Hacker News Reader

Comment by zug_zug | Hacker News Reader

I'd go a step further and say that several marketplaces are moving toward a trend of "Overhire, overwork, attempt to cut the 'bottom' 15%, repeat" [tech support, amazon, now engineers]

It's dehumanizing and unsustainable -- any job that sets a pace you can't keep up until retirement (i.e. 30+ more years) is overtaxing you. Not to mention the lack of psychological safety -- no point befriending anybody at work if you're all interchangeable at a moment's notice.

I think to turn this trend around we need to say "no" to places that treat you this way, and not glorify them simply because they are big (I'm referring to the F-word).

View on HN

> It's dehumanizing and unsustainable

Absolutely. And there are a variety of legal solutions to this. Unions are the big scary one in the US. Other nations give employees equal voting power to shareholders etc.

I think tech unions could be good. Everyone always defaults to “blue collar” unions like factories that set wages but there are “high skill” unions where wages aren’t set (eg Hollywood unions). They spread the protection around too. Eg if you want to hire a famous Union actor, you need Union cameramen. Everyone wants the famous actor, and that protects the camera crew. In Hollywood unions, they set hours and expectations and basic standards but not salaries and other perks.

Another benefit a Union could get is related to on-call load and getting paid for that overtime.

Is it not factored into the high salary? It's always an option to not work at these high comp/high stress companies.

It’s modern, white collar hazard pay, even if it will take some time for that to be recognized.

There are absolutely lower stress, lower pay jobs out there for a lot of these “high stress” skill sets.

The declining economy does the same with these choices as it does everywhere - make the risk more acceptable.

Yes but realistically they’re not paying that much. Most of US salaries have stagnated for years (thanks inflation) but factoring in inflation, this is where white collar salaries should be. A starting salary of 100k (lower than most FAANGs) may be excessive but in most of America 100k is barely enough for a house, car, kids (especially with college), and a comfortable retirement savings. It’s more than enough for a young single person, but not to support a family.

Obviously most people make less, and most households in America make less, but a solid, comfortable, stress free, middle-class life expects that now.

>>A starting salary of 100k (lower than most FAANGs) may be excessive but in most >>of America 100k is barely enough for a house, car, kids (especially with >>college), and a comfortable retirement savings. It’s more than enough for a >>young single person, but not to support a family.

Especially in cities like New York, San Francisco, etc...

The salaries aren't particularly high at google vs any other tech company, especially when you look at the cost of living where they are located.

A lot of total comp is in the form a stock grants, which given stagnating and decreasing stock price represents a reduction in total comp for folk who are there long enough.

But also there's a difference between "this is your salary" and "this is your salary, but your job is no longer any safer than a contractor's"

It's called "rank and yank", a philosophy invented by Jack Welch at GE and wielded heartlessly Microsoft for decades.

Other than the overhire part the trades have been this way for decades...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com