What’s “fair” is generally what is accepted by the parties involved. Even if you complain about the compensation, if you’re working at a particular rate, you have implicitly agreed to that rate rather than seeking a higher compensating position.
Slaves don’t get a choice in the matter. Mobsters and kidnappers are criminals.
Living is a choice, and in order to do so it is expected that you gather your own food and find your own shelter and we’ve structured society in a way that makes that easy. You can even form a relationship with someone where you merge your resources and time to make it easier and raise other people to eventually replace you.
But if you would prefer to hunt and gather and compete with other humans through a more violent means, that option is probably available to you somewhere and you can go seek that out on your own but it’ll probably be a shorter life.
I won’t tell you how to live, but however you do it, it won’t be without cost to you as it isn’t for any of us even if the cost is much more marginal for some than for others.
>What’s “fair” is generally what is accepted by the parties involved. Even if you complain about the compensation, if you’re working at a particular rate, you have implicitly agreed to that rate rather than seeking a higher compensating position.
Both implicit and explicit agreement can be problematic, depending on the conditions under which you give them.
Your argument depends entirely on scarcity of life-sustaining resource. We’ve objectively not had that situation for quite a while. What we have had, and still have, is a situation where scarcity of resources is artificially generated or maintained.
Whilst we are being pushed to accept artificial stratification on economic and class levels, there are only two political / economic classes. The ultra rich hoarders of resources, and everyone else. The “everyone else” group represents 99% of the global population, making the hoarders a statistical anomaly. Those folk, however, have amassed $26 _trillion_ dollars of resources, just during the pandemic.
The asinine suggestion of “you are free to go out and hunt” only has meaning when you remain oblivious to the fact we are _all_ enslaved and we only get the illusion of choice about which set of bastards get to pretend to represent our interests.
There is enough to cover the basic needs of everyone on this planet. We just need to get rid of a few powerstructures before we can get to it.
> Your argument depends entirely on scarcity of life-sustaining resource. We’ve objectively not had that situation for quite a while. What we have had, and still have, is a situation where scarcity of resources is artificially generated or maintained.
If you’ve solved the free-rider problem and have solved logistics, then you have a point, but I’m doubtful to both of those things.
Just so we’re not losing context here, what I originally replied to was this:
> Isn’t the entire concept of employment meant to scam you out of more value for your labor than what you put in?
If employment is a scam, who is doing the work of maintaining farms and fields and transporting food to well, I guess not to market, but to people? And who is doling it out?
What’s the reward for growing more food than you need?
> The asinine suggestion of “you are free to go out and hunt”
The real reason it’s asinine is that it isn’t scalable. We can sustain some of the people hunting some of the time, but we can’t sustain all of the people hunting all of the time. This is an actual lifestyle that people still practice and the primary source of their food is hunting and gathering. It’s not a lot of people, but it’s some, and the issue is if everyone did it, yes we would have literal violent disputes over hunting grounds and lose most of the world’s population to starvation and war, not to mention all the quality of life improvements we would be giving up.
So we specialize, and in order to specialize we need trade, we need an economy, and we need incentives to do the things we do. Feeding my neighbors is honestly not an incentive for me to work, as crass as that may seem to actually say. Giving them shelter means someone has to construct it, and they probably need land (that’s probably parceled to someone else) and materials (that places like Home Depot sell) and laborers who want something in return, usually this is money because it’s fungible and can represent anything. Then you need the guy to organize it all and pay people and provide the equipment. Usually this guy is the capitalist, quite literally the provider and owner of capital for the business whatever the business may be (building shelter in this example) and since he’s not working for free either, he’s probably looking to sell the shelter to you for a sum denominated in the local currency or retain ownership and rent it out to you. In either scenario, the shelter isn’t entitled to you for free, so yeah, you work for it. Or one of your ancestors did and left you enough money to pay for it. Or left you their own shelter when they died (and y’know, it still needs to be maintained, so maybe you work to do that and keep the fridge stocked and operational).
That’s what living means in this world, and dealing with that low level stuff on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs kind of comes first. So you do it basically because nobody will do it for you, and to be honest, doesn’t really want to do it for you except maybe your parents. Humanity isn’t some big family, or part of a single organizational structure with a chain of command, or all marching to the same drum beat in the same direction forward.
I think that depends on their circumstances. Slavery is already illegal, and there isn’t really a market for slaves to go around negotiating the terms under which they are being kept alive at the pleasure of someone else so they may not be able to physically execute a suicide even if they can mentally get past the fact that they don’t actually want to die.
Also being kept alive in bondage isn’t actually compensation. I mean there are many reasons slavery is an abominable practice, this is one of them, definitely one of the big ones.
Alternate view: the lady behind the counter is obscenely underpaid, and the ICs are merely underpaid.
This meme that tech workers are obscenely overpaid is just an example of how the propaganda of the truly wealthy elite works. Instead of standing in solidarity with the counter lady and doing things to lift her up, you’d rather tear the IC down. It’s sad.
> This meme that tech workers are obscenely overpaid is just an example of how the propaganda of the truly wealthy elite works.
Or it's a realistic view from outside your bubble.
Check out the income distribution of the U.S. public and realize that the typical software engineer is within the top 1% when considering total compensation. And put that in relation to what the typical programmer contributes to society which is rarely within the top 1%.
> Instead of standing in solidarity with the counter lady and doing things to lift her up, you’d rather tear the IC down. It’s sad.
I stand in full solidarity with the Walmart lady. Lifting her up doesn't mean gettinf her into programming bootcamp though. Her rent is so sky high because all the insane tech worker compensation around her inflated housing costs.
The comments in this thread makes all this entitlement pretty obvious.
> Or it's a realistic view from outside your bubble.
This doesn't negate my point about propaganda. There is a long and deep history of the wealthy classes pitting the lower classes against each other in this very way, primarily by directing anger at the middle tiers from the lower, and a fomenting a sense of fear of the lower tiers in the middle.
I have checked out the income distribution in the US: you're way off. The typical software engineer has a total compensation less than $150k (pick any source: salary.com, indeed.com, etc.). The top 1% of salary is more than $350k in the lowest income states (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/financial-advisor/a...).
> I stand in full solidarity with the Walmart lady. Lifting her up doesn't mean gettinf her into programming bootcamp though. Her rent is so sky high because all the insane tech worker compensation around her inflated housing costs.
You stand in solidarity with the top 5%, because you're contributing to their propaganda efforts. Housing costs are inflated primarily because collectively housing is in shortage--a condition the wealthy love to see because they're relatively insensitive to it (they don't live where we do) and it also serves their propaganda interests (see above), which you seem to have taken up with glee.
> There is a long and deep history of the wealthy classes pitting the lower classes against each other in this very way,
Considering yourself part of low class if you are a software engineer is the root issue here.
> primarily by directing anger at the middle tiers from the lower, and a fomenting a sense of fear of the lower tiers in the middle.
I'm not arguing that the effect you are describing doesn't exist. The point is that you are applying to the wrong part of society.
> I have checked out the income distribution in the US: you're way off.
"Way off" is not accurate. The income distribution is extremely steep at the top end. If 1% is at 350k the 150k is not far away. 2%? 3%? The page you linked doesn't load from where I am located. It's surely within the top 5% which you still ascribe to be the elite that's manipulating everybody. I'm doing the exact opposite of expressing support.
I'm sure your salary, stocks and bonuses compensate you royaly for your heroic effort from your armchair in an office with nice AC, unlimited snacks and coffee and no requirement to show up before 10am.
Those millions that were wasted and later "saved" were likely because somebody misunderstood AWS billing and hacked away without bothering. Likely also being compensated royaly.
This bubble and the consequence of feeling entitled left and right is pretty disturbing.
Actually, since you made so many terrible assumptions about me, the millions I saved the company were directly measurable in CC fees from less fraud, up to and including having numbers other people in the industry were extremely jealous of. This was done with about three people, compared to our competitors many tens of people, using kinda antiquated techniques.
I also get zero stocks, and zero bonuses. After 6 years working for the same company including many roles where I was basically team lead and engineering lead as a "Base level software developer", including being the sole holder of important legacy knowledge. I make $70k before taxes in a high cost of living area. Maybe we could build a system that rewards doing good work instead of rewarding job hopping and bullshitting. I once had a manager that did zero work for an entire month before he was asked to leave. He was made my manager because he sucked at doing basic coding. He made more than me from day one. This is very common for the normies like me who don't live in SV and basically do all the work that makes things happen not on google.com or facebook.com
I am also currently required to be working at 9am, AND attend meetings at midnight in my timezone because we have a big office in India and most of my team are there. I am also perpetually "oncall", though only for "serious" issues, neither of which I receive compensation for because tech workers are exempt and my employment contract was a single paragraph saying "You will do what we need you to do" and when I signed that I was fresh out of college with one year experience, $300 to my name and $1200 rent due in two weeks. I could leave but I am permanantly on medication just to live a normal life so here in the States I get to be shackled to my job unless I spend valuable personal time planning out a way to keep my medication going after I lose insurance.
So how about realize there are plenty of us not working in FAANG. Meanwhile, when a google engineer builds a system to improve ad targeting, how much of that money goes to the engineer, vs how much goes to the VP who made the vague suggestion of "lets make ad targeting better", as if vague, completely obvious ideas like that have value.
If you are so brilliant and terribly productive but still work in such a toxic environment for such low pay, then either you need to switch to a more reasonable employer or you are not really honest with us here.
Slavery, extortion and kidnapping are not scams though. And you'll notice that in all these cases the victims would have been better off if their tormentor simply did not exist. Would employees be better off if their employer didn't exist?
> This system is definitely rigged.
How would a hypothetical non-rigged system look like?
It's hard to see into alternative worlds. I can tell you what my belief is, but I can't really prove it: if Meta did not exist (and no other similar company filled the same niche), the world would be better by most measurements. People would, on average, be happier.
People in general are better off living in a better world.
And most Meta Employees would have found other jobs. I mean, sure, in this alternate world some specific people would be worse off. I would wager they would be the minority by far.
Let me know if you get a timeline-scope and we can verify.
I think you misread my comment. What I meant is that I'm not only assuming Meta does not exist, but also assuming that no other company that fills the same niche exists. If there's another company which is essentially the same, just with another name and minor differences, it doesn't change much.
Slaves don’t get a choice in the matter. Mobsters and kidnappers are criminals.
Living is a choice, and in order to do so it is expected that you gather your own food and find your own shelter and we’ve structured society in a way that makes that easy. You can even form a relationship with someone where you merge your resources and time to make it easier and raise other people to eventually replace you.
But if you would prefer to hunt and gather and compete with other humans through a more violent means, that option is probably available to you somewhere and you can go seek that out on your own but it’ll probably be a shorter life.
I won’t tell you how to live, but however you do it, it won’t be without cost to you as it isn’t for any of us even if the cost is much more marginal for some than for others.