this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024

447 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

68247 readers

3391 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

447

Tech worker movements grow as threats of RTO, AI loom (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

They're just trying to scare the Americans out of the office so they can replace them with cheaper H1Bs who won't talk back.

[+] [email protected] -19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Unions will not increase the average wage. They will only even-out wages across the economy. Which means they will increase the lowest wage.

Unions will not solve the social problems in the US. UBI (Universal Basic Income) will solve them.

You need to advocate for UBI. There is no good reason not to have it.

UBI doesn't cost the economy anything. That's no "donating money to poor people". Poor people will immediately spend it on food and housing/apartmenting, which means the money stays (better yet, flows) within the local economy.

The reason the US doesn't have UBI yet isn't because it isn't affordable. It is. The reason UBI wasn't introduced so far yet is because they wanted to scare the people into working harder. It's for psychological reasons, not for real (financial/technical) reasons.

If there is 1 homeless person sitting by the street, people will say "they're lazy and deserve this because they didn't work hard. So i need to work harder". If there's 100 homeless people sitting by the street, people start to realize it's not their fault and the system is at fault; and will demand drastic dramatic changes. UBI is an effective way to prevent that. UBI isn't a choice - it's a necessity for a stable society.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Unions will not increase the average wage.

Unions (and redistributive policies) can increase median, not just mean wages. That's the figure that matters to the "average" (50th-percentile) worker. The trillions of dollars hoarded by billionaires do nobody any good but the billionaires themselves.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

UBI without worker's power and strong unions will just become a leash in the hands of the state to enforce social compliance. Unions and UBIs are not mutually exclusive. Also without strong unions, who do you think will advocate for UBIs? Neo-nazi, billionaires, and other people that want to give the bare minimum to defend the status quo from its collapse. The first to talk about UBI in the USA was Nixon, and it's not by chance. The élites see the UBI as yet another tool to maintain the status quo and their privilege, giving scraps to the rest and subduing the state to make their own interest. UBI is a technical tool and therefore, by itself, it doesn't solve social problems or shifts power. The shift of power should happen contextually to the introduction of the UBI, otherwise, it will just turn into yet another way to oppress the working class.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

"The hand that lifts you up holds you down." Yeah, that's a risk.

But if it's unconditional, it can be beneficial for many people, especially those in music and the arts, caregivers, and others who contribute to the economy now without receiving much in the way of compensation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I see your point. I think i understand the individual arguments and just for the sake of clarity i would like to list them again:

UBI would make the people dependent on government approval.

I think this depends on whether it's properly implemented. If it's properly implemented, it's Universal and does therefore not depend on social compliance.

UBI is a technical tool and therefore, by itself, it doesn’t solve social problems

I disagree. Giving resources to people solves problems, including housing, education, and medical care. Maybe the details of where and how to allocate the resources need more elaboration.

Maybe this is a misunderstanding because what i mean by UBI is "give resources to the people that they can use for everyday life without expecting something in return". In so far, public schooling or public healthcare are also a form of UBI for me.

Neo-nazi, billionaires, and other people that want to give the bare minimum to defend the status quo from its collapse.

Actually, I would like to keep the system from collapsing. If it does collapse, it will cause devastating harm on not only you, but all of society, probably turning it into ruins and a state-beyond-return.

The shift of power should happen contextually to the introduction of the UBI

Realistically, that's not gonna happen. There's not gonna be a "worker's revolution" in the US. The rich take it all, leaving nothing for the poor. Dreams of a "revolution" are fairytales people tell themselves at night to sleep easier. If you really want change and to improve lifes, advocate for UBI. It really helps.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I think this depends on whether it’s properly implemented. If it’s properly implemented, it’s Universal and does therefore not depend on social compliance.

No system willingly surrender its power. Any implementation of UBI in the current power structure will just reproduce the current power structure.

I disagree. Giving resources to people solves problems, including housing, education, and medical care. Maybe the details of where and how to allocate the resources need more elaboration.

If this happens in a way that benefit people, it means the power shift already happened and the UBI is just the consequence of it, not the cause. The hard problem is the power shift, not the details of the UBI, that are reduced to a technical problem. Technical solutions follow from a rearrangement of society, not the other way around, despite what hackerinos and techbros believe.

Actually, I would like to keep the system from collapsing. If it does collapse, it will cause devastating harm on not only you, but all of society, probably turning it into ruins and a state-beyond-return.

The current system based on consumption, growth, and the industrial/post-industrial productive mode is unsustainable. It's going to collapse regardless of UBI. Conservatives and reactionaries are so supportive of UBI exactly because it has the power to extend the "business as usual" a little longer, until bigger factors like soil exhaustion, climate collapse, biosphere collapse, oil EROI and other major factors will eventually make our mode of living unfeasible. That's not an argument against UBI per se, but we should be wary of how it can be appropriated to make our life worse and this is a very concrete consequence. UBI as a starting step (good) vs UBI as a pacifier (bad).

Realistically, that’s not gonna happen. There’s not gonna be a “worker’s revolution” in the US. The rich take it all, leaving nothing for the poor. Dreams of a “revolution” are fairytales people tell themselves at night to sleep easier. If you really want change and to improve lifes, advocate for UBI. It really helps.

I'm not a revolutionary. I don't believe revolutions have ever happened. I also don't believe a major political change is going to happen in fascist USA anytime soon, unless Trump really fucks up his game. Sometimes there are just no good moves.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Look, I'm kind of an outsider on this conversation because until we get a DaVinci for mechanical work, I'm never going to be WFH, but there's something interesting I've noted with all my programmer friends.

The industrial world, that's where unions are, they're getting pulled out but that's the places unions live. The people working in stores are starting to push hard on unions. My industry, biomed, hasn't really gotten unions off the ground, but it's rumbling. We're a small industry that's so short on people it's just easier to move jobs than start a union, but we're a mix of tech and industrial backgrounds. But the programming tech backgrounds, at least here in the midwest, is apparently so anti-union I don't know how it'd get off the ground from what I'm hearing from my friends. Their coworkers who are mad about RTO will immediately turn around and say the corporate lines about unions. I'm honestly kinda baffled and hope your industry gets it figured out.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

H1Bs are fine with coming into the office and won’t put up a fight with any corporate policy….

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That’s just market forces, then. I suggest domestic workers adapt or retrain in a new industry.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

I suggest they unionize, demand seats on the board for their unions, and crush excessive C-level compensation. Moving on just moves the exploitation to a new kind of job.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Or they could unionize and lobby their government... That's how democratic processes work on civilized countries

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Unions lobbying the current US government isn't going to happen. Nothing short of a general strike will make them listen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Oh, yeah you’re absolutely right. I just kind of left the best option out because it is the topic of the OP. Thanks for mentioning it!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yup every time I see H1B I replace it in my head with tech slave. They're paid, but the deck is so stacked against them they effectively cannot refuse anything. ANYTHING. A well informed H1B worker might score a chance at permanent residency for some of the abuse they suffer. But mostly it's just years of abuse with very strict rules to get their residency.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, then they lose all their best and brightest who are disappearing off to work on their own things.

All these idiot C-suite trash will wind up holding is a bag of yesterday's technology, a mass of obsolete infrastructure and a bunch of brands they've helped destroy.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago

It is by design. Pool a bunch of money, buy companies to bleed them dry. Wait for new companies to take their place, rinse and repeat.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Eh... You can run a company without the best or brightest nowadays. Mediocrity gets the job done, mostly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

It's always been that way. Otherwise General Motors wouldn't exist. Neither would Microsoft.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lmao what?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thousands of companies are out there doing just fine. Maybe 10% if people can be the best and brightest. It's impossible for every company to have them.

The math just doesn't math.

Average performers are just fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Ah I see what you're saying. Yes I agree, with the caveat that innovation requires the best and brightest.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ever heard of the term "Code-Monkeys" ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's generally used to refer to programmers by people who have no idea of what programming entails.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yup & honestly that should be changed

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you think every company out there is stacked with the best and brightest? By definition, only a minority of employees can be considered that. Many companies run just fine on mediocrity, it all depends on how they intend to make money. Mediocrity can in many cases be an advantage for a company, if that allows one to set aside any shred of integrity at a shot of accomplishment and praise from executing on the many bullshit and unethical things many corproations bring in cash from.

[+] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Stacked, no. But they have several people who are best and brightest.

Every company has this you think?

[+] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The best and brightest in an area for the pay the companies are willing to pay is not the same as the best and brightest (you are adding a lot of constraints). A lot of times those people will be quite average (or mediocre). By definition, most people are average or close to it. If a company is not willing to pay to attract and retain the actual best and brightest (as many will not), they are left with mediocrity. The companies will often still be able to make a lot of money, because companies in general do not need the best and brightest just to avoid failure and bankruptcy.

Will once innovative companies become worse companies and provide worse services/products? Absolutely. Will they be left behind by better companies who do attract the best and brightest? Sometimes, depending on the industry and the depths of the moats they have built and the number of aligators guarding their monopolies (e.g. regulatory capture and other monopolistic behavior). Will they go bankrupt? Sometimes, but in general it takes more than to just settle into a mediocrity.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, I’m not reading that. This isn’t worth the effort.

Have a good one!

Edit: Salty, huh.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So a lot of times those C-levels will be pretty average people eh?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The thing that's not average about them is their social position and consequent connections. I've met a lot of them, from firms whose name you'd know, and they're the types who would have been B students at competitive universities. Not stupid by any means, but not brilliant. But their network of acquaintances is aways extensive and elite.

load more comments