[Nextgrid]

"Former" is the key.

A lot of people will say things like that when they're no (longer?) in position to actually make a difference - it's a safe way to garner sympathy and attention without actually making the decision and be responsible for its consequences. I can guarantee you he wouldn't have the same opinion if he was still in his position and had political power to be able to actually allow this.

People working multiple jobs are universally frowned upon by the slave masters not only because this allows the slave to be less financially dependent on the master (which means they won't accept as much abuse as they would if they had no other source of income), but also because the extra money affords them a lifestyle that can rival those in higher, more prestigious positions. Same reason remote work is under constant pressure, since it used to be a perk exclusive to higher positions and seeing the peasants enjoy it doesn't fly too well.

[flashgordon]

Exactly. Ive also noticed a lot of former faang VPs now trying to become influencers on LinkedIn by sharing the "internals" of big co promotion and other processes. Amazing they would never talk about this while in the role but suddenly they are now ultra generous! Don't get me wrong. The revealings are actually pretty spot on but timing is very dubious!

[takinola]

I don't think cynicism explains why an exec would not share the "internals" of the organization they are currently in. They are in a position of trust which has the expectation of not sharing said "internals". Betraying that trust would, rightfully, cause them to be sanctioned. Once they are out of the position, they have the option to divulge or not so some choose to do so.

[flashgordon]

Definitely not cynicism. The other way even. There is a definite amount of sociopathy and Kool aid selling needed as you guys higher up the ladder. You are a bit free from it when you leave the ladder. And forget real altruism, there is an element of perceived altruism when you look like you are "spilling the beans".

[jurassicfoxy]

Exactly. HR employees are the most untrustworthy folks in any organization, short of the executives that direct them.

[argiopetech]

Perhaps the master/slave relationship isn't the best metaphor for voluntary employment...

[Nextgrid]

It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free.

Sure, the slavery is "distributed" across multiple actors such as landlords & profit off the whole concept of property as an asset, but ultimately the net result is the same - you have to work just to be afforded shelter.

The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slavery from the old days?

[AnthonyMouse]

The conspicuous difference is that you can choose who to work for and in consequences employers have to compete for labor, which is why the overwhelming majority of people make more than minimum wage.

You're also setting up a catch 22 where things like housing construction, which require labor to exist, are a prerequisite to not having slavery, but if no one has to do labor to construct housing then where does it come from?

[Nextgrid]

Minimum wage is an arbitrary construct that may have been reasonable when it was initially introduced but due to dysfunctional politics/corruption (or "lobbying") hasn't been updated to reflect the cost of living especially with regards to property prices, so making minimum wage isn't a high bar.

> where things like housing construction, which require labor to exist

That's why I mentioned land and not only housing. In fact in most places the land is more expensive than the building on top. Even if you hypothetically wanted to just put a tent somewhere and not require on any external labor, you'd still need to buy/rent the land first.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Minimum wage is an arbitrary construct that may have been reasonable when it was initially introduced but due to dysfunctional politics/corruption (or "lobbying") hasn't been updated to reflect the cost of living especially with regards to property prices, so making minimum wage isn't a high bar.

Irrelevant. The point is that you could set the minimum wage to zero and people would still make wages higher than that because employers have to compete for labor.

> That's why I mentioned land and not only housing. In fact in most places the land is more expensive than the building on top.

But this is really not any different -- depending on how you define it land is either a scare resource you can't get any more of at all or something that requires labor to create more of, e.g. by building sea platforms or similar.

And people don't actually need any particular amount of land in order to have shelter. You can build an arbitrarily large amount of shelter on a given piece of land by building an arbitrarily tall building. In theory there is a limit on how tall a building you could make, but in practice if we built buildings of the largest size we know how to build on the amount of land that actually exists we would have dramatically more housing than is needed for everyone.

So the limiting factor is not actually land, it's construction, which somebody has to do in order for you to have shelter.

[Nextgrid]

I disagree that the limiting factor is construction. The limiting factor is that there are significant entrenched interests based on the scarcity of property which influence any eventual laws/regulations or incentives to build more property.

> You can build an arbitrarily large amount of shelter

You can, but it isn't done, because of see above. For a lot of people/businesses in power to actually change things, it's often more profitable to defend the status-quo than make the change. It's a "tragedy of the commons" problem - it would end up better for everyone if the change were to be made, but only if it's done collectively - otherwise any individual player would be at a disadvantage.

But my original argument wasn't even about third-party constructed shelter. Even if let's say you wanted land just to put a tent somewhere and call that your home, well you can't without buying said land first, which is often priced disproportionately compared to wages (and there's pressure to keep it that way, where either wages/earning potential are pushed down, or land will just raise in price to match).

[xkekjrktllss]

> The point is that you could set the minimum wage to zero and people would still make wages higher than that because employers have to compete for labor.

Wrong. Profiteers learned ages ago the importance of wielding their capital for political influence to maintain a stagnant pool of unemployed surplus labor by many means, including the prison industrial complex, migrant trafficking, and more. The result is that employers do not compete for mere labor but rather only for specifically skilled labor, meaning unskilled labor is only legally differentiated from slavery and effectively just slavery. Furthermore, most of these so-called unskilled laborers are in fact highly skilled surplus of the skilled labor market, which means the same holds true for a significant portion of the so-called skilled labor pool.

[frakt0x90]

I'm pretty sure slaves from any era would kill to have my job where I work from home, have various insurances and investments through my employer, make a lot of money that I can spend on whatever I want and more. When you abstract concepts enough, everything becomes similar but current employment in developed countries is nowhere near slavery.

[Nextgrid]

Slaves from the previous era would sure kill for your job... but you might very well kill for this job 20 years down the line when all your perks have evaporated and inflation/property prices/taxes have reduced your currently-high-salary to what is effectively minimum wage?

Keep in mind that no employer/business is providing these perks out of the goodness of their heart - they do so because the market is (was?) extremely competitive, but it's not a given that the market will stay competitive.

[seadan83]

In slavery, the enslaved is property. Their spouse and children can be sold off, you can be used as a breeder of more slaves, you eat what you can forage or what is handed to you, if you don't work harder you and your family are physically beaten. Some slaves had their achilles tendon's ruptured so they couldn't run but still could work in fields. That is just getting started and I'm not an expert in the matter (just took a few history classes).

So.. there are some really stark differences. "Wage slavery" does have similarities to an extent, but it is still a world apart.

[Veserv]

The qualitative difference between slavery and a job is that a slave is not allowed to choose a better option if one is available. A slave is barred from taking higher paid work, work with better conditions, etc. Even if it would be beneficial for their master (e.g. they do higher value work and all of the money goes to their master) they do not have the freedom to choose. A slave does not have the freedom to improve their circumstances even if it is a win-win situation. That is the qualitative difference between slavery and a job.

[seti0Cha]

> It's not voluntary unless/until you can find me a place where housing/land is free.

Prison.

> The end result is that you work or you die (out of exposure, medical bills, etc). Not much different from the slavery from the old days?

Sounds like your definition of slavery is nobody taking care of you.

[sudosysgen]

In much of the US you actually have to either work or pay rent in prison, so no.

[seti0Cha]

Really? I've never heard this and a quick google doesn't bear this out. Also, it's not clear to me what they would actually do to you if you didn't...put you in prison? Release you as punishment?

[nebula8804]

13th amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Which leads to this: https://innocenceproject.org/how-the-13th-amendment-kept-sla...

[Nextgrid]

> Prison.

If people start using prison as this "one weird trick they don't want you to know" to not pay rent, this problem will be solved pretty quickly too (if it isn't already, as the other commenter suggests forced prison labor is a thing in some places).

[seti0Cha]

You only addressed the lighthearted part of my response. I'd be much more interested in your reaction to my main point - you appear to be defining slavery as having to care for yourself. Surely you do not believe that you are owed a life of leisure do you?

[Nextgrid]

> Surely you do not believe that you are owed a life of leisure do you?

I believe shelter and basic necessities should be a human right. So many problems would be solved/improved if people didn't have to spend half (or more, for the lower classes) of their earnings on perpetually renting.

[itishappy]

Plantations aren't free either. Slaves need to be managed else they will all leave and the owners starve (or worse).

I guess slaves, slave owners, and software engineers are all pretty much the same when you think about it.

[argiopetech]

One might say that we're all subject to "the human condition".

[gamblor956]

Slaves were forced to work all day in the sun without shade performing brutal physical labor. They were forced to work in the rain without cover, in the snow without protection from the cold. In mines, and in other dangerous jobs where injuries were frequently fatal. They were beaten regularly for all sorts of stupid and made up reasons. They were raped. And tortured. And murdered. They were bought and sold like things, and children were torn from their parents because they were just things.

To call one of the cushiest jobs that has ever existed in human history "slavery" because of some minor restrictions on your ability to make even more money on the side...I don't even have the words to describe just how ridiculous you come across right now.

[bmulcahy]

I think you've made a mistake. Their comment was not meant to be understood literally. Their intended meaning was obvious to me.

[coffeesque]

> because this allows the slave to be less financially dependent on the master

Just a little back of the envelope economics: if everyone thinks the way you do -> labor supply doubles -> wages go down -> working two jobs is now the expectation

Similar economic side effects to having both genders in the workforce. This lifestyle only "works out" so long as most people are unwilling to do what you're doing

[Nextgrid]

> working two jobs is now the expectation

Short of some radical changes around the whole concept of "property", I think this may end up being the norm anyway considering property price inflation?

After all, people need a place to live, so if there's more value to extract, why wouldn't the landlords (and all the industries supporting them) cash in on that?

[ragestorm]

I agree that it shouldn't matter for lower paying jobs and those that don't need a non compete. For higher paying jobs, I think it's reasonable for a company to set a base pay or pre approval before having a second job.

It _should_ matter from a perspective of not paying enough money for an employee to meet basic needs and have enough discretionary spending to not need a 2nd job.

[golergka]

Are you really calling engineers who earn 300k and more at those companies “slaves”?

[spacedcowboy]

I think slave is (way) too strong, but I earn more than that, and until I'd paid off my house I considered myself a "wage-slave", in as much as I couldn't afford to stop working. Another term I used for myself was "techno-whore", since I sell my technical skills for money. I could choose to end that by moving to a LCOL area instead of the VHCOL area that supplies those wages, but I don't because there are advantages to being where I am.

Still, costs are in line with those wages, so my mortgage was costing me ~$5k/month, my electricity was peaking at $1k/month, my water was $500/month, my property taxes were $1500/month, etc. etc. etc. A high salary doesn't necessarily mean unbound wealth, it just makes living in that VHCOL area comfortable.

Sadly, I still can't afford to stop working, but that's more down to the completely terrible form of "healthcare" that the US employs, and not my actual job.

[Nextgrid]

Engineers making 300k is a US-specific phenomenon and was only as a result of the very competitive SWE job market (itself as a result of "free" VC money which has now ran out).

There's no guarantee it won't become like the UK or most of Europe where software engineering salaries are miserable.

[edgyquant]

I wouldn’t use the word slave, but a lot of these companies have moonlighting agreements and verbiage like “will dedicate your full business attention” to ensure you aren’t building anything that isn’t for them.

[wenebego]

Yes, everyone who needs to work for a living is a wage slave.