Finally some sense-talking. The growing culture of paternalism in the employer-employee relationship is toxic to the foundations of our societal wealth.

Personal responsibility and equal opportunity are how we got to iPhones, toothpaste in every corner store, and a store on every corner.

> The growing culture of paternalism in the employer-employee relationship is toxic to the foundations of our societal wealth.

???

What? As in, could you explain....

It's also how we got rid of a store on every corner.

Only in America. In most developed places, there are still corner stores (in addition to big box stores).

there's still a store on every corner in America, it's just one of (CVS/Walgreens/Starbucks)

Every year it feels like Snow Crash gets more and more closer to being real.

Because the risk is supposed to lie in the hands of the investors, the founders, and the people who make the decisions. When the risks taken by the people at the top succeed, they profit, when they fail, they tend to push that onto their employees through layoffs and withholding raises. Then they will turn back around saying that they deserve their lavish lifestyles because they are the ones taking the risks. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is the corruption of the US system of business and capitalism (and I'm a capitalist). Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward.

If only there were some way to, say, unify the—to use your word—employees as some sort of collective unit, so that the—again, your word—ruling class has a little less power to reap all the reward.

Instead of complaining that your profession lacks a union, why not pick a different career that will allow you to easily join one? Problem solved!

A) Why should any profession lack a union?

B) If the problem is that one profession lacks a union, wouldn't the more natural solution be to start one? Problem solved!

Sure, you're welcome to start one. My hat is off to you and/or 'jachee' if it comes to fruition. That takes a lot of real work, however, as opposed to posting a few snarky internet comments and calling it a day.

I don't have to; where I live, we already have one. So yeah, sure, easy for me to post snarky comments. But at least not quite as useless as posting comments that are not only snarky but also idiotic, like comments to the effect that one shouldn't have a union. So what are you doing to start one?

Funny how you use these words beginning with Uni... On the whole, they remind me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

> Expenses are passed down on the employees, and the ruling class reaps the reward

Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.

The misery gets passed down. The abuse and shitty situations and complete lack of power -- that gets passed down.

Sometimes the expenses get passed down, but I'll agree that's rare. However I have had employers bill me for my uniforms, and I ain't talkin about the military.

Employees get paid to work, but are abused. Sure they can leave, but things aren't always that simple. Things are normalized.

Just like you can "just leave" an abusive relationship, but instead much of the system is abusive to their employees.

If you were getting paid for 2 years working on a project that doesn't pan out, that's you not taking the risk.

"Getting laid off" is not a risk. Wasting 2 years for nothing while bleeding income _is_ risk.

If you don't agree, then why would you work for an employer when you could take your own risk?

If you have the luxury of a safety net or in-demand skillset, then yes, getting laid off is not a risk. If you have less means, and the costs (both monetary and social/emotional) of needing to relocate to find another job turn into something much more daunting. In that kind of situation, loss of a job is a very negative event, much more than, say, a 10% decline of a wealthy person's portfolio would be.

re why work for an employer when you could take your own risk: generally speaking the odds of losing a job due to layoff are still less bad than the odds of a bootstrapped business failing, even if attempting to start a business was a realistic option, which it is not for many people.

Losing a job is a negative event, the parent is not disputing that. The parent is disputing that there is minimal risk for an employee, they are getting paid month to month for their work.

California has very generous unemployment benefits. I also strongly doubt any former YC-employee will have a very hard time finding a next job.

Except it's not upper management bleeding income, it's the company. They still get their golden parachutes and massive bonuses, then they downsize other parts of the company in order to claw back the costs. They don't have to worry about losing their healthcare or having to survive. Hell they don't even have to care about keeping the company alive, they can just straight up kill it and still reap the benefits like we've seen with Sears and the scumbag Eddie Lampert.

That's the risk. They destroy the bonuses and benefits of their workers to fuel their own rat race.

Employees also usually get bonuses, and stock options. Your point is possibly true for companies as big as FAANG ones, but for a startup invested in by HN, it's highly unlikely the founders are getting any real bonuses. They might get some money about in series B or C, but that's already less than 99.9% of startups that get to that stage probably.

You are simplying the situation by thinking about everyone as successful unicorns. Most companies and founders are not.

The employee working under someone and doing work according to their requirements. The employee should not bear the risks of the decisions.

(naturally this is all meant for F500 companies which post a lot of profits, start ups need a different mindset.)

If it were “for nothing” you might have a point.

So are you saying that, in the multi-million VC-fuelled start-up climate of the last couple decades, founders haven't made sure to pay themselves at least the same salary as their employees?

If you are, I'm not buying it. And if you're not, i.e. if you admit that they did, your point falls to pieces.

> the people who make the decisions

Which includes the employees. They want the cool tech, the stock options, the prestige of working at FAANG or some new startup, the all-you-can-eat cafeterias... the price of working in a fast-moving, always-changing industry is that you're likely to be on the receiving end of some of those changes.

Want to be protected from layoffs? Take a salary cut and work for the government. Or be the most incredible software engineer at a boring as hell credit union or community college.

I certainly don't wish for anyone to be laid off and I know, from personal experience, that it can be tough. But by choosing the startup or FAANG world and enjoying all the benefits, you're practicing guaranteeing that you'll be affected by some adverse outcome, somewhere along the line. Accept it and move on.

You have a point.

It also seems the job wouldn't have existed without someone willing to take the risk? I myself weigh risk in my decisions frequently. I am full aware that a layoff (or firing) is possible every time I accept a job. I'm also fully aware of what my employers obligations are to me. I'm not sure I've ever felt that my employer 'owed' me more than that. Maybe my life would be better if I did?

I think the thing that makes the recent layoffs so controversial is their context.

Layoffs on this scale are understandable, maybe even justifiable, in the case of a 2008 style market crash.

Layoffs on this scale do not feel understandable or justifiable given that many of the companies are extremely profitable, were hiring during, and have continued to hire afterwards. Add to that the prevalence of stock buybacks and the sheer scale of recent hiring and the question becomes why should the employees be the ones to feel the consequence of this behaviour?

The often billionaire CEO tearing up over how hard it was for him to fire thousands of people but "is using it as an opportunity to take responsibility for his mistakes" is simply the cherry on the cake.

The idea that you can just throw away an employee is bizzarre to most of the developed world. You have a responsibility to them (usually a legal one); the employee-employer relationship is an unbalanced one in many ways, and relies on that for fairness. If you want people you can get rid of at the drop of a hat you should be hiring contractors and paying the associated premium.

It should not be bizarre. Everybody should adapt and act accordingly, save money and keep your axe sharp. No job is forever, no employer is your friend or family.

That last sentence is true. But it doesn’t imply that people shouldn’t treat each other with basic respect.

Counterpoint: it should be much more bizarre, and should track social consequences for those responsible.

All that can be good advice and yet helping layed off workers still be win-win for employers and employees.

A reputation for sticking with employees, even through a layoff, makes a company more attractive.

It increases trust between employer & employees. Trust increases the efficiency of any collaboration.

What about demanding a salary no less than 50% of the value you add to the company? How many industries would stop being viable if their whole workforce would demand to be compensated for the worst case scenario Every single paycheck? A couple years ago this would have sounded like hyperbole, but then the Great Resignation happened, so there's that...

From that point of view, severance payments are not noble handouts but compensation strategies to reduce the overall payroll cost.

I acted accordingly by moving to a country with decent labour laws.

Whatever country you moved to, odds are there's more of a brain drain from there to the US than vice versa. When places heavily regulate laying employees off, they just make employers much more apprehensive and conservative about hiring.

I find this take kind of odd to be honest.

From a capitalist perspective, the paternal employer-employee relationship is one of mutual benefit. Ensuring that the the employee's incentives align more closely with their employer's. At the same time it acts as (an arguably weak) justification for corporate profit, a comfortable and loyal employee is one who does not concern themselves too much with where the rest of the money is going.

The idea of the relationship as transient and adversarial directly opposes this. When companies force their workers into precarity, while at the same time making record profits, there ceases to be a justification for accepting that profit in the eyes of the worker. Eventually leading to some kind of societal response.

I actually see elegance and justice in the cold, ruthless capitalist approach; I tend to think of it as tough love... But I don't believe that the system we have today is capitalism and so this cold, ruthless approach is actually unfair.

The difference is that in a capitalist system (with a constrained money supply; an even monetary playing field), when you get tossed out, you can get back up and you still have a chance to compete. In this system, when you get tossed out, it's game over (feels like slow withering away, a constant struggle to stay afloat).

The winners' wealth compounds infinitely beyond the point when it becomes impossible to compete against them. Billionaires are earning enough passive yield on their diversified portfolios that some of their businesses become useless appendages and they can afford to run them as a hobby, at a loss... Yet nobody can compete against those businesses; they're essentially subsidized by the money printer which serves as a compounding interest machine for the billionaire.

No real business which relies on profits from its economic activities can compete against a business which is funded by an infinitely compounding source of wealth.

> I actually see elegance and justice in the cold, ruthless capitalist approach; I tend to think of it as tough love... But I don't believe that the system we have today is capitalism and so this cold, ruthless approach is actually unfair.

I'm curious as to how the hypothetical Capitalism would avoid quickly collapsing into a much more extreme version of the current state of affairs. Capital producing more capital seems built into the system, without strict controls on capital accumulation I don't see how the end result could be anything other than monopoly.

From what I know from an old friend of my dad, helping coworkers who lost their jobs to land somewhere else is a well rooted custom in US.

Said friend told me numerous stories about how he gave positive references or call his friends in other companies for positions for coworkers who were laid off, during his tenure in IBM.

Helping people who lost their jobs because of reasons which they can't control is being a good person, for once, too.

It always astonishes me seeing how ingrained this individualistic capitalistic mindset is on so many. People have been brainwashed.

These are people. This could be you, or your friend, espouse, mother, sister... And just because you can bounce back, it doesn't mean this is okay.

Even if they have money saved and can use that to find a (hopefully) better next job, that's not easy or guaranteed.

It seems that this "criticism" is more like jealousy than anything else. If they were not earning a bit more than others then we can feel bad for them. Otherwise let's pretend it's fine and yell "screw them".

Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. Not sure how that can even count as risk, given these VCs are all multi-millionaires that can afford to fail multiple times over in the first place.

But it's somehow easier to hate the person that makes a few more bucks than you, than it is to hate the money hoarders that control the lives of so many of us.

This has nothing to do with being brainwashed. Couldn't we say the same about your stance?

Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy.

From what I see, you can't take off your personal morale views from business decisions.

> Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. What even has that anything to do with what parent is saying? Or the topic we are discussing?

Is in your opinion no company allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.

>Where does this come from?

Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.

You can't possibly believe this PR scheme, do you?

of course it's total bullshit but it's wrong to blame the people getting bullshitted and not the bullshitter

I guess you could say people are brainwashed about anything. So fair point, I take that back. I was just frustrated because it's such a "default" answer for people when the vast majority doesn't even consider that this is not the only way the world can work.

>Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy.

I agree the company is not fully responsible for them. But they have to have some degree of responsibility. There's an enormous power imbalance in play here and right now companies can just ditch people like garbage and increase stock prices at will just because they can.

The reality is that people don't choose to work. You either work or starve. So when we give companies that much power over our lives, I believe they should have a responsibility for those they employ.

> Is in your opinion no company is allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with a big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.

I don't quite get this. My point was that we've been conditioned to believe that letting people go is okay and it's every person for himself.

But you immediately go to the other end of the spectrum saying we can't ever let people go? That's quite childish and naive in my view.

There's a whole range here between basically zero consequences (what happens today) and you can't let people go. But once again it comes back to the conditioning that we all have that this is the system and there's nothing we can do about it. If we can't even imagine how it could be different, nothing will ever change.

There's no hate. There's no paternal love either, nor a need for one. It's a completely neutral event that requires no emotional reaction.

Imagine it happened to my sister. So what? Are you expecting me to get emotional or angry at her employers? I wouldn't. What is there to be angry about?

Seems to be a weird American tech thing. In the real world, people lose their jobs, do their notice period (if any) and take steps towards securing a new one.

For whatever reason, American tech workers appear to think they should get 5-10x the median income or more, also get stock in the company, also have flexible work/life hours and also be "looked after" (what does this mean? More money?) after they're fired.

They're clearly in a bubble.