[someelephant]

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]

> 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]

> 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]

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]

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.

[grapeskin]

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]

> 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]

> 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]

That percentile can vary pretty significantly based on where you live.

[bfung]

> they are ethical, or altruistic, but certainly can't claim they are financially responsible.

The definition of financial responsibility should be clarified.

I’d argue that making as much money as possible while ignoring morals or ethics is not “financially responsible”, it actually fits into the definition of psychopathic behavior (https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psych...).

As another sibling comment mentions, making 180k vs 300k as an individual doesn’t lowers one’s quality of life that much; there’s still enough disposable income to take trips, save for retirement, etc.

The “I don’t worry about my next meal” threshold for a warehouse hourly worker ($18/hr * 40hr/week * 52weeks/year ~= $37.5k) can be drastically improved.

[ohgodplsno]

>certainly can't claim they are financially responsible.

My man, with 180k you can comfortably afford a house by the time you're 30, have a quick million aside _and_ do lines a cocaine off a hooker's ass every week. 180k is a salary way past the bar of "fiscal responsibility".

[grapeskin]

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.

[robertlagrant]

Don't be silly; it's not at the cost of the whole world.

We are still in a pandemic where one of the biggest reasons people could isolate for as long as they did was big tech.

[grapeskin]

Quarantines have existed for a long time. Countries locked down for longer.

The most important thing holding the world together was the people out there risking infection to deliver things to people staying at home. The biggest difference between the 90s and 2020s is that people are doing it by pressing a button on their phone instead of pressing a button on their computer or making a call on their phone, and loads more people are working in the package delivery industry for low wages.

[robertlagrant]

> Quarantines have existed for a long time. Countries locked down for longer.

Can you give some examples?

The rest of your analysis seems incomplete. Some examples:

Zoom, Slack Facebook and WhatsApp able to keep professional, personal and family relationships alive was essential to so much continuing to function, allowing a vast number of employees to shift to online working. One notable point (of thousands) here is that while healthcare waiting lists got longer, many consultations that could be done over video, a thing never thought feasible before, meaning more isolation possibilities for vulnerable patients (and clinical staff).

Having online shops able to update listings in seconds, rather than your example of the 90s where catalogues would be sent out every six months with new stock for you to phone up and buy, or rather, not be able to get through to, was also awesome. Modern logistics means packages and returns can be done incredibly easily and fitted into your day, rather than spending ages on the phone with a human operator.

Uber and derivatives meant that the increased load of shutting down public transport could be transferred onto a dynamic fleet of private citizens' cars, and the traditional taxi firms also didn't require scaling human operators to book, and Google Maps powered the routing for those drivers.

And the rise of cloud infrastructure has meant in general that many services, government and private, have sprung into being in record time.

And those are just the first examples that occur to me.

[shreyshnaccount]

When you unironically say that resources like housing and education are scarce, that shows how messed up our world is right now.

[jokethrowaway]

Those people taking 300k salaries and building amazon.com are also contributing to creating value for the customers of amazon.com.

Is the value created for the customers of amazon.com less or more significant for society at large than people who can't get a better job than minimum wage, voluntarily working for minimum wage?

There is no moral right or wrong. I personally hate amazon and I would never work for them (even if I'm impressed by what Bezos achieved) but I don't judge people working for amazon. I judge way more people working for the IRS, that's a proper criminal enterprise.

[brtkdotse]

Whenever I hear the phrase “creating value” I think of this comic strip:

https://mobile.twitter.com/benioff/status/549339156854214656

[hef19898]

If you work at Amazon, as I did, regardless of what you do you are part of the system. And that system, ultimately, creates value for AMZN's shareholders. And first and foremost Jeff Bezos.

The line so is based on how far down the food chain you are. Blue Collar employees, the drivers, warehouse workers and so on, are not part of the problem. White collar employees, pretty much so. I say that as a former White Collar Amazonian. Amazon, so to be fair, is just among the more extreme manifestations of rampant, unregulated capitalism. And it's not that all the other logistics companies are treating their blue collar employees any better. On average, so there are always those exceptions of great employers and great managers everywhere. Unfortunately those are becoming rarer by the day.

[notreallyserio]

> Personal and corporate interests will always trump community interests.

There are plenty of folks that won't put personal enrichment above abhorrent labor practices.

[bamboozled]

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]

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.