Use of the word "workers" as class implies precarity and vulnerability, making it a useful category to organize around politically, regardless of whether your political ideas are good for such workers or anyone else. But this distinction loses meaning when starting salaries for such "workers" are at several multiples of national median income.
There will always be injustices in the world that require people to organize political support to fight. However using this as your sole lens risks putting the cart before the horse - are we trying to organize tech workers because they are marginalized class, or because your political ideas require overthrow and rich tech workers would be useful foot solders if you can recruit them?
Without wanting to spoiler, let me whet your appetite for this very interesting article by quoting this: "you’re unimaginably more likely to become homeless than to win at the game of capitalism"
But everyone thinks they will win. And that is why most people are cooperative. It’s only when they get to their mid-30s that they start to realize it’s not gonna happen.
So very true. A bit saddening to realize that the old story "from dishwasher to millionaire" is still so pervasive despite the odds having changed considerably against us in the meantime... I guess some dreams are just too beautiful to forget.
SWEs in SV are earning $250k+ per year and the job market for them has been red hot for them for the past 30 years, minus a few bumps. Most of them are _are_ millionaires, many are multi-millionaires, and they're not embarrassed about it at all, temporarily or otherwise, dohohoho.
Most tech workers, especially those in bigger companies, are such a tiny cog in the wheel I can barely fathom it.
I wonder if there’s truth to the idea that the big companies were simply hiring as many people as they could so that at least their competitors wouldn’t have them.
Use of the word "workers" as class implies precarity and vulnerability, making it a useful category to organize around politically, regardless of whether your political ideas are good for such workers or anyone else. But this distinction loses meaning when starting salaries for such "workers" are at several multiples of national median income.
There will always be injustices in the world that require people to organize political support to fight. However using this as your sole lens risks putting the cart before the horse - are we trying to organize tech workers because they are marginalized class, or because your political ideas require overthrow and rich tech workers would be useful foot solders if you can recruit them?
Without wanting to spoiler, let me whet your appetite for this very interesting article by quoting this: "you’re unimaginably more likely to become homeless than to win at the game of capitalism"
Go figure.
But everyone thinks they will win. And that is why most people are cooperative. It’s only when they get to their mid-30s that they start to realize it’s not gonna happen.
So very true. A bit saddening to realize that the old story "from dishwasher to millionaire" is still so pervasive despite the odds having changed considerably against us in the meantime... I guess some dreams are just too beautiful to forget.
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
-- John Steinbeck
SWEs in SV are earning $250k+ per year and the job market for them has been red hot for them for the past 30 years, minus a few bumps. Most of them are _are_ millionaires, many are multi-millionaires, and they're not embarrassed about it at all, temporarily or otherwise, dohohoho.
Most tech workers, especially those in bigger companies, are such a tiny cog in the wheel I can barely fathom it.
I wonder if there’s truth to the idea that the big companies were simply hiring as many people as they could so that at least their competitors wouldn’t have them.
If this wasn't some moderately clever ploy, it would make a good "Dilbert" plot, actually...
[flagged]