For this narrative to make sense you would have to believe that Amazon management cares more about short-term profit than the long-term quality of their work.
The narrative reflects a broader cultural shift, from "we are all in this together" (pandemic) to "our organizations are bloated and people don't work hard enough" (already pre-LLM hype post-pandemic). The observation that less-skilled people can, with the help of LLMs, take the work of traditionally more-skilled people fits this narrative. In the end, it is about demoting some types of knowledge workers from the skilled class to the working class. Apparently, important people believe that this is a long-term sustainable narrative.
The skilled class is the working class and always has been. The delusion that software developers were ever outside the working class because they were paid well is just that - an arrogant delusion.
Engineering is always boom/bust. Ask a retired aerospace engineer who got purged in the 90s.
Technology always automates jobs away. I had a dedicated database systems team 25 years ago that was larger than an infrastructure team managing 1000x more stuff today. Dev teams are bloated in most places, today.
Well, for the time SEs are substantially better paid than working-class jobs, they are not the working class. For now, this applies at least to some regions, not only within the US. I agree in that I have at times felt some level of arrogance among some people taking up software engineering jobs, but IMO this just confirms the social class aspect of it. So there may have been some level of delusion to it, but at least temporarily it was, and partially still is, true.
This is an interesting perspective, and I assume your definition is the technically correct one. Still, many SEs receive substantial compensation in RSUs, direct stocks, shares in startups, et cetera. So also from this perspective, there are many non-working class SEs. Another aspect is that culturally, the perception has been that SEs don't necessarily sell their work by the hour, but instead sell knowledge that scales tremendously, in exchange for a comfortable upper middle-to-lower upper class life.
To be technical, and to borrow a bit. Proletariat[1] are the working class, they work for the Bourgeoisie[2], the people who own the means of productions. That's why I asked why you used demote. Lower, Middle and Upper are strata or ranks within classes. Within the bourgeoisie, you can distinguish:
Petite bourgeoisie: small business owners, shopkeepers
Haute bourgeoisie: industrialists, financiers
Managerial class (in some frameworks): high-paid non owners who control labor
Within the proletariat, you can distinguish:
Lumpenproletariat[3]: unemployed, precarious
Skilled laborers vs unskilled laborers
Labor aristocracy: better-paid, sometimes ideologically closer to capital
The distinction here is "do you get your money from owning assets or do you get your money from working" because where you get your money is where you get your incentives and the incentives of owning are opposite the incentives of working in many important regards.
The economy is inhabited by people who work for a living but it is controlled by people who own things for a living. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's the definition of capitalism. If you do not own things for a living and do not know people who do, spend some time pondering "the control plane." It should seem like an alien world at first, but it's an alien world with a wildly outsize impact on your life and it behooves you to understand it in broad strokes even if you aren't trying to climb into it.
Something I've always puzzled over is whether the means of production are our laptops, or our knowledge and expertise. I still work for a wage, but expect to be paid above subsistence. I don't own the laptop that I use at work, but also don't own the carpeting on the floor. Both are commodities.
Is the concept of "intellectual capital" a figment of my imagination, or a flaw of the traditional class identifiers? Or both?
For factory workers, the means of production is the factory.
What’s “the factory” for software? Our equivalent of the factory is the organization we work in, and our connection to the people who turn our software into money.
You can write software at home by yourself, just like you can do machining on your own. But there are a lot of steps between making software, or machining, and turning that output into money. By working for a company, you can have other people handle those steps. The tradeoff is that this structure is something owned by someone else.
The means of production are the software you produce, the servers they run on, and the patents, proprietary data, algorithms, and other intellectual property that are the byproduct of your labor.
This might be the definition in Marxist theory but in normal colloquial language “working class” absolutely does not mean the same thing as “anyone who doesn’t own the means of production”. But I think you know what OP meant and are just derailing the conversation.
The means of production for a software engineer is a laptop. Many SEs own them. There are no raw materials or factories needed to produce software, at least not in the sense of traditional production.
That’s not true. The actual means of production are the data centers. It’s true they didn’t use to be hugely expensive either, but now with AI being the backbone of everything we now have really expensive data centers again.
You could say the same thing of hands. What really distinguishes capital from labor is not what counts as a tool, but market power. A large number of non-unionized workers are inherently at a disadvantage against a small number of employers with exorbitantly costly infra.
The working class is globally the class of people who must sell their labour. That includes - to a rounding error - all software developers and that is completely uncontroversial.
Marxism is the most impactful ideology of the history of the 20th century and its vocabulary permeates all of political and economic analysis. Marxist analysis is not the same as communism.
Is the average amount of properties (1-2) owned by a software developer closer to those of:
A) a worker at Walmart
B) Mark Zuckerberg?
> Well, for the time SEs are substantially better paid than working-class jobs, they are not the working class.
That's what they have been telling SEs to prevent us from unionizing :) All so they can put you where you stand now, when they (wrongly) think they don't need you. SE jobs are working class jobs, and have always been.
This feels like the wrong question to ask. Someone with a net worth of a "mere" $2 million is also closer to the coal miner, but at a 3% per year withdrawal rate, has a passive income equal to the coal miner's full time work week without lifting a finger.
I don't think it makes sense to group the "don't have to go to work anymore" people with the "can buy anything" people, but they don't have a lot in common with the working class, either.
To what extent are SWEs working class? I guess that depends on how many of them still have to go to work. A salary of $350k certainly puts you on the road to never having to work again.
A teacher out of union is still as much working class as is a teacher in a union. We software engineers are working class because we have to work for our money.
Do you own businesses, land, investments, and other forms of capital that generate wealth independently of direct labor? Enough wealth so you don't have to work for the foreseeable future? Is this the average software engineer for you (in or out of a union)? Because that's the definition of NOT being a part of the working class.
They enjoy more benefits and compensation than if they were not in a union. Most importantly more protections.
Comparing those in unions who are more likely to be in the video game making or industry or government to faangs like Amazon where you work day and night for a 4 year vesting offer that pays out very little until the 4th year and where on average most worker work less than 2 years at Amazon.
I don't think that way of defining the working class is very sound.
Everyone expect ~50 people would be working class, probably including Taylor Swift and Donald Trump.
Also "working class" has a historical, social component, by which programmers are certainly not included.
Normalize it to a logarithmic scale, and the SWE is still quite obviously a wagie. But the gross and unconscionable concentration of power in a small handful of unelected oligarchs is not the relevant distinction here.
When ownership of things can keep you and your family fed, clothed, and sheltered in comfort, you're part of the owning class. If it can't, you're a worker. Maybe a skilled worker, maybe a highly paid worker, maybe a worker that owns a lot of expensive 'tools' or credentials, or licenses, or a company truck, or a trillion worthless diluted startup shares that have an EV of ~$50, but you're still a worker.
If you're the owner of a small owner-operated business, and the business will go kaput because you didn't show up to do work, you're also a worker. The line is drawn at the point where most of your contribution to it is your own (or other peoples') capital, not your own two-hands labour.
Now, if you're some middle manager, with no meaningful ownership stake - you are still a worker. You still need to go to work to get your daily bread. It just so happens that your job is imposing the will of the owners on workers underneath you.
> I don't think that way of defining the working class is very sound
Oh, really? Is that why both "white-collar worker" and "blue-collar worker" contain the word "worker"? Working class is everyone who has to work for their money. Can most programmers, on a whim, afford to never work again? An average programmer's salary is 2x the average coal miner's. A CEO is nowadays paid 339 the salary of their average worker https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2023/.
Programmers are just one prolonged sickness or medical debt away from being destitute, the same as every other member of the working class. Lawyers, teachers, doctors, programmers, those are all working class, along with agriculture, mining, utilities and all people who have to get up and work for their daily bread and a roof over their head. Sure, there is a discrepancy in pay, but it's not as glaring as it is between a worker and the oligarchs like Trump and Elon Musk. The biggest con in society is that you are so far distanced from the obscene wealth of the rich, that it's not in your face to see how little you have and how much they do.
Both the guy in an old Dodge and the guy in the new Tesla are stuck in traffic, and you fail to realize realize there are people out there right now flying on a private jet for a cocktail? You think the guy living in an apartment is so much different than a guy living in a house in suburbia? How about the guy whose real-estate company bought the whole development and now is cranking up prices?
You make $200k yearly as a welder? Still working class.
You own a small business with 10 workers working for you? Still working class.
You manage a team of devs in a FAANG and are doing alright for yourself? Still working class.
Your parents donated a wing to Yale and own a hotel chain? Not working class.
Your savings account and stocks generate enough for you that you never have to work again? You are not working class.
This is because wealth wise, you are still closer to how much an unemployed person on benefits than to a CEO of a multinational company, and that's a fact.
And for all of Mark Zuckerberg's wealth and property holdings, it wasn't enough and didn't stop him from trying to take sacred land from native Hawaiians on the island of Kauai.
Yeah, I don't see any real difference between "Shut up and take it or we'll outsource your job overseas," which they've been saying since the 90s, and "Shut up and take it or we'll replace you with AI." Same threat, same motives.
Management has different layers with different goals.
A middle manager and a director certainly care a lot about accomplishing short term goals and are ok with tech debt to meet the goals.
Caring is part of it. Having good measures is another. Older measures that worked might need updating to reflect the new, higher spaghetti risk. I expect Amazon to figure it out but I don't see why they necessarily already would have.