6 ms·

Seems odd to blame other workers here even if they do make a lot of money. The only way workers will be helped is other jobs provide better value to the worker

Seems odd to blame other workers here even if they do make a lot of money. The only way workers will be helped is other jobs provide better value to the worker or companies are regulated to provide better conditions. Personal and corporate interests will always trump community interests.

randmeerkat 4y ago
> Personal and corporate interests will always trump community interests. People _are_ responsible for the choices they make _and_ the entities they choose to empower… Anyhow… I’ve known engineers that have chosen community over themselves… Regardless, you’re on HN, fortunately you don’t have to make that choice. Instead you can skip FAANG toxicity and join a startup “community” that aligns with your values. Even better you can start your own startup. The payout is also potentially far better than grinding at a soul sucking FAANG position for years.
- chii 4y ago
  > The payout is also potentially far better than grinding at a soul sucking FAANG position for years. if you consider financial pay out, i really can't agree that it's a better payout for the risk you're taking. A startup can be a lottery, and "winning" can be difficult and has a chance element. On average, i think the payout is lower than employment at the FAANGs, esp. if you do good salary negotiation and move often to ensure you're not missing out any uptick in the market rate. Of course, a startup, like winning the lottery, pays out a lot more when successful, and some people prefer the high risk high reward - it's not a wrong choice. But that should be understood first.
- random314 4y ago
  This is another transfer of responsibility from the government to the citizen. Same as carbon footprint being used to guilt trip the individual who cannot stop global warming. No matter how many engineers quit or refuse to apply to Amazon they will always have a replacement. The solution for both climate change and Amazon is government intervention. Be it subsidies for Solar or regulatory fines for Amazon.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Phrasing this as a "transfer" is begging the question; it can't be a transfer if the responsibility is not decided. The word "responsibility" is also a moral conundrum, not an objective one, which gums up the works in terms of finding a good solution. People can bikeshed morals all day. A clearer way to think of it is in terms of people who have the power to change the situation: - Governments can issue fines, but this is unlikely to harm the corporate enough to make it change. It can win votes though, so it does happen. - Governments can write regulations, but this is done sparingly because of all the unintended consequences of adding any regulations to any industry. Also, a common (intended, by the incumbents) consequence of regulations is adding ones that disadvantage new participants in a market. - People can choose to change the company from the inside, or not work for the company. This can work quite well if changes are encouraged from various levels, but that's not common. - People can choose to not use the company (e.g. not to shop at Amazon). The second and fourth are the most powerful options, with the fourth being the very most powerful.
notreallyserio 4y ago
> Personal and corporate interests will always trump community interests. There are plenty of folks that won't put personal enrichment above abhorrent labor practices.
grapeskin 4y ago
Tech workers can skip FAANG’s 300k salaries and still do fine with 180k at a more ethical company. Those people are responsible. The people slaving for 50 cents over minimum wage and still being unable to pay rent don’t have much of a choice.
- chii 4y ago
  > skip FAANG’s 300k salaries and still do fine with 180k at a more ethical company. Those people are responsible. they are ethical, or altruistic, but certainly can't claim they are financially responsible. If they don't have dependents (now or in the future), then they can remain financially irresponsible, because it will have little effect. But if they plan on having dependents such as children, they will need the funds to compete for scarce resources such as housing and school etc. They will also need to provide for their own retirement. If they choose to take a lower paying job (when a higher paying one is definitely available), they are making a sacrifice on behalf of their dependents, who may or may not appreciate this choice being made for them.
  - knowledge-clay 4y ago
    > they are ethical, or altruistic, but certainly can't claim they are financially responsible. I would hardly describe taking a salary that puts you in the top 5% of earners instead of the top 2% to be financially irresponsible.
    - rsanek 4y ago
      That percentile can vary pretty significantly based on where you live.
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    Taking a job that screws over workers below you is really just sticking a middle finger up to the world around you. A typical programming job is more than enough to provide for a family, a home, and early retirement. Burning down the next generation by empowering mega corporations just "for your kids" is the definition of selfish. Boomers did selfish things "for their kids" and now their kids are absolutely screwed with climate change and a worse off economic system. But yes, they did certainly provide for their own retirement--at the cost of the whole world. FAANG developers are the same. Amazon and Apple can pay fat checks to their tech workers because they cut costs and shamelessly exploit everyone working in their lower level positions. Eventually they'll push everyone down to lower levels and have the technology to enforce it without human interference. But hey, someone bought their kid a nice car and they retired to the Bahamas and got a few maids with that huge developer check. Got to look at the bright side.
bamboozled 4y ago
I've turned down a bunch of jobs on moral grounds. I work for a charity organization now. I make less money but I'm much happier then I have been working in jobs with different / more shady objectives.
- someelephant 4y ago
  If we could convert the value you get from charity work in to dollars, you would be making more than people working for big corp. Your values are atypical, and I'm glad you are able to do the work that provides you with the most benefit.

randmeerkat 4y ago

> Personal and corporate interests will always trump community interests. People _are_ responsible for the choices they make _and_ the entities they choose to empower… Anyhow… I’ve known engineers that have chosen community over themselves… Regardless, you’re on HN, fortunately you don’t have to make that choice. Instead you can skip FAANG toxicity and join a startup “community” that aligns with your values. Even better you can start your own startup. The payout is also potentially far better than grinding at a soul sucking FAANG position for years.

chii 4y ago
> The payout is also potentially far better than grinding at a soul sucking FAANG position for years. if you consider financial pay out, i really can't agree that it's a better payout for the risk you're taking. A startup can be a lottery, and "winning" can be difficult and has a chance element. On average, i think the payout is lower than employment at the FAANGs, esp. if you do good salary negotiation and move often to ensure you're not missing out any uptick in the market rate. Of course, a startup, like winning the lottery, pays out a lot more when successful, and some people prefer the high risk high reward - it's not a wrong choice. But that should be understood first.
random314 4y ago
This is another transfer of responsibility from the government to the citizen. Same as carbon footprint being used to guilt trip the individual who cannot stop global warming. No matter how many engineers quit or refuse to apply to Amazon they will always have a replacement. The solution for both climate change and Amazon is government intervention. Be it subsidies for Solar or regulatory fines for Amazon.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Phrasing this as a "transfer" is begging the question; it can't be a transfer if the responsibility is not decided. The word "responsibility" is also a moral conundrum, not an objective one, which gums up the works in terms of finding a good solution. People can bikeshed morals all day. A clearer way to think of it is in terms of people who have the power to change the situation: - Governments can issue fines, but this is unlikely to harm the corporate enough to make it change. It can win votes though, so it does happen. - Governments can write regulations, but this is done sparingly because of all the unintended consequences of adding any regulations to any industry. Also, a common (intended, by the incumbents) consequence of regulations is adding ones that disadvantage new participants in a market. - People can choose to change the company from the inside, or not work for the company. This can work quite well if changes are encouraged from various levels, but that's not common. - People can choose to not use the company (e.g. not to shop at Amazon). The second and fourth are the most powerful options, with the fourth being the very most powerful.

notreallyserio 4y ago

> Personal and corporate interests will always trump community interests. There are plenty of folks that won't put personal enrichment above abhorrent labor practices.

grapeskin 4y ago

Tech workers can skip FAANG’s 300k salaries and still do fine with 180k at a more ethical company. Those people are responsible. The people slaving for 50 cents over minimum wage and still being unable to pay rent don’t have much of a choice.

chii 4y ago
> skip FAANG’s 300k salaries and still do fine with 180k at a more ethical company. Those people are responsible. they are ethical, or altruistic, but certainly can't claim they are financially responsible. If they don't have dependents (now or in the future), then they can remain financially irresponsible, because it will have little effect. But if they plan on having dependents such as children, they will need the funds to compete for scarce resources such as housing and school etc. They will also need to provide for their own retirement. If they choose to take a lower paying job (when a higher paying one is definitely available), they are making a sacrifice on behalf of their dependents, who may or may not appreciate this choice being made for them.
- knowledge-clay 4y ago
  > they are ethical, or altruistic, but certainly can't claim they are financially responsible. I would hardly describe taking a salary that puts you in the top 5% of earners instead of the top 2% to be financially irresponsible.
  - rsanek 4y ago
    That percentile can vary pretty significantly based on where you live.
- grapeskin 4y ago
  Taking a job that screws over workers below you is really just sticking a middle finger up to the world around you. A typical programming job is more than enough to provide for a family, a home, and early retirement. Burning down the next generation by empowering mega corporations just "for your kids" is the definition of selfish. Boomers did selfish things "for their kids" and now their kids are absolutely screwed with climate change and a worse off economic system. But yes, they did certainly provide for their own retirement--at the cost of the whole world. FAANG developers are the same. Amazon and Apple can pay fat checks to their tech workers because they cut costs and shamelessly exploit everyone working in their lower level positions. Eventually they'll push everyone down to lower levels and have the technology to enforce it without human interference. But hey, someone bought their kid a nice car and they retired to the Bahamas and got a few maids with that huge developer check. Got to look at the bright side.

bamboozled 4y ago

I've turned down a bunch of jobs on moral grounds. I work for a charity organization now. I make less money but I'm much happier then I have been working in jobs with different / more shady objectives.

someelephant 4y ago
If we could convert the value you get from charity work in to dollars, you would be making more than people working for big corp. Your values are atypical, and I'm glad you are able to do the work that provides you with the most benefit.