The Plight of the Employed | Hacker News Reader

The Plight of the Employed

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

21 pointsrosser24 comments

Interesting that this is posted to HN - software developers in the US currently have historically abnormally high levels of bargaining power and leverage.

And that's a privilege I think we should check regularly.

A lot of the flavors of libertarianism that are so common in hacker circles seem to be premised on a notion that everyone else has the kinds of power that we do to dictate the terms of our labor, and that's just not true.

EDIT: phrasing.

It's far less useful to check your privilege than it is to check if the arguments are correct.

The former is an easy way to dismiss an argument without actually reading it. The latter requires careful thought and runs the risk that you might realize you are incorrect.

I disagree. Even if you're fallaciously occasioned to "check your privilege", it's still a useful exercise. And doesn't writing off all such invocations make you guilty of the same kind of prejudicial dismissal you're arguing against, anyway?

So what? A privileged person can be correct, and an unprivileged one can be wrong. What do you gain by checking your privilege over checking your reasoning/facts?

They aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they're often the very same thing. (Edit: though it's perhaps more about checking premises than argument in many cases.)

Consider my original comment in this thread: is it not the case that the kinds of labor leverage that software people have aren't shared by everyone else? Is it not therefore the case that the kinds of libertarianism espoused by so many software people, premised at least in part on that leverage, don't apply to everyone else as much as they seem to think?

I submit that if the developers espousing those fallaciously premised flavors of libertarianism were (able) to "check their privilege", they'd arrive at different conclusions.

I see a marked increase in the use of the word 'privilege' and how it 'should be checked' - usually in reference to not being black/hispanic, female or gay.

What exactly do you mean? Is it same as 'count your blessings' or shorthand for 'be aware that not everybody has it as sweet as you'?

The latter. The world looks markedly different, and one has a radically different experience of it, if one wasn't fortunate enough to have won the "born the 'right' {sex, race, orientation, nationality, &c} lottery".

Reminding yourself of that on a regular basis helps keep you sympathetic to folks who don't have it, as you say, "as sweet as you."

Thank you, got it.

In that case I just think it's a wrong choice of words. My understanding is that privilege is that few are born with (see this humorous commercial from the UK about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn0hFnOGnq4). This usage turns it on its head - uses the word privilege to describe what majority have but a minority do not.

Ie I'd say being born the son of a billionaire is privilege - but having a dentist for a dad (even one who can pay for your college education) is not.

You'll have to take your quibble over word choice up with someone other than me; I'm just using the word that feminism and critical theory have chosen for the concept in the way they use it, because language and convention.

Relative to the vast majority of people on the planet, however — probably even to the vast majority of people you come into contact with in daily life — even "merely" being the child of a dentist is most emphatically being privileged. If you go to university, knowing your education is paid for, and that you won't graduate facing the next couple decades of your life shackled to productive, gainful employment, because student loan debt is one that can't be discharged, then relative to nearly all of your classmates, you are incredibly privileged.

"Privilege", as the term is used in critical theory, isn't an absolute state; it's a relative one.

Sure - I wasn't taking it up with you, just voicing my thoughts :)

On the topic at hand - again, while it's a matter of personal choice - I think that growing up in a two parent household with caring parents who provide for their children is normal.

Just like it's normal to be able-bodied as opposed to having some kind of physical or mental deficiency. We don't label healthy people 'privileged' - even though they probably constitute a minority of the population.

I guess the difference is whether something can be reasonably expected (desired) for most of the population within one generation - assuming one puts in the work. So while someone from the bottom of society (heck, any part of society) can't expect to become a billionaire - they can attain middle-class status.

Try having a crippled mechanic for a father and maybe you'll reconsider whether having a dentist-dad is a privilege.

Yeah, and growing up in a foster home on an Indian reservation beats crippled mechanic dad (by the way when my family came to the US, going to McD for birthday was a big deal - the dentist dad was purely hypothetical :). I'm sure there are infinitely many scenarios of having suboptimal family circumstances. My point is that the baseline (two parent middle class family) is called normal.

My point is that the baseline (two parent middle class family) is called normal.

Not from the perspective of the person who lives below the baseline, for whichever arbitrary baseline we happen to be talking about at the moment. A significant part of the entire point of critical theory is the attempt to understand the world from that person's perspective, in order to better seek the justice they deserve.

That's why the choice of the word "privilege" is as relevant as it is here: because these discussions are almost always to be had — or attempted to be had, given the actual impossibility of "walking a mile in their moccasins" — from the perspective of the party to whom the thing in question is, in fact, a privilege — and more importantly, one that they don't enjoy.

It's not about what's "normal"; it's about what's normal for the person for whose justice, or about whose injustice, we're talking.

EDIT: Thank you, by the way, for allowing me the opportunity to sharpen my thoughts on these issues. It's something that's only recently become an item of interest and value to me, so being able to engage with someone in the manner we've been enjoying is immensely helpful for me.

The rest of us in IT who have to keep the infrastructure on which that code depends for its function and basic usefulness really wish we had that kind of bargaining power and leverage, especially since The Cloud(tm)(r)(llc) depends so much on that infrastructure. (In other words: Ops monkeys need love, too.)

"And may I suggest that employers, although they’ll never say so in public, like this situation? That is, there’s a significant upside to them from the still-weak economy."

If the economy ever turns around (and I'm hopeful that it will), this will come back to bite the employers. A large percentage of employees are dissatisfied with their current jobs are are only staying there because of the difficult job market.[1] When the job market improves, companies will have a hard time filling all the positions of the abused employees who'll suddenly start leaving in droves. (Or they'll have to offer significant raises to bribe them to stay.)

Also, isn't Krugman pretty much stating the obvious in this article (employees have low bargaining power in a poor economy)?

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17348695/ns/business-careers/t/ame...

and the cycle will repeat. all those vacancies arising from the departure of disgruntled employees, being filled by new employees, disgruntled elsewhere, but soon to be disgruntled at the new shop, because the shop will never change.

Management must always believe themselves to be infallible, and beyond the reproach of the rank and file. Employees who vote with their feet are 'disloyal'. Why is that? The fundamental power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship.

You're always lucky if you can find somebody who worked for a place that's hiring and can find out their opinion. Places can't fill open positions for a reason. Sometimes it's because they just won't pay. But other times, it's because they've garnered a reputation as not being a particularly good place to work. They'll just end up lowering their standards until they attract somebody in their hiring range, and then (mis)treat them just as they did their predecessor, until they too leave.

and in their managerial meetings, they'll complain about the workers.

This is a great article bringing light to the employed and how little bargaining (if any) they have in this economy. I'd say it's even worse in countries where population is several times smaller than United States and happen to be just above the border of it. I've seen so many people at my past jobs willing to "stay late" which is often beyond the 9 to 5 range. At one company I worked at, people were asked to come and work on the weekends. I used to get calls at 1 am on a friday, to commit some extra code. Someone who was witnessing the birth of their newborn baby got a call from the company about work...he quit immediately. There's so many stories I hear from people who have worked across various industries in Vancouver, BC. It's not even demanded but people's unwillingness to say no, out of fear of appearing less irreplaceable compared to their peer engineers or designers. Overtime is unpaid of course because software developers and web designers are not "professionals" and no union because somebody decided for all of us that "it's not in our interest" and that an engineer can "freely negotiate their salary". Not in this economy, at least not in this tiny Canadian market filled with exploitative employers.

Being from Vancouver as well, I agree with your sentiment.

I also wanted to add that, due to the Y2K fiasco, BC lawmakers were able to push through an exemption to the overtime laws. Basically, if you are in IT, then you are not under most of the overtime protection laws that other workers have. See here:

http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/high_tech.htm

Good to hear that I am not alone in thinking this. It seems the BC lawmakers have failed to realize that what they've created is largely a slave contract for highly skilled workers. Coupled with high real estate / rent prices and BC tax on just about anything, on top of the federal tax rate is crippling. It's no wonder so many Vancouverites are house poor, especially if you are single and have no dependents to list for tax benefits or exemptions.

Professional, high skilled workers who are leaving vancouver, either Toronto/New York or Seattle/Los Angeles, simply do not come back. Companies that get infused with American angel investor cash, go South and takes jobs with them.

Is it just me or is BC not a really a friendly place at all for technically skilled people working in software/internet industry? People are definitely NOT laid back as rest of the world likes to believe, if not people are more cold hearted at work and ruthless when it comes to their job stability in a market where it's very tough to find a new job quickly.

Sad to accept but NOT the Canadian dream I aspired for. I often catch myself thinking about the American dream these days.

I thought that the reasons Vancouver and nearby real estate are so expensive is two-fold: 1) People from the rest of Canada like the weather in Vancouver better, and 2) People from around the world who want to work in technology are drawn there by easier immigration requirements and the network-effect of being around other technology folks. The Seattle Times has spilled a good deal of ink about how the Seattle area is bypassed by Silicon Valley heading north to Vancouver because of immigration and work rules. If real estate prices are still going up, would that imply that both of those, if true in the past, are still true?

(Not for nothing: Didn't Microsoft open a rather large development center in Vancouver for just this reason?)

>1)People from the rest of Canada like the weather in Vancouver better

I hope you are joking....its' driven up by overseas speculation in the real estate market from what I understand. Coming to vancouver for the weather won't pay your bills (at least there's no shitty weather tax compensation), and weather is a favorite topic amongst Vancouverites because the good days are so much more meaningful when it's rare.

>2) People from around the world who want to work in technology are drawn there by easier immigration requirements and the network-effect of being around other technology folks.

I don't know of what "network effect" there is here other than amateurish Meet-up groups where middle aged men who lived through y2k show up and talk about how they like their coffee.

I think it was 7 years ago they opened. Microsoft recently closed it's Victoria location. It's a game studio here in Vancouver but Quebec holds the reigns in game development from what I gather. I used to work beside the Microsoft building, the area is pretty much void of activity apart from Asian hipsters in Starbucks. Not exactly a silicon valley or even Seattle, so I don't know where is this "network effect" that eclipses Seattle or Silicon Valley.

Vancouver (-area) born and bred, so I can shine some light here.

It's no wonder so many Vancouverites are house poor, especially if you are single and have no dependents to list for tax benefits or exemptions.

I have to laugh a little at this. I 100% agree, but just wait until you have a family. The options for shelter are either sky-high rent or sky-high purchase prices if you want to stay in Vancouver or Burnaby (the city next-door). If you want to save some money you either live in 1/2 of a house, in the basement of a house, or live somewhere musty worrying about mold [1].

Is it just me or is BC not a really a friendly place at all for technically skilled people working in software/internet industry?

Vancouver isn't HQ for many large corporations, unlike Toronto so there are few big players in this area (TELUS, WorkSafe, BC Hydro, Best Buy). The other big players (Microsoft, Amazon, etc) are still relatively new. When a company like TELUS has a big project, they are a blackhole that sucks up EVERYONE. This happened 8 years ago with one of their projects. If you only stayed in the Gastown district of Vancouver, you'd think Vancouver was bustling with startups, but it's not. It's getting there, but IMHO the startup scene is still in its infancy [3].

An old joke amongst the IT consultants here is that we often see each other repeatedly circling the same big corps. It's a very very small world in Vancouver.

I don't know of what "network effect" there is here other than amateurish Meet-up groups where middle aged men who lived through y2k show up and talk about how they like their coffee.

I've seen this as well, which is why I don't attend too many meetups. Some of the meetups are very small (the Ruby one in particular) and I'd like to see a larger turnout. Saying that, I understand my lack of participation is what is causing part of the low turnout (in my case it is also an issue of travel distance).

real estate

As for the real estate situation in Vancouver (and Canada, in general), there is so many variables at play that there isn't one solid answer. There is the foreign menace buying up our real estate that is portrayed by realtors and the MSM, but the stats (there are few) show otherwise (<10%). Most of the cause is our (Canadians, I mean) own doing due to the low emergency interest rates. Instead of people using the low interest rates to get out of debt, they instead gorged on more real estate. Thus you see people attempting to carry their residential debts (mortgage, interest, taxes) by seeking ever higher rates. Add into that the realtor lie (carried by the MSM) that housing only goes up and you get people flipping houses to each other for ever higher prices (and thus, rents). If you want to know how it all ends, just read up on the US housing/credit crisis circa 2008. If you are a skeptic that thinks this can't happen in Canada, read up on what happened in 1980-1 or 1990-1, the same housing drop happened then [2].

[1] This isn't just a colloquial joke. Because Vancouver is technically classified as a temperate rainforest, we enjoy much much MUCH more rain than other places, with very nominal temperatures. If there is any defect in the building envelope, you will get mold.

[2] But without the low interest rates or credit crisis, so this will be a big new player.

[3] Part of the reason (from what I've heard) is the sky-high office rent in the area. It takes a huge chunk of the operating budget.

I find it a disgusting abuse to expect people to work for no money, even it is called voluntary over time. From what I can tell, its part time slavery. Such employees give this time essentially out of fear. Its a coercion. One reason slaves didnt escape was fear. Same for such employees. No, obviously not on the same level, but the principle is exactly the same.

As I have said several times before; the day I can require and expect my employer to hand out free money on demand, because times are hard for me, or what ever excuse, is the day I give them free time.

Go on, try it. Ask your employer for some money for nothing. Tell the economy is tanking and times are hard for your family. See if they write a cheque.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com