> The NYT writes exactly what will sell. You and I are simply not its audience.

The amount of articles about living in tiny apartments (not to say pods), eating bugs and renting as opposed to owning is just disturbing. The way they all happen at the same time and seem to answer issues raised by other articles by other publications is just scary.

Assuming there is so much coverage of those issues (how much? I don't remember those articles and read the NYT daily, but I wouldn't have read them) why is it disturbing and scary to address issues in society?

> why is it disturbing and scary to address issues in society?

I guess it isn't, which is why I didn't say that.

As a racially ambiguous guy with a white name and who sounds "white"; I've definitely seen how remote interactions are better. People react in subtly different ways.

It might be the narrative but it's not incorrect. It's just another front in the continual war between labor and management

“Labor vs. management?” Tech workers get paid salaries that literally put them in the 1% income bracket. Like give me a break people. We do work. Work isn’t all roses and sunshine.

I always suspected tech people live in an extremely privileged bubble but holy cow did this last year really open my eyes to how detached they are.

The highest paid tech worker is still closer in class to the janitor than they are to the VCs paying their salary, even if they think themselves better than both.

It's true that the salary of a tech worker making $400k/yr is closer to that of a janitor making $40k/yr than it is to a VC making $4m/yr.

However, the lifestyle of the $400k/yr worker is probably closer in most important aspects to that of the VC than the janitor. Both drive expensive cars, live in expensive houses, and can set up their kids for success. They don't worry about the cost of food (even organic/local/etc.) or worry much about health care.

Put another way, there are probably some $40k/yr janitors who would give their left arms to be making $400k/yr. But I doubt there are any $400k/yr tech workers who would give their left arm to be making $4m/yr.

The majority of tech workers are not making $400k/year.

For sure. GP made a claim about the highest-paid tech workers, and I responded to that claim.

I meant to imply a range that peaks at the highest. Maybe that construction isn't as common and implicit as I thought.

Yeah I figured you didn't mean the actual highest paid individual, and from past HN discussions I've seen that there are some folks making over $500k/yr at FAANG. I picked $400k because it's not uncommon for that to be the total comp for mid-career FAANG tech worker. But I could be wrong — I'm a bootstrapped founder who used to be a Silicon Valley lawyer, so my information comes from friends or HN discussions.

I think the concept you're looking for is "discretionary income", which I do believe the VC may have 20x more discretionary than the tech worker, who may have 50x more discretionary income than the janitor.

> But I doubt there are any tech workers who would give their left arm to be making $4m/yr

I'm a software dev, I don't make 6 figures. I'd probably give my left arm to make $4m/year, I could afford a robot arm with that I'm sure.

$4m/year means I could retire before I'm 40 and live the rest of my life with the lifestyle I have now with comfort. Even missing an arm that sounds way better than toiling in software for another 25-30 years.

> $4m/year means I could retire before I'm 40 and live the rest of my life with the lifestyle I have now with comfort.

I would be able to retire after 1 year, $4M is enough to just stick in an index fund and live the rest of your life on 4% a year, unless you live in a very high COL area.

What a grossly unnuanced view of tech workers. We're not all in the 1%. Tech salaries cover a very wide range. Some of us have to do 80+ hours weeks during months long crunches. Do not put down people's efforts to improve their working conditions just because you're fine with yours.

> Tech salaries cover a very wide range. Some of us have to do 80+ hours weeks during months long crunches.

Sounds like it's time to switch company or location!

Seconding the other comment, its time to find a new job. There is no reason you should be putting up with that in the current job market

> Tech workers get paid salaries that literally put them in the 1% income bracket.

Don't be silly. Well earning tech workers in SV make it into the top 15% (at the lower end its difficult to purchase a home where they work). Top 1% would be >$500k/a for a household, which is exceptionally rare for a techie. Not everyone is a rock-star developer working for Uber.

You are completely right, considering only the USA, to be Top 1% you should earn $308,558 a year according to https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

Now, for the world, you´ve got to make $58,000 USD yearly to be in the 1%

https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=...

> at the lower end its difficult to purchase a home where they work

If the upper crust high income tech dudes are priced out of housing in their own city... imagine what it must be like to not be a SV tech worker living in those cities?

Which is why the upper crust tech workers and the non tech workers have more in common than they think.

Hell. It's horrible.

> Top 1% would be >$500k/a for a household, which is exceptionally rare for a techie

You're comparing individuals to households. You're right that not many tech workers make $500k/yr, but you're comparing that individual salary against the top 1% of household incomes.

Plenty of tech workers make $250k/yr and are married to people who make similar wages in tech/law/medicine/etc. That's not to say that most tech workers live super comfortable lives, especially in costly areas like SF/SV. But it's not appropriate to look at the salary of single workers and compare it to household income statistics.

> Plenty of tech workers

Would like to see the actual numbers of that. It certainly feels right, that high earners would self-select for high earning partners, but wondering what the reality is. It also feels like there are more single tech workers than married couples.

I don’t think most tech workers are “literally in the 1%” if you look at it by average income in the area where they work, and if you don’t assume Google L6 as typical of a software engineer. There are plenty of product managers, lawyers, business people, HR, etc that are making salaries similar to software engineers, often the same or more, and often being able to go home at 5 on a regular basis.

Most tech work is not close to the 1% income bracket which for California its $659,503. Its probably around $100K.

There isn't a tech labor salary on the planet that would make me suddenly be comfortable with at-will labor -- no matter how much they're paying me, when they can pull the plug at any time and I have no process to seek recourse, that's not right.

If I'm giving up my one non-fungible resource, my time, it had better come with protections beyond the smile of the manager who insists they've got my back when they're really looking for the right place to stick the knife; if you haven't been burned by that one, that too is a kind of, as you put it, extreme privilege.

And Google made 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. So despite getting paid oodles of money, engineers are still failing to capture the full value of their labor.

Maybe top 10% for the vast majority. There are also alot who are paid less.

So if I want to go back to working in an office, does that automatically make me a manager? I should ask for a raise.

While there might be a "war" between people that want to continue WFH and people wanting to return for an office, portraying it as "management vs labor" is unfair to many, many people who are part of the conversation.

The topic is not management vs. labor, but how it's explored is certainly that way. You're pro-office, say your management wants to get rid of the lease and make it completely remote. Do you get a chance to weigh in against that? Either way, the mechanics of this topic, like so many others, is disproportionately weighed in favor of management.

This is what happens when you do not translate what you have read into the right context. There is always a stratification in the society and injustices arise due to it. Such a broad statement however, is not useful for actually understanding society. Labour constitution in 2021 is vaaaaaaaastly different from that of 1921 (I cannot add enough a's to emphasize how vast).

Further, there is no point delving into that entire argument when you have just made up this strawman and inserted it into a conversation about workplace attendance requirements. You assume that broader context applies directly to this problem. It does not. The person who wants you back in office, in many cases, is your immediate manager. Is he also "management" when he has is only one degree closer to the CEO on a (generally) 6-7 step ladder? Or did you just transpose workplace hierarchy from the days of factory work and just make a go with it because you cannot be bothered to tax your brain to see how it is entirely different? I'd wager it's the latter.

The conditions might be different than 20th century factory work, but the dynamic between wage labor and capital isn't much different.

Do you have anything to support that? One could say your comment is "exactly what will sell".