[aeon_ai]

Business leaders operate in overlapping networks. Conferences, advisory boards, private equity connections, etc. When McKinsey or Bain gives similar advice to 50 companies, you get synchronized behavior that looks coordinated.

Labor categorization can be thought of in a more useful framework -- Category 1: Builders who don't know it yet. These people have the cognitive capability, work ethic, and problem-solving skills to create value independently, but they've been socialized to believe employment is the only viable path, or have yet to take the leap of starting "their own thing". They're retained and developed because they're essentially entrepreneurs who haven't discovered their own agency yet. Category 2: Consumers masquerading as producers. They extract more value than they create - through entitlement, minimal effort, or misaligned incentives. They're often the loudest about "worker rights" precisely because they have the most to lose from merit-based evaluation.

The pattern you're seeing (layoffs + micromanagement + cost focus) targets Category 2 while trying to retain Category 1. The economy can no longer subsidize low-value labor.

The interesting dynamic: Category 2 workers are often most vocal about collective action because individual performance evaluation threatens their position. Category 1 workers are more likely to focus on skill development and value creation, and frankly are the most to benefit from the evolution of AI tooling.

"Labor solidarity" messaging often fails to resonate with the most effective and productive workers.

[kevinventullo]

So, say… airline pilots extract more value than they create?

[lmm]

> The interesting dynamic: Category 2 workers are often most vocal about collective action because individual performance evaluation threatens their position. Category 1 workers are more likely to focus on skill development and value creation, and frankly are the most to benefit from the evolution of AI tooling.

> "Labor solidarity" messaging often fails to resonate with the most effective and productive workers.

That's what the rentier class wants you to think. It's convenient if everyone is a temporarily embarrassed CEO, makes them much happier to act against their own class interests.

[aeon_ai]

The "rentier class" framing assumes all value extraction happens at the top, but /r/overemployed will demonstrate that is false.

Low-performers extract value from high-performers at every organizational level. A developer carrying three mediocre teammates isn't being manipulated by "the rentier class" when they prefer merit-based evaluation.

Your argument requires believing that productive workers can't accurately assess their own interests.

[lmm]

> A developer carrying three mediocre teammates isn't being manipulated by "the rentier class" when they prefer merit-based evaluation.

What happens when they get their wish? Do they start getting paid something close to the combined salary of the team they were carrying? Or do they get an attaboy and a pizza, and a precedent for "merit-based" layoffs that will be turned against them soon enough? I know which way I've seen it play out.

> Your argument requires believing that productive workers can't accurately assess their own interests.

Is it so implausible that people skilled in a specific field might be bad at cooperating (perhaps because they're bad at communicating with each other, at least relative to another class) and politically naive? If you think workers have a good understanding of their own interests then why has the labour share of income kept dropping?

[csomar]

My guess is that these layoffs will end up firing cat 1 and keeping cat 2.

[aeon_ai]

Can't argue with that. Peter principle.

[saagarjha]

You’re a category 1 worker, I take it? Or maybe beyond categories because you’re an owner and not labor?

[aeon_ai]

All categories are false - The framework is just useful for pointing out the flaws in other frameworks (i.e., simplistic marxism).

[lovich]

> The economy can no longer subsidize low-value labor

Every year we get wealthier and wealthier as a society, so that means we are capable of less and labor has to take the haircut while capital keeps on as is.

We could subsidize 10s of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people to do literally nothing and not be any worse off than we were 15 years ago

[wolvesechoes]

False consciousness at its finest