[rmrfstar]

> Let’s not pretend that FAANG employees are like an underclass

Depends on your baseline.

If you use other workers in the US, then you are correct.

If you use a counterfactual in which employees meaningfully participate in corporate governance, then you are incorrect.

[bumby]

>If you use a counterfactual in which employees meaningfully participate in corporate governance, then you are incorrect.

Can you elaborate on this point? Do you mean that FAANG employees do or do not have a seat at the table?

[rmrfstar]

Even shareholders have a historically unusual inability to participate in corporate governance at Facebook. The closest comparison I have found is the oil trusts from the 19th century. But that's not a good comparison, because they were trusts, not corporations.

I seriously can't believe Delaware allows Facebook's voting structure. Corporate law has evolved in a really strange direction over the past few decades.

[bumby]

Interesting, I don't know much about FB governance. I would venture to say it's probably (and unfortunately) becoming the norm rather than the exception that employees have little input into governance. This is another area where I think unions have benefit.

My point about being a tech "underclass" was more about avoiding conflating FAANG employees with those who have little opportunity or options. FAANG employees generally have more portable skills than, say, an uneducated immigrant employee and I don't know that I agree they could both be "exploited" in the same way. While it may be rooted in valid points, it's a bit cringey to use the same language to describe both.