'Employers hold the cards now' as power shifts in US jobs market(ft.com)
ft.com
'Employers hold the cards now' as power shifts in US jobs market
https://www.ft.com/content/faa8d018-41c1-4e28-aa89-cabd02471d1f
59 comments
It never was otherwise, WFH was the only thing that shifted little of these cards to the employees, you might didn’t get a high salary but you saved on commute/rent/etc., and yet, they fought tooth and nail to end it, job market in the US is a modern slavery, which should be obvious with a country that has no minimum days mandates for an annual vacation or getting fired to form a union.
It will always be that case so long as an employee can hold only one full time job and yet an employer can diversify amongst many employees.
I wasn't a union supporter until I realized it was the only way to tilt the power balance, once you have built a mental model of current state.
I don't need a union, as I do not require an income, but my fellow human does, so onward. You only need majorities to arrive at outcomes.
I don't need a union, as I do not require an income, but my fellow human does, so onward. You only need majorities to arrive at outcomes.
> job market in the US is a modern slavery
seems despicable to invoke slavery for people nowadays who get paid as free people
seems despicable to invoke slavery for people nowadays who get paid as free people
In my country 98% of all workers are under union contracts - this has always just been a fact of my working life and I never knew how different it could be in other places until rather recently.
The lack of unionization and mandatory PTO in the US is the most foreign concept imaginable.
The lack of unionization and mandatory PTO in the US is the most foreign concept imaginable.
Needing to go into the office is not slavery. It's disgusting to liken the literal ownership of a human being as property to be used and abused 24/7 to having to commute to a nice, air-conditioned office a few days a week.
You are making a strawman argument, WFH and commuting is only the tip of it, not a comparison. Modern work is a form of slavery, and it is worse than the traditional one. In the past, a slave who changed owners would be free from the influence of the previous one. But now, you still have to please (aka kiss their arses) your former bosses so they won’t ruin your future references. Slavery means having no freewill, whether you are bound by physical chains or by financial obligations. You have no choice but to accept these burdens, or you will never have access to quality education, health care, schooling for your children, or even a house or a car.
Do you know what is disgusting? Wasting your life until you are 65 years old to finally “own” a 40x40ft house that is made of wood and cardboard and was built in a few months. A house that you still have to pay taxes on, even though you “own” it, or it will be taken away from you. What is disgusting is that you - not necessarily you personally, but most likely - cannot survive more than a month, or a few months at best, without being a slave to one, a one that will be gladly to replace you in a week after wasting your youth, family, relationships, etc. The only free will you have is what kind of coffee to drink and what podcast to listen to before you go there
> "companies becoming more demanding of their staff as they find it easier to replace them."
for (web)dev it began with learn2code. that was the death knell.
> "At this point, I suspect we will see further moderation of wage growth"
with this being the goal.
i haven't had a pay rise in 4 years. and was told indirectly, since job market is bad they feel no need to be competitive.
for (web)dev it began with learn2code. that was the death knell.
> "At this point, I suspect we will see further moderation of wage growth"
with this being the goal.
i haven't had a pay rise in 4 years. and was told indirectly, since job market is bad they feel no need to be competitive.
The past 4 years includes a time when the market was red hot and great for software engineers - 2021-2.
Not getting a raise during that time is due to something other than "job market is bad" because it wasn't.
Not getting a raise during that time is due to something other than "job market is bad" because it wasn't.
> 2020 - sorry covid, hiring and pay restricted
> 2021 - see above
> 2023 layoffs
> 2024 dead job market
> "great for software engineers"
you must be referring to yourself eh?
> 2021 - see above
> 2023 layoffs
> 2024 dead job market
> "great for software engineers"
you must be referring to yourself eh?
The reason why you've seen so many 2023 layoffs is that companies went crazy hiring during the pandemic.
"From the end of 2019 to 2023, tech companies scrambled to keep up with an explosion of consumer demand, as people stuck at home splurged on new computers and spent much more time online. Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Alphabet, Google’s parent company, added a total of more than 900,000 jobs."
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/why-is-big-tech-still-...
"From the end of 2019 to 2023, tech companies scrambled to keep up with an explosion of consumer demand, as people stuck at home splurged on new computers and spent much more time online. Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Alphabet, Google’s parent company, added a total of more than 900,000 jobs."
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/why-is-big-tech-still-...
Personally, I've had a wild ride:
2019 - 50% raise
2021 - 30% raise
2022 - layoff and eventual 67% pay cut
2023/2024 - applications everywhere, and "success" is getting a company to communicate a rejection.
2019 - 50% raise
2021 - 30% raise
2022 - layoff and eventual 67% pay cut
2023/2024 - applications everywhere, and "success" is getting a company to communicate a rejection.
> you must be referring to yourself eh?
or anyone else who was paying attention and had a bit of drive to seize opportunity. early 2020 to late 2022 was a gold rush
or anyone else who was paying attention and had a bit of drive to seize opportunity. early 2020 to late 2022 was a gold rush
On the other hand, if someone made a jump to a new company in 2022, they were more likely to be on the layoff chopping block in 2023 than employees with a little more tenure. At least, I have seen in my own organization that the recently hired are at much higher risk of being laid off even if they’ve shown promise.
I agree that there are a lot of coding bootcamp web devs flooding the market. But I see almost no influence on the full stack consulting market that I'm working in.
Those bootcamp devs can replace your outsourced devs in India. But typically they have very little skill in thinking like an engineer, meaning they will utterly fail to implement any business logic and/or those software components that actually create value for the customer.
If you feel like learn2code graduates are competing with you, maybe that means it's time for you to level up yourself.
Those bootcamp devs can replace your outsourced devs in India. But typically they have very little skill in thinking like an engineer, meaning they will utterly fail to implement any business logic and/or those software components that actually create value for the customer.
If you feel like learn2code graduates are competing with you, maybe that means it's time for you to level up yourself.
Fresh out of the schools, in the first year or two sure. But afaik most of them don't really stay full time engineers for that long, most bounce out or switch to other specializations with the experience they've earned.
Code school devs 4+ years into their careers are as reliable as anyone else at the same experience level. I slightly prefer them with hiring, since succeeding with that approach shows a certain degree of flexibility and calculated risk taking.
The first code school cohorts are a decade or more into their careers now. Most of them didn't stick around but the ones who did are very solid. They are just the forerunners, the big swell of 2015-2018 graduates who stayed in the industry is just hitting that mid-senior level.
Code school devs 4+ years into their careers are as reliable as anyone else at the same experience level. I slightly prefer them with hiring, since succeeding with that approach shows a certain degree of flexibility and calculated risk taking.
The first code school cohorts are a decade or more into their careers now. Most of them didn't stick around but the ones who did are very solid. They are just the forerunners, the big swell of 2015-2018 graduates who stayed in the industry is just hitting that mid-senior level.
For the record - This is absolutely not the case in Europe as far as I can tell.
Fully agree.
The article says "The days of the battle for talent are over."
but as a consultant I keep getting project requests by companies who couldn't find enough employees and are now willing to pay a premium for outside help that may enable then to still keep their deadlines.
The article says "The days of the battle for talent are over."
but as a consultant I keep getting project requests by companies who couldn't find enough employees and are now willing to pay a premium for outside help that may enable then to still keep their deadlines.
I guess it really must depend a lot on where you are then, because in my experience of my corner of Europe, lots of companies have had significant layoffs, jobs hunting is getting harder and raises have not at all kept of with inflation.
There are major strikes in Germany about Quality of Life issues right now. I think France might be having strikes too now, but I haven't investigated the one clip I saw.
I do not buy that cause in Central Europe there’s a lot of tech companies offices closing or exiting, and the whole scene of startups and scale ups are not so dynamic as USA and if you go to pitchbook/Crunchbase you will see tons of “startups from 2011” with overhead/org bloat with last round in 2020/21.
If I was employed in some company in Central Europe, I would not bet my livelihood in any kind of job stability that is sold in the region by work council or regulations that can be easily hoped.
If I was employed in some company in Central Europe, I would not bet my livelihood in any kind of job stability that is sold in the region by work council or regulations that can be easily hoped.
Corporate profits are just unpaid wages.
Interesting perspective. They’re instead paid to my retirement investment account and Uncle Sam.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/02/08/case-against...
> The federal government should stop subsidizing pre-tax contributions to retirement savings accounts, two economists from opposing ideological camps argued in a research brief in January.
> Allowing people to shelter their retirement money from taxes is a policy that largely favors the well-heeled, they said. Congress could use that money, nearly $200 billion a year in lost tax dollars, to shore up the underfunded Social Security program.
People supporting these accounts will put forth "personal responsibility," but the evidence shows that most Americans can't afford to get exposure to the capital markets due to wage stagnation and whatnot, so it's theater vs a real solution. It works for the lucky ones, but most people aren't lucky. Good policy isn't built on luck.
> The federal government should stop subsidizing pre-tax contributions to retirement savings accounts, two economists from opposing ideological camps argued in a research brief in January.
> Allowing people to shelter their retirement money from taxes is a policy that largely favors the well-heeled, they said. Congress could use that money, nearly $200 billion a year in lost tax dollars, to shore up the underfunded Social Security program.
People supporting these accounts will put forth "personal responsibility," but the evidence shows that most Americans can't afford to get exposure to the capital markets due to wage stagnation and whatnot, so it's theater vs a real solution. It works for the lucky ones, but most people aren't lucky. Good policy isn't built on luck.
removing pre-tax retirement contributions really won't do shit to fix American's not saving because the wages are stagnate. You really jumped through some hoops to get there.
Unions and organizing are needed to push wages up [1], admittedly, but tax sheltered retirements aren't helping anyone but a privileged minority (as the paper in the USA Today piece mentions). No hoops required.
We tried 401ks and IRAs because it was an easy way to shed pensions and keep those contributes for shareholders, leaving most folks to end up on paltry Social Security benefits. The experiment failed. If you don't see it, you're ignoring the data [2] [3], which I suppose is a choice.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/eroded-collective-bargaining...
[2] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105342
[3] https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans
We tried 401ks and IRAs because it was an easy way to shed pensions and keep those contributes for shareholders, leaving most folks to end up on paltry Social Security benefits. The experiment failed. If you don't see it, you're ignoring the data [2] [3], which I suppose is a choice.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/eroded-collective-bargaining...
[2] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105342
[3] https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans
Not really, especially if they are left in offshore tax evasion accounts
Sounds like it’s time to cancel the H1B visa.
How is that related to the article?
In theory, no matter what the job market, companies will have the need for talent unavailable locally (of course the H1B is abused, but that's the stated purpose)
If you're implying that eliminating H1Bs would shoot wages upward, I don't believe that would happen.
In theory, no matter what the job market, companies will have the need for talent unavailable locally (of course the H1B is abused, but that's the stated purpose)
If you're implying that eliminating H1Bs would shoot wages upward, I don't believe that would happen.
It would, immigration in all forms directly affects labor supply, which affects wages. There’s a reason that basically every single CEO is pro-immigration.
In Tech, H1B is commonly used for relatively generic SWE positions. It could be argued that there is a shortage - or it could be argued that employers prefer Visa holders due to additional control they get from employing a Visa holder.
If the local workforce doesn't feel like they can get ahead... they will grow disgruntled. Targeting Visa and other immigration programs is something that they perceive they can control more so than changing employer attitudes. The same pattern can be observed in Canada.
If I have to spend ~3500 per month to own a home within an hour of downtown. Then I need a take-home pay of 168k/year which is roughly 268k/year pre-tax. The number of positions which actually pay 268k/year is already small.
If the local workforce doesn't feel like they can get ahead... they will grow disgruntled. Targeting Visa and other immigration programs is something that they perceive they can control more so than changing employer attitudes. The same pattern can be observed in Canada.
If I have to spend ~3500 per month to own a home within an hour of downtown. Then I need a take-home pay of 168k/year which is roughly 268k/year pre-tax. The number of positions which actually pay 268k/year is already small.
$3500/month rent is $42k/yr.
You need $124k/yr of after-tax money for food, transportation, and everything else?!
You need $124k/yr of after-tax money for food, transportation, and everything else?!
This was for owning, rental rates are more difficult to assess due to the likelihood of collective living. General rule is that mortgage shouldn't exceed 30% post-tax, hence multiplying by 4 to allow a 5% buffer and a stable financial situation.
In a city where a condo costs 3500/month.. It's quite likely that you'll need 124k for everything else. A basic "fast" lunch in downtown Boston runs ~20 dollars these days (5000/yr), parking alone can burn ~10k/yr. If you opt to avoid cars for public transit then you need to add 2-4k to the mortgage payment.
As everyone else is facing the same housing math, prices rise. There is some lag to pricing as individuals avoid paying market rate for housing by buying 10+ years ago or locking in lower interest rates.
In a city where a condo costs 3500/month.. It's quite likely that you'll need 124k for everything else. A basic "fast" lunch in downtown Boston runs ~20 dollars these days (5000/yr), parking alone can burn ~10k/yr. If you opt to avoid cars for public transit then you need to add 2-4k to the mortgage payment.
As everyone else is facing the same housing math, prices rise. There is some lag to pricing as individuals avoid paying market rate for housing by buying 10+ years ago or locking in lower interest rates.
> General rule is that mortgage shouldn't exceed 30% post-tax
This is where you went wrong. 30% rule is pre-tax (gross income): https://www.chase.com/personal/banking/education/budgeting-s... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/always-use-the-30-30-3-rule-...
This is where you went wrong. 30% rule is pre-tax (gross income): https://www.chase.com/personal/banking/education/budgeting-s... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/always-use-the-30-30-3-rule-...
It's quite likely that you'll need 124k for everything else.
$124k is $12.4k/month in non-rent/mortgage costs.
The costs you describe come nowhere close to $124k. You've described maybe $10-14k in other costs, a large portion of which are discretionary luxuries. $100/week in eating out for lunch? That's a luxury. The alternative is to do what most people do: bring a lunch from home. Sandwiches and pasta are cheap: $100 of pasta will feed a person for months.
Somehow, non-techies manage to make things work on way less than $168k/year.
$124k is $12.4k/month in non-rent/mortgage costs.
The costs you describe come nowhere close to $124k. You've described maybe $10-14k in other costs, a large portion of which are discretionary luxuries. $100/week in eating out for lunch? That's a luxury. The alternative is to do what most people do: bring a lunch from home. Sandwiches and pasta are cheap: $100 of pasta will feed a person for months.
Somehow, non-techies manage to make things work on way less than $168k/year.
Hopefully next time the tech market is in an upswing, we can unionize?
Now would be the time to unionize. Nobody wants to join a union during a hot market. It's easier to negotiate for yourself at a new job.
>Now would be the time to unionize.
As someone who actually knows something about unions and their history, it literally never works that way. OP is correct. You can't make moves when you don't have power.
>Nobody wants to join a union during a hot market.
That's what has to change. I'm not saying it will change, but it's the only way. If your union is dependent on temporary conditions, it's weak. Weak unions are usually worse than no union at all. There are no shortcuts.
As someone who actually knows something about unions and their history, it literally never works that way. OP is correct. You can't make moves when you don't have power.
>Nobody wants to join a union during a hot market.
That's what has to change. I'm not saying it will change, but it's the only way. If your union is dependent on temporary conditions, it's weak. Weak unions are usually worse than no union at all. There are no shortcuts.
While it's true that this would be a difficult time to unionize, I think part of that is that companies are looking to replace software devs with AI over the next decade. Not entirely, but a future where companies can get the same amount done with half the number employees seems reasonable with tooling improvements.
Which is to say, it may not be the historically best time to unionize, but it also might be the best time that we'll see in the future, and the most critical time to do so.
Which is to say, it may not be the historically best time to unionize, but it also might be the best time that we'll see in the future, and the most critical time to do so.
What do you think is stopping tech employees from unionizing?
The fact that there is really no need cause as a general rule software engineers are treated very very well
Money.
Perceived or actual self-control of your own destiny.
—-
I worked as a unionized employee for the first part of my career and all it did was severely limit my pay and growth trajectory. I’m not going back to that.
Perceived or actual self-control of your own destiny.
—-
I worked as a unionized employee for the first part of my career and all it did was severely limit my pay and growth trajectory. I’m not going back to that.
The H1-B program and its system of internationally sourced indentured captives.
There's some "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" chicken-and-egg problems to solve: tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper management and riches rather than blue collar and closer to the masses and collective problems. Not all Unions are "blue collar", of course, but there's definitely a perception problem to fix if you are starting from the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire individual on the fast track" mindset seeing how unionization can apply to you.
That is a pretty dismissive and patronizing view of the very people you'd like to form a union with...
It's not meant to be dismissive and I'm not sure it is patronizing when I know that I also struggle with this phenomenon, though I forgot to mention it. It's definitely a "we all" problem, I just wasn't great at expressing it that way in this particular approach. In tech we all often default to a clinical voice rather than a personal one, even for personally applicable things. I'm trying to get better about that. The industries want us to think we are all alone and in it for ourselves and only ourselves. Eliminating that mindset is hard for all of us not just because we have that mindset, but that there are many systems in place to continue to feed that mindset to us. It's the opposite of dismissive to say that we all have this problem, it is about trying to be very aware of the systems in place designed to keep us in this problem and that the problem is hard to dismiss (otherwise we'd have done it already, right?).
Thanks for the measured response, and I do appreciate the perspective.
I personally think that unions are a solution to many problems, but come with a set of tradeoffs and genuine issues. There I think it is unhelpful (and why I used the word patronizing) to assume that people who are not on board with unionization must either be a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" and/or the under the influence of some unseen force ("the industries").
I personally think that unions are a solution to many problems, but come with a set of tradeoffs and genuine issues. There I think it is unhelpful (and why I used the word patronizing) to assume that people who are not on board with unionization must either be a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" and/or the under the influence of some unseen force ("the industries").
You seem to be taking "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" as some sort of name calling or insult, but it's an old "term of art" name for a systemic problem (often attributed to John Steinbeck, though the notorious quote was a paraphrase/"calque" of what Steinbeck actually wrote). Systemic issues aren't an "unseen force" in terms of a mystery of how they happened and being able to blame it solely on outside "ne'erdowells" (though yes I did use "the industries" as a handwave and really meant "the systems in place"), but a lot of established status quo things and a lot of unchecked assumptions and a lot of PR and propaganda and mystique like "The American Dream".
This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). I think it particularly is applicable to mention as one of the biggest chicken-and-egg/catch-22 reasons that tech workers in general have many specific issues with the concept of unionization because it is often successful in strategies that break solidarity, because we tech workers still feel close to the VC seats of power and "recent/near" to massive wealth bubbles like the 90s dot-com boom.
I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them. You can't solve problems you intentionally leave in a blindspot.
This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies). I think it particularly is applicable to mention as one of the biggest chicken-and-egg/catch-22 reasons that tech workers in general have many specific issues with the concept of unionization because it is often successful in strategies that break solidarity, because we tech workers still feel close to the VC seats of power and "recent/near" to massive wealth bubbles like the 90s dot-com boom.
I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them. You can't solve problems you intentionally leave in a blindspot.
I'm familiar with the idiom and origins. The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich ("tech thinks of itself as inherently white collar and closer to upper management and riches") is patronizing. Assuming that people must be opposed to unionization because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda is patronizing.
I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them as well. I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want and assuming it is because they are misinformed or selfish is helpful.
> This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies).
Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
I think pointing to systemic problems is helpful to trying to solve them as well. I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want and assuming it is because they are misinformed or selfish is helpful.
> This isn't the only reason that people aren't on board with unionization, but it is a common reason people, especially in America, aren't often on board with unionization in general (and has been noted as such for a long time, as mentioning Steinbeck implies).
Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
I think you are in danger of trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. You definitely are right on the knife's edge of an ad hominem attack of accusing me of patronizing and I certainly don't appreciate that.
> The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich
I never said all. I said it is a common problem that is hard to solve. I said it was one complication among others, a complicated reason not necessarily "the" reason.
I also never said opposed to unions. I said it was a perception problem that often causes people to even overlook unions as a possible solution. I said it was a solidarity problem when people do try to unionize that can drive wedges into groups and send some people "back to the sidelines".
> I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want
I didn't offer a solution. I offered a problem that I don't know the solution for. I think it is a twisty, complicated problem.
> because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda
I didn't use the word misinformation. Not all PR/propaganda is misinformation (or at least not just misinformation). I specifically gave several reasons why for tech workers especially it is not just propaganda but facts about recent history (90s dot-com boom) and current prosperity (this site is VC-adjacent and many of us that comment here, myself often included, think we're one good idea from VC funding).
Again, you seem to think I'm making some sort of moral judgment here and are trying to put words into my mouth that I think this is a moral failing of some sort. There is nothing wrong with believing things like I'm one good OKR from having real ownership in my employer and being lightly rich, or I'm one good idea away from getting a lot of VC money to do something cool as an owner and a founder. I have these beliefs at times, personally.
If I think there is a solution to this problem I know it isn't telling people with this mindset they are wrong and are morally failing: it's in growing the common ground between tech workers of all classes (all of the actual classes, the perceived classes, and the dreamed/preferred/hoped for classes). It's in crossing that divide between "I think this is a good idea, but I don't see why I need to be involved" to "everyone should be involved, and here's empathetic reasons to and here's why even if it doesn't help you personally today or even tomorrow it's not just a good idea but something that you should be actively involved in at every stage". I don't have good enough ideas of how we do that. It's a collective problem that needs collective solutions and I mentioned the problem to work the problem.
I don't know why you are trying to put words in my mouth that I'm offering some sort of solution just calling people names and blaming their mindset for their problems.
> Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
Yes, but more specifically he pointed the finger at middle-class would-be-Communists that talked a good talk but never walked a good walk. They acted like they were in the game, but when the time came to put skin and real sweat into the game they were still on the sidelines. That thought Communism (and unions) were good ideas, but they engaged with it in only in salons/parties and as academic thought experiments.
I think it applies to a lot of Americans even given how specific the original context was. I think there are a lot of reasons it got paraphrased so strongly soon after it was written as a specific concept. But even if it doesn't apply that generally to all Americans, it certainly seems to apply to discussions like this one in places like HN where we talk about it a lot but aren't really actually trying to put skin into the game to work the problems and get caught up in ten dollar words like "ad hominem" and academic discussions about the "well, actually" specifics of important reading in the historical context and sometimes we believe that to be just as useful to working the problem.
> The idea that people are opposed to unions because they are all concerned for the day they're gonna be rich
I never said all. I said it is a common problem that is hard to solve. I said it was one complication among others, a complicated reason not necessarily "the" reason.
I also never said opposed to unions. I said it was a perception problem that often causes people to even overlook unions as a possible solution. I said it was a solidarity problem when people do try to unionize that can drive wedges into groups and send some people "back to the sidelines".
> I don't think starting from a solution that people don't want
I didn't offer a solution. I offered a problem that I don't know the solution for. I think it is a twisty, complicated problem.
> because they are misinformed by pr and propaganda
I didn't use the word misinformation. Not all PR/propaganda is misinformation (or at least not just misinformation). I specifically gave several reasons why for tech workers especially it is not just propaganda but facts about recent history (90s dot-com boom) and current prosperity (this site is VC-adjacent and many of us that comment here, myself often included, think we're one good idea from VC funding).
Again, you seem to think I'm making some sort of moral judgment here and are trying to put words into my mouth that I think this is a moral failing of some sort. There is nothing wrong with believing things like I'm one good OKR from having real ownership in my employer and being lightly rich, or I'm one good idea away from getting a lot of VC money to do something cool as an owner and a founder. I have these beliefs at times, personally.
If I think there is a solution to this problem I know it isn't telling people with this mindset they are wrong and are morally failing: it's in growing the common ground between tech workers of all classes (all of the actual classes, the perceived classes, and the dreamed/preferred/hoped for classes). It's in crossing that divide between "I think this is a good idea, but I don't see why I need to be involved" to "everyone should be involved, and here's empathetic reasons to and here's why even if it doesn't help you personally today or even tomorrow it's not just a good idea but something that you should be actively involved in at every stage". I don't have good enough ideas of how we do that. It's a collective problem that needs collective solutions and I mentioned the problem to work the problem.
I don't know why you are trying to put words in my mouth that I'm offering some sort of solution just calling people names and blaming their mindset for their problems.
> Actually the original context of the quote/misquote was directed at the "so-called Communists" he met, not Americans in general.
Yes, but more specifically he pointed the finger at middle-class would-be-Communists that talked a good talk but never walked a good walk. They acted like they were in the game, but when the time came to put skin and real sweat into the game they were still on the sidelines. That thought Communism (and unions) were good ideas, but they engaged with it in only in salons/parties and as academic thought experiments.
I think it applies to a lot of Americans even given how specific the original context was. I think there are a lot of reasons it got paraphrased so strongly soon after it was written as a specific concept. But even if it doesn't apply that generally to all Americans, it certainly seems to apply to discussions like this one in places like HN where we talk about it a lot but aren't really actually trying to put skin into the game to work the problems and get caught up in ten dollar words like "ad hominem" and academic discussions about the "well, actually" specifics of important reading in the historical context and sometimes we believe that to be just as useful to working the problem.
Perceived exceptionalism, IMHO.
I spent a lot of time in school, but eventually dropped out and became a union electrician — which is a much different mindset than tech talent possesses. There is no better way to get trained [than being paid to learn as a union brother] but eventually the fiscal reward for exceptional electrician talent isn't incentivized enough to retain top talent.
A reason I began my journey out of IBEW [and started my own electric shop] was when union dues raised almost 2x because too many retirees needed increased healthcare for their spouses; combined with the whack healthcare fees for a bachelor [same montly deduction for one man VS family with a dozen kids].
As for techbros: I think there are too many "aces" that negotiate well for themselves and have no incentive to foster the brotherly spirit [whether aspie or asspie].
I spent a lot of time in school, but eventually dropped out and became a union electrician — which is a much different mindset than tech talent possesses. There is no better way to get trained [than being paid to learn as a union brother] but eventually the fiscal reward for exceptional electrician talent isn't incentivized enough to retain top talent.
A reason I began my journey out of IBEW [and started my own electric shop] was when union dues raised almost 2x because too many retirees needed increased healthcare for their spouses; combined with the whack healthcare fees for a bachelor [same montly deduction for one man VS family with a dozen kids].
As for techbros: I think there are too many "aces" that negotiate well for themselves and have no incentive to foster the brotherly spirit [whether aspie or asspie].
I don't see how unionization can work with pretty much no authority. You don't need a license or even a college degree to write code. The workforce is distributed. In many cases, there wouldn't even be a picket line to block.
If anything, it'd have to be a series of smaller, focused unions (say, infrastructure engineers, akin to pilots unions)
If anything, it'd have to be a series of smaller, focused unions (say, infrastructure engineers, akin to pilots unions)
Genuine question, what are some of the grievances for tech people that we could only solve with collective bargaining?
Reasonable working hours where employees aren't pressured to work more than 40 hours per week, actual PTO rather than "unlimited time off," limits to on-call rotations, protection against layoffs masquerading as PIPs, reasonable release schedules, protections that prevent junior engineers from getting screwed on salary, etc cetera. While all of these things don't strictly require a union, all of these things become much easier when there's a unified front advocating for change rather than individual engineers trying to advocate for change with their managers.
In addition to unionizing people in the US need to fight for an update to the FLSA to remove the ridiculous exceptions to overtime rules that exist for any person who might be working with a computer.
Yeah I could definitely see that something should be done about IT people having to work overtime without compensation, and that is company specific. So unless there's a larger push to change that culture, some companies (like what EA used to be) will happily exploit their workers.
Good points, but most calls to unionize are based on times like these: companies going on massive hiring surges, with the salaries to match, and then times dry up everyone wonders what happened to the party.
Every price that’s good for somebody is bad for somebody else, and markets have to go down as well as up. Making hiring into a punitive commitment just prevents taking advantage of boom times.