There's definitely a parallel but I don't think you can put on the same level the sort of pressure unskilled and low-wage workers get in Amazon warehouses to the stress we get as skilled workers in the software industry. We are (on average) much better paid, we can (usually) find an other job easily and overall we (generally) have a much better quality of life.

My brother worked in one of these warehouses (not for Amazon, but more or less the same crap) and frankly I think it's a bit obscene to compare this situation to software engineering. It's exhausting, it's boring, it's unfulfilling, the turnover rate is huge, you can't really socialize with your coworkers (partly because they change so fast, but also because you have no time and you're often competing with each other).

I'm sure in the near future the vast majority of these jobs will be replaced by machines though. It's a bad thing for employment but I don't think I'll be sad to see them go. Let the machines to the boring work then take the wealth generated and redistribute it to the population to do actually interesting things! Technology should free the people, not enslave it to machines.

"I think it's a bit obscene to compare this situation to software engineering."

I've got a very cush job, and I can totally identify with what you're saying here.

One feature of that comparison you're critiquing, however, is very important.

A lot of us working in IT who have cushy jobs imagine that our interests are more aligned with the owning classes instead of with the working folks who are doing really painful jobs.

I don't agree with that view, and I feel that a lot of the callous and dismissive "no one is forcing them to work" comes from the fact that many people don't understand that at their core, the ideas that lead working people to have power of how they work affect everyone who is employed by the people who own businesses.

So while I agree that my working conditions are much, much better than any warehouse workers, fundamentally if I am going to stand in solidarity with them I need to understand that my interests are served by the same things that serve their interests, because we both labor for a business instead of owning a business.

To return the comment your criticizing, you have a reasonable point that working conditions for people who "engineer" are much better than those that move boxes.

At the same time, I feel like understanding that those folks moving boxes have the same underlying interests as those of use moving bits is completely necessary to understanding how we can move towards a world where your laudable premise that "technology should free the people, not enslave it to machines" can be treated descriptively instead of just normatively.

Any job that pays you enough to live, but not enough to get to a better place in the long run, is a dead end. When technology takes these jobs, lives will be ruined. Many people would be better off finding something new now rather than later.

I suppose that you're right but to me your comment reads like a modern version of "let them eat cake". This vicious circle of having a shit job that pays enough to live but not enough to get a better place is specifically the problem. There used to be a time when factory workers could get a decent wage, buy a good house, buy a good car etc... And maybe eventually progress through the social layers. It's getting harder and harder. Unskilled worker's wages stagnate while rich people's incomes soar.

I definitely have sympathy and empathy for people in this condition. No employee is immune. Think about whether your job will exist and afford you a comfortable lifestyle in 20 or 30 years.

There doesn't appear to be an easy answer. My comment was only meant to convey that soldiering on to worry another day comes at an opportunity cost.

> then take the wealth generated and redistribute it to the population

i assume you mean the shareholder population?

I don't think he meant, but it's unclear whether you think that's what should happen.

I'll go in and say it should be redistributed to the population at large -- anything that gets us, as a species, closer to that Star Trek utopia is a good thing. World's got the resources for it already.

> but it's unclear whether you think that's what should happen.

i just think that's what would happen. trickle-down economics and the idea that any savings will be passed down to the consumer is a marketing crock of shit.

I wouldn’t have an issue with these power hours if not engaging in this little game meant you simply got to miss out on the “prizes”. However if not participating in them have employment reprecussions (affect raises, promotions, lead to concerted teasing, peer presdure, etc.), then that would be troubling.

Or subbotniks in Soviet parlance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subbotnik

> rename "power hours" to "hackathons".

The key word here is "pressured". There is no pressure to perform or participate in a hackathon. You can work on your own pace, or choose to dropout. Almost all of the people who participate do so because of their interest and not to win a trophy or some cash.

>There is no pressure to perform or participate in a hackathon

I guess you haven't had the pleasure of participating in monthly workplace "hackathons". Of course participation is optional, but it can look good on your promotion case wink-wink nudge-nudge.

They tried to do a hackathon at my company but after initial interest a lot of people dropped out so in the end it was cancelled.

I think hackathons could be fun but they should either be done independently from a company or do something that's not of any direct value to the company but something fun.

The trick is to not care about internal promotion. You can also get promoted as you change jobs.

Indeed as an engineer this is the best course of action in our industry.