[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.