could have two jobs and the employer's power would be reduced.

This is how a tech boss thinks: having 350 people under you means there are 350 people you can cause bad things to happen to if they don't do exactly what you say. They're not optimizing for widget production, and certainly not for welfare of the human species, but for their own personal careers. What they want is indivisible loyalty; they want to own people. And, if the rich people control the state enough to decide which laws get passed, as they do in the US, they will.

View on HN

Who are these bosses? Managers? You realize they’re just employees too right?

I do realize that, at least if we're talking about middle managers. It'd be a stretch to say that executives are "labor" or are "employees" except in a strict legal fashion. Executives don't work for companies; companies work for executives. The reasons for this are sociological rather than economic--in short, so long as executives uphold the interests of the upper class, the other rich people who control the company (important shareholders) will look the other way on their self-dealing.

The fact that they are victims of the system does not mean they are innocent of all charges. Almost everyone who is and remains rich or powerful in this world is a crook; that doesn't mean everyone who is not rich or powerful is a saint.

Good luck with that.

> Almost everyone who is and remains rich or powerful in this world is a crook

That’s an opinion.

Nah. Activist shareholders don't look the other way. If they see a profit opportunity then they won't hesitate to execute a leveraged buyout and sack all the senior executives. This has happened many, many times. When it comes to making money, any notion of class loyalty died in the 1980's.

It seems that there is a lot of emotion in your assessment because you use sweeping absolutes to describe millions of people. In my experience the world is complex and nuanced. Do you really mean to say all rich people are law breakers ala crooks? When you define rich, are you using a global scale? For instance are most people in the developed world crooks? There are good and bad people in all walks of life, all countries, races, etc. More often than not, when you get to understand the forces that impact people, you realize that what seem like simple decisions from the outside to make the world a better place have unseen negative consequences.

On a personal level, I can say my managers try to be good people, although the may not always do the best thing. In my case, my wife has stage 4 cancer and they have been tremendously supportive.

Edit: I should probably mention for full transparency I work at Amazon as it is sited in the article.

They fulfill the same role muscle men.

A manager's goal is to enforce submission.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com