Most people don't want to do good work, they just want to get paid and fuck off. It is really hard to grok this because it is just so disappointing and demotivating.
Most people lie constantly, to appear as if they want to do work, as if they give a fuck - they are lying to your face.
Once you realize this much, once you come to terms with what most people are - the rest will fall into place.
Until you grok this, these sorts of posts will seem like cynical takes, like someone who doesn't want to work hard, who wants to be a free loader. No, these sorts of posts are cautionary tales that society is filled with free loaders and liars, so you need to tread with caution and know how to deal with these 'people'.
From the other side of the coin. Your employer is free loading off of you. You are paid a fraction of the amount of money that your work actually generates. If your work generates 100 dollars... you're paid 10.
So essentially your employer is fucking you and any other attitude other than to treat the situation for what it is, is delusional.
Don't call us 'people'. You're the one that doesn't get it.
Now I'm not saying you need to freeload. But I do what I'm paid to do because this is a business transaction that favors the employer. After I'm paid, I fuck off, because I just got shafted by my employer and I owe him nothing until he can pay me again. My work is only good to the point where my employer is willing to continue paying me.
I don't employ anyone. I'm not coming from a place of a disgruntled employer complaining about the workers being 'lazy' or whatever.
I'm coming from a place of what the blog talks about - someone who came in starry eyed doing good work, only to find out you won't get paid 3x for doing 3x the work relative to everyone else, but instead they'll try to get you to do 4x the work for a 10% yearly bonus, until you drop dead of exhaustion.
Oh, and your co-workers will hate your guts and try to undermine you. Nice system, right?
That's the dynamic I'm addressing - if you're enthusiastic and starry eyed and think people are out there wanting to change the world for the better or at least take a modicum of pride in their work - be very careful, the real world is not like that, at all.
For what it's worth I've only experienced this long term in corporations. Small companies that are actually still in the prime of producing and growth can't afford that with everyone and expect to survive. If it's systemic the startup just fails after meandering for a little bit. I derive a little satisfaction from that fact.
It starts to tilt after you've gotten a couple hundred employees and people can hide more.
I figure there are about 1 in 10,000, if not 100,000 software devs that have the brains and fortitude to eat shit for 4-5 years, solving hard problems.
Not only do start-ups normally not have 4-5 years, but they don't even try to solve hard problems - they mostly just try to solve some trivial bullshit to exploit a legal loophole or insert themselves as middlemen in a corporate/legal swamp.
> Not only do start-ups normally not have 4-5 years, but they don't even try to solve hard problems - they mostly just try to solve some trivial bullshit to exploit a legal loophole or insert themselves as middlemen in a corporate/legal swamp.
I don't really agree with that, the time horizon on a successful startup, one that's acquired or goes public, is 7-10 years. I also don't agree with the class of problems. Like everything there's tiers. C tier player get's a C tier company with C tier problems. Naturally there's more C tier people than A tier, but that's not an indictment specific or by any stretch unique to startups.
Edit: Honestly, the prevalence of easy capital means bullshit like you say stands out more but I'm not sure if a lot of companies like that are the winning bet for another like Google or whatever. They're over pronounced for sure but the moment venture capital stops having so much money floating around they'll die out imo. It does mean you have to do a little more work to find the interesting ones though.
I thought about it a bit more - I was unfair to start-ups. It's not that start-ups largely solve trivial problems - it's that humans largely solve trivial problems.
There are factors that make start-ups more likely to solve trivial problems vs say, a research institute, but it almost doesn't matter in the scheme of things.
There are exceptions - they come once every few decades, per industry, give or take. Then the millions of regular people take it and do what they can't help but do :)
Yes I think I now largely agree with you. Most humans do mundane work and solve trivial problems. It's how the system keeps working though. If that stopped we'd be too busy sifting through the wreckage to produce the few exceptions where most of our value (not necessarily monetary) comes from.
> You are paid a fraction of the amount of money that your work actually generates
There are organizations that don't do this. They are called nonprofits. Why don't people just work for nonprofits all the time? Because they are less stable and there is less upward mobility. So there's something that is actually bought by this extractive capitalism, and we sign up for it when we sign up to work at for-profit companies.
It's hard to call it freeloading off of me, when I benefit from this arrangement.
Nobody is promoting communism here. But capitalism is imperfect in the sense that it's unfair. The unfairness motivates productivity. It's the best system but it is still highly flawed. Wealth inequality is one of the major consequences of capitalism that we haven't quite figured out how to tame.
It is freeloading in every sense of the word. You pay a slave a dime for work that generates you hundreds of dollars the slave still benefits, but you are still freeloading even if the slave is benefiting by a ten cents.
It's how things are, I'm not calling for a better system. But I'm not so stupid as to sell 100% of my loyalty to a company that in the end is shafting me.
You have a very different definition of freeloading. The slave situation is totally incomparable on account of how the slave cannot quit aside from by dying.
> It is freeloading in every sense of the word.
Every sense, except the dictionary definition, is what you meant, I take it? "Freeload - take advantage of other people's generosity without giving anything in return." Giving ten cents is not the same thing as not giving anything. And if an employer gave me ten cents for a day of work, I would quit and go elsewhere as would every other free person in America.
As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same."
Oh my bad. Throw a penny at the employees face and it's no longer freeloading. This isn't freeloading. Maybe a better term is "fucking over".
Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them. My bad.
>As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same."
Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair. You say that being unfair is the "point" of capitalism. We're saying the same thing. Does the word "point" change the nature of what I'm saying? No.
> Why you're repeating something I stated is beyond me. I said capitalism is unfair.
You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness.
If you instead want fairness, there are other systems for that in use by other countries. You can move to one of those countries if you prefer that system. But there are good reasons that capitalist countries are the most prosperous.
> Employers fuck people over, they don't freeload off of them.
It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons).
>You said that as a means of supporting your larger point which is that capitalism is flawed. I am arguing that unfairness (as I defined it) is the whole essence of capitalism, which is very different from saying it's an unwanted byproduct of it. We want unfairness.
Thank you for the clarification. No we don't want unfairness. Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. Nobody wants this, you'd have to be insane to want it. That is unless you're the one doing the fucking.
Let me make one thing absolutely clear. I never said I prefer another system. I just said the current system is flawed. Please don't tell me to move to another country.
Also you obviously don't understand capitalism. Adam Smith originally conceived of the invisible hand that would influence market forces to distribute wealth fairly. This was the intent, the outcome is clearly not the case. Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth.
The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital. The idea of capitalism started with the idea that wealth was fairly distributed. Modern economics now is fully aware that this is not the case and that there are huge flaws within capitalism even though there is currently no known superior system.
>It's equally possible for employees to fuck over employers, we just tend not to do it (for good reasons).
So? The problem here is every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over. So if I'm getting fucked over then of course I owe the employer nothing beyond stated business obligations.
> Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing.
This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions.
> Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribute the most to GDP not getting the most wealth.
Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well.
> every employee under a capitalist system is getting fucked over
First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. If enough people do this, either the economy will grind to a halt (forcing companies to raise wages) or the wages will be raised without grinding the economy to a halt. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prohibits this. In fact, the prospect of higher wages means it is encouraged.
> The people who get the most wealth are owners of capital, not the people who generate or increase capital.
You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable.
No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you.
It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much.
>Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well.
I never said it was trivial nor did I say it could be easily measured. But on a grand scale we know it's occurring. It's very trivial to see. Most CEO's don't deserve the salary they get, this is also trivial to see.
>First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid.
You're way too pedantic. Of course I'm referring to a generality. 99% of people are fucked over. Very few people are overpaid.
>But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over.
All companies try to fuck you over. I just join the company that fucks me the least. I'm still getting fucked. That's what typically occurs. What you're referring to is different.
You're referring to Baumol's cost disease for wage competition, which is typically not what occurs. No overall economy is governed by this but you do see it happening in small bubbles or certain industries. I would say software in the bay area has this phenomenon occurring in the slight. Wages here are higher then the rest of the world BUT wages are generally not high enough to the point where most engineers aren't getting fucked.
>You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable.
It is bad, but let me clarify, ownership of human capital or other things that own human capital by proxy is the thing that is bad.
Just because things are hard to quantify doesn't mean we can't use our intuition to make a judgement. It should be self evident and obvious that ownership of human capital is bad but a necessary evil.
You should really relax your moral rigidity. You believe your intuition is correct, but there's nothing saying it is. Our intuition comes from culture, which is the result of centuries of Judeo-Christian influence, which I hazard to guess most of HN is not OK with taking as a source of knowledge, even an implicit, squishy kind of knowledge.
Instead we should be foundational about this. "Every economist" doesn't believe anything, as there is widespread disagreement about almost every topic in science, and furthermore every economist believing something doesn't make it true, as economists are subject to groupthink same as the rest of us.
To the extent that employees are being taken advantage of by for-profit corporations, employees are accepting of this situation, because alternatives are available. There is nothing that says you must work for a for-profit corporation. There is also nothing that says you can't join a co-op. There are distinct benefits to working for a for-profit corporation; those are what I am choosing when I choose to allow myself to be "fucked over" as you say. In reality, what is happening is I am allowing some of my value to be captured by the organization and invested into its long-term stability, productivity, and desirability. If I wished for none of this, there is nothing stopping me from starting my own company of one person, correct?
It’s strange you believe any financial transaction including selling shares of a company is inherently a ripoff. A really weird way to view the economy, since price is something that has to be agreed to by all parties. Why would some investor have to buy my company? If they are doing that it’s because they view it as a good deal.
Also don't use the word strange. I see it all the time on HN. "OH it's so strange that you would think... I find it so strange that you seem to be ... " yada yada yada.
It's basically a technique to get around the HN rules to insult a person while being polite. It's a complete dick move only used by dicks. Hopefully you made an honest mistake and you're not a dick.
When you own a share, if that share increases in intrinsic value with you doing zero additional work to increase that share. Then you just ripped someone off. Someone was doing work to increase that value, but they're not the one benefiting. The person benefiting is the person who invested nothing into increasing the value of the share.
Let me illustrate. You buy a 5$ share. You now own something worth 5$. Suddenly the share price increases to 10$. You earned an extra 5$ by sitting on your ass. Who increased the price of that share? Whoever it is, he got fucked. By you.
Increasing intrinsic utility is unique only to things related to human capital. This is entirely separate from value increases due to supply and demand.
Please. As if you have not already broken multiple HN rules such as “don’t be snarky,” “have curious conversation,” and “assume good faith.” Hiding behind the rules is a poor shield at this point. The fact you think “strange” is inappropriate language yet “fucked” is perfectly acceptable is… interesting.
Buying a share is not ripping someone off. They are selling the share because they want money up-front, and you are providing it to them. If they didn’t think selling the share was worth it at that price and time, they would hold on to it.
Buying the guy’s share at $5 is a price he set. He determined that getting $5 at this time is worth losing X% of control of the company that that share represents. No one is getting fucked, or at the very least, it’s unknowable who is getting fucked. Whether it was a fucking depends on whether the share goes up or down in value over time.
Fucked is at the border, but there's no insulting going on here that is not my intention. The word is just used to illustrate a concept a little more violently. Strange is an insult, it was personally directed at me. While, technically it's not an insult... the intent is there and is detectable. I suggest you don't use it the next time you want a discussion to continue.
>Buying a share is not ripping someone off.
I never said buying a share is ripping someone off. I'm saying watching a share grow in value is ripping someone off.
Also I'm not talking about bidding. I'm talking about the intrinsic value of the share. There is value outside of bidding. The bidding correlates with the intrinsic value but is not a completely accurate reflection of it.
It's hard to describe what intrinsic value is. But the concept exists outside of this conversation. Look it up if you never heard of it.
So to bring it full circle. The worker contributes work that increases the value of the company which in turn increases intrinsic value of the share. The owner of the share benefits from this increase in value while contributing zero work on his end.
If you are rich enough, you don't even have to work anymore. Simply growing your money endlessly is enough. Nothing in the universe comes for free and such people don't have to work because that work is being done by others in their stead.
Over a long term horizon or even in the short term through dividends... massive intrinsic value can be extracted from these assets.
Again though, the person buying the share and the person selling the share, and even a third party (who offers loans) all come to an agreement that the best option at the moment is to sell the share. Loans are available to the would-be seller, if the sale of the share would actually screw them. Loans and fundraising rounds are therefore in competition -- and it's not like a company hasn't been built on loans before (Cisco was built off of credit card debt in the beginning). The seller makes a judgment about near-term vs long-term pros and cons, deciding where to allocate most of the value.
Most people don't want to do good work, they just want to get paid and fuck off. It is really hard to grok this because it is just so disappointing and demotivating.
Most people lie constantly, to appear as if they want to do work, as if they give a fuck - they are lying to your face.
Once you realize this much, once you come to terms with what most people are - the rest will fall into place.
Until you grok this, these sorts of posts will seem like cynical takes, like someone who doesn't want to work hard, who wants to be a free loader. No, these sorts of posts are cautionary tales that society is filled with free loaders and liars, so you need to tread with caution and know how to deal with these 'people'.