|
down with slavery posted:Didn't you to college and have healthcare? Reading comprehension. And no need to resort to insults if you're upset. Anyway, I was positing more if a 100K earner ever lost his job or stopped working. It doesn't really make sense to talk about financial security in the context that the person is assumed to have guaranteed lifetime employment in this day and age.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:18 |
|
shrike82 posted:Reading comprehension. And no need to resort to insults if you're upset. But the upper class is more or less. Look at the market for software developers, the job market is great once you've made it past the first few rungs. The lack of available education just means more jobs for those of us who could afford to go there. It's only going to get better for skilled workers like you and me, not worse. We are not financial insecure in any sense of the word, nor is anyone else making near that amount of money. Bringing up medical bankruptcy is just a comedy.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
A sea of big red titles, as far as the eye can see. Is this what hell is like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's pretty much crab mentality at work. I, by definition, am part of the middle class and I can't afford a mortgage or college or healthcare. Those guys can so they are in the "Other" class - "plutocrat", "upper class" etc. Please explain why you think it is 'crab mentality'. No one is attempting to pull the dude whose family is making 210k back into the crab trap, it's a matter of getting him to recognize his privilege.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:It's only going to get better for skilled workers like you and me, not worse. Actually, I think we'll see things get worse for skilled workers not better. How can you see the decreasing salary to revenue generated ratio for knowledge workers and claim that things have gotten better over time ? For all the random accusations of me being libertarian, it's pretty clear to me that the capitalist class will increase exploitation in the tech industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Just saying, but if he we defined class by what people identify as, "middle class" in America would include people making between $10,000 and $1,000,000 at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:04
|
|
shrike82 posted:Actually, I think we'll see things get worse for skilled workers not better. Because the pool of labor that can fill the positions that we have is shrinking, not growing. As are the wages. "the decreasing salary to revenue generated ratio for knowledge workers" is irrelevant when you look at the big picture. quote:For all the random accusations of me being libertarian, it's pretty clear to me that the capitalist class will increase exploitation in the tech industry. I don't think you're a libertarian, just a "progressive" democrat who has drank a little too much neoliberal kool aid. Of course they will increase exploitation, that's what they do.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Because the pool of labor that can fill the positions that we have is shrinking, not growing. As are the wages. "the decreasing salary to revenue generated ratio for knowledge workers" is irrelevant when you look at the big picture. I'm sure (possible?) visa reform and the increasing numbers of CS graduates from universities will not affect the tech labor pool in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:08
|
|
Sir Mat of Dickie posted:I'm sure visa reform and the increasing numbers of CS graduates from universities will not affect the tech labor pool in the slightest. They might, but the guys making $100k today will be fine. The competition is fierce for entry level jobs and low paying ones. As someone who interviews skilled tech workers regularly, you'll get 100 resumes for an entry level job. For someone who is experienced and knows what they are doing? You'll have to actively recruit someone from a different firm 99% of the time. The demand/market is insane and anyone who's in anything remotely like it (and finance assuredly is) has no business calling themselves middle class or identifying with the families struggling with issues like food insecurity or being able to afford college/healthcare. Again, the picture of the sector as a whole is much different depending on where you are on the ladder.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:A sea of big red titles, as far as the eye can see. Is this what hell is like? Did you post this to match your title, or was it the other way around?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Zwiftef posted:Please explain why you think it is 'crab mentality'. No one is attempting to pull the dude whose family is making 210k back into the crab trap, it's a matter of getting him to recognize his privilege. I did, in my original post - I am doing quite well. I bought a house, I own a car, I can afford to take a vacation occasionally, we paid for our own wedding without having to take out a loan or ask our families for help (although they helped with the house.). I don't have to worry too much about going out to dinner or buying tickets for a play. You know, as long as I keep my job. Which is at someone else's discretion. If I get fired, odds are low I would find an equivalent job (BigLaw associates who get fired aren't in high demand at other large law firms for some reason - I don't work in tech.). My point was that arbitrary income cutoffs for class analysis are stupid. I have a lot more empathy for the guy working a factory job (hell, some days my job and his have a lot in common!) than I do for Mitt Romney. I also have a lot more in common with him and with his interests. If I had never said what my income was, would anyone have questioned that I was middle or upper middle class based on a qualitative description?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:They might, but the guys making $100k today will be fine. The competition is fierce for entry level jobs and low paying ones. As someone who interviews skilled tech workers regularly, you'll get 100 resumes for an entry level job. For someone who is experienced and knows what they are doing? You'll have to actively recruit someone from a different firm 99% of the time. The demand/market is insane and anyone who's in anything remotely like it (and finance assuredly is) has no business calling themselves middle class or identifying with the families struggling with issues like food insecurity or being able to afford college/healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
'Middle Class' intentionally avoids definition - it was an early 20th century effort to find an alternative to Marx's 'inevitable' conflict between the lower and the upper class - if everyone would just meet in the middle we'll be okay. As a propaganda device it has worked marvelously, you could say middle class is everyone not qualified for EIC and filing income under 250k - but people in those categories likely also consider themselves to be 'middle class'. This idea of a comfortable, but not extravagant, standard of living that is earned through labor underlies the American Dream. Of course the definition of comfort, extravagance, and useful labor varies enormously between individuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:27
|
|
Nessus posted:Have you, or any of the people involved, considered teaching your new hires what they are supposed to be doing? I mean this sounds like some sort of psychotic dream hellscape where you relentlessly look for the lucky few who happened by random chance to bullshit their way into knowing 'what to do,' and chasing after them, instead of taking some time and providing on the job training. All of the people I've hired with previous experience have been through word of mouth, you simply cannot find good people in the current marketplace. I agree with you wholeheartedly on training, my company distributes the surplus every month back to the employees equally among all (we agree on a monthly investment target that goes back into the business at the start of the month). Not only that, we do a lot of training and I've already hired three people with no experience whatsoever as interns and paid them a living wage to boot. Granted, this is only possible because of the current market conditions, which could change at any time. We've been finding great success marketing our labor practices towards perspective clients, although we specifically search out socially positive organizations. You'd be surprised by the amount of people who actually want to live in a society where the services they use are provided in an ethical way (even if the cost goes up) I understand though, that my position is privileged. My skills/experience are only as a result of having parents who could afford to blow thousands on computers while I was growing up and afford to spend thousands more when I broke them and needed a new one. And I got even luckier when I decided to drop out of high school like an idiot but it paid off because I got into the job market before 2008. Oh and it turns out the hobby that I've loved as a kid happens to be one of the most marketable skillsets today. Realizing how lucky I've been (working in an inner city school was the eye opener for me) and how little chance most people are given, it's just absurd for those of us with this privilege to identify with the oppressed.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Is that true though? A medical emergency could bankrupt you so I'm not sure about never having to worry about financial security. Someone making that much money could easily afford health insurance that would prevent this, so I think such a thing could be considered the result of the person's incompetence. Unlike someone making significantly less money, paying for health insurance wouldn't have a notable impact on the quality of life of someone making six figures (and this is all assuming they don't get high quality insurance through their employer, which is probably usually the case with high paid employees), so I would judge it more harshly than someone poorer making the same mistake. There's also the fringe case of someone who is making just at or over $100k and trying to raise a family in NYC or Los Angeles or something, which I acknowledged could be considered middle class (since it would be roughly equivalent to trying to raise a family on ~60k or so in most other cities). I feel like I should address the "but shouldn't we only be focusing on the hyper-rich who own most capital?" argument. I half-agree with this. The hyper-rich are the people with the most power, so I do think that "rich people are literally the enemy" rhetoric should be aimed at them, rather than highly paid labor. That being said, I do not think that very highly paid labor should be under the same umbrella as your average person. The interests of someone making $200k a year mostly do not overlap with the interests of your average person. This is primarily because - to the person making $200k - financial security is not an issue and they are benefiting more from the status quo than they would under some hypothetical system that guaranteed equitable/fair distribution of wealth. I put that in bold because I think it's probably the most important point and the main reason why those people probably shouldn't be considered allies when it comes to pushing for economic change. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Realizing how lucky I've been (working in an inner city school was the eye opener for me) and how little chance most people are given, it's just absurd for those of us with this privilege to identify with the oppressed. Actually, given how little difference there is between you and them but for lucky chance, it's absolutely absurd for you not to take up their interests as your own best interests and champion that. "There but for the grace of god", the veil of ignorance, and all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I did, in my original post - I am doing quite well. I bought a house, I own a car, I can afford to take a vacation occasionally, we paid for our own wedding without having to take out a loan or ask our families for help (although they helped with the house.). I don't have to worry too much about going out to dinner or buying tickets for a play. I would not expect someone from my cohort who is middle class to have a mortgage, so. (Upper middle class, maybe.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's also the fringe case of someone who is making just at or over $100k and trying to raise a family in NYC or Los Angeles or something, which I acknowledged could be considered middle class (since it would be roughly equivalent to trying to raise a family on ~60k or so in most other cities). I'm not sure why you consider this a fringe case when a significant portion of 100k earners are clustered around high COL areas like SF and NYC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Someone making that much money could easily afford health insurance that would prevent this, so I think such a thing could be considered the result of the person's incompetence. Unlike someone making significantly less money, paying for health insurance wouldn't have a notable impact on the quality of life of someone making six figures (and this is all assuming they don't get high quality insurance through their employer, which is probably usually the case with high paid employees), so I would judge it more harshly than someone poorer making the same mistake. Right up until the illness prevents them from working and they lose their job, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm not sure why you consider this a fringe case when a significant portion of 100k earners are clustered around high COL areas like SF and NYC. Because they don't have to and frequently don't actually live in the high COL areas, they live in the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:If we're going to continue this, rather than just laugh at Eripsa as I'd hoped, we really do need to agree on how class is defined. The classic Marx-derived formula based on the relationship one has with capital and the means of production (with a vestigial upper class who draw their wealth from land rents or whatever) strikes me as more difficult than in standard industrial manufacture, since we've got a much squishier/less-defined means of production than in, say, a steel smelter. The fixation on only having three classes is part of the problem. People making $30k aren't in the same class as people making $70k, who aren't in the same class as people making $150k, who aren't in the same class as people making $500k. With how low class mobility has becomes, maybe we could base a new class structure on the Hindu caste system; poor people basically qualify as "untouchables". Ytlaya posted:Someone making that much money could easily afford health insurance that would prevent this, so I think such a thing could be considered the result of the person's incompetence. Unlike someone making significantly less money, paying for health insurance wouldn't have a notable impact on the quality of life of someone making six figures (and this is all assuming they don't get high quality insurance through their employer, which is probably usually the case with high paid employees), so I would judge it more harshly than someone poorer making the same mistake. The majority of medical bankruptcies in this country are from people who did have insurance but got hosed over, but the broken medical system in the US doesn't have all that much to do with class issues, and the cutoff for "rich enough to just bypass all the medical system's fuckery and get the premium treatment" is probably closer to seven digits than to six.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
^^^ I'm imagining it varies by how expensive their insurance is, though, right? Like, a state employee or any other employee with good benefits is probably going to have a much higher chance of costs being covered than someone who purchases their insurance individually. (I might be 100% wrong with this and am not asserting it as fact.)shrike82 posted:I'm not sure why you consider this a fringe case when a significant portion of 100k earners are clustered around high COL areas like SF and NYC. Yeah, fair enough. I don't know what the actual percentages are, but I'll acknowledge that a household (as opposed to individual without a family) income of six figures isn't some critical cut-off point where someone stops having financial concerns. That's why I was trying to mention something like a $200k income, where this argument can't really be made for any location in the country. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because they don't have to and frequently don't actually live in the high COL areas, they live in the suburbs. Oddly enough, burbs clustered around these cities have seen increased COL as well. Companies aren't paying these professionals 100k out of the goodness of their hearts but because they're being forced to acknowledge COL issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:52
|
|
Kalman posted:Actually, given how little difference there is between you and them but for lucky chance, it's absolutely absurd for you not to take up their interests as your own best interests and champion that. "There but for the grace of god", the veil of ignorance, and all that. Who said I'm not doing that? There's a difference between fighting for the oppressed and identifying as one of them. It's an insult for me to pretend like I can grasp the struggles that a "poor" American faces in a day to day way in any sense of the word. It's as silly as me trying to identify with starving Africans. No, I don't control a significant amount of capital or anything like that, but I am most certainly privileged and it is not only the capitalist class, but the views of my peers who refuse to acknowledge their privilege, that continue to hold us back. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because they don't have to and frequently don't actually live in the high COL areas, they live in the suburbs. So Marin and Greenwich aren't high cost of living? Suburbs around expensive cities are often just as expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Stanos posted:Wait, SHE released that? I wish SF would have a new ordinance allowing you to hunt anyone wearing google glasses in public
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Xandu posted:So Marin and Greenwich aren't high cost of living? Suburbs around expensive cities are often just as expensive. And where they aren't, it's typically because they suffer from the same issues that make certain parts of the cities less expensive (e.g., crime, poor schools, fewer amenities, poor access to transit.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Xandu posted:So Marin and Greenwich aren't high cost of living? Suburbs around expensive cities are often just as expensive. The median income in Greenwich is also $170k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:I wish SF would have a new ordinance allowing you to hunt anyone wearing google glasses in public And risk an uprising by the Cyborg Panthers? EDIT: My first red title. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The fixation on only having three classes is part of the problem. That's because you fundamentally only really need the two: capitalists and not. Further subdivision depends on what exactly you're trying to do. Target assistance? Target taxation? Organizing a union? Making a list of people you actually have to worry about? You'll get different answers for each one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Who said I'm not doing that? There's a difference between fighting for the oppressed and identifying as one of them. It's an insult for me to pretend like I can grasp the struggles that a "poor" American faces in a day to day way in any sense of the word. It's as silly as me trying to identify with starving Africans. It's a bit patronizing to disclose that you're part of the self-defined oppressing class but that you're better than your peers because you admit to some vague privilege. It sounds like you're a techie making a decent 6 figure salary, I'm guessing 100-150 at most. You still have to worry about raising a family under the specter of the tech bubble bursting as well as paying for education, mortgage, and healthcare. Why would you think you wouldn't be able to grasp middle America's struggles. Equivocating the struggle of a "poor" American with starving Africans seems really peculiar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Xandu posted:So Marin and Greenwich aren't high cost of living? Suburbs around expensive cities are often just as expensive. Not compared to actually living in the most fashionable parts of the core city (which is what people usually do when they try to claim you need to make $250,000 a year or something to live good in Manhattan). Plus you start getting into things like how Stamford is just another 5-10 miles away, has entire sections of the "city" that mansions in the hills, but the cost of living there is a good deal less than Greenwich. Edit: not to mention... moving to the place only rich people live does not make you stop being rich. Especially when it's the places directly bordering places with plenty of poor people. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:10
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's a bit patronizing to disclose that you're part of the self-defined oppressing class but that you're better than your peers because you admit to some vague privilege. Patronizing? Isn't that like your entire gimmick? Please, enough with the concern trolling. quote:It sounds like you're a techie making a decent 6 figure salary, I'm guessing 100-150 at most. You still have to worry about raising a family under the specter of the tech bubble bursting as well as paying for education, mortgage, and healthcare. I'm not saying I'm invincible, just that I don't face the struggles of middle America and unlike you I'm not going to pretend like I do. Of course things could change, but I already watched the economy collapse once and honestly, it's doesn't look like "tech" is going anywhere, especially for the people in the higher level positions. Sure, the bubble could burst, but even at that point I am still at a point of incredible privilege because of how I have time to prepare for such a scenario, money I have to float on while I look for a new job, etc quote:Equivocating the struggle of a "poor" American with starving Africans seems really peculiar. Only in that they are both groups you or I don't identify with, which is true.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:But the upper class is more or less. Look at the market for software developers, the job market is great once you've made it past the first few rungs. The lack of available education just means more jobs for those of us who could afford to go there. It's only going to get better for skilled workers like you and me, not worse. We are not financial insecure in any sense of the word, nor is anyone else making near that amount of money. Bringing up medical bankruptcy is just a comedy. While it's true that tech jobs are a meal ticket while you have them, it's also pretty well known that ageism is crazy in the field. Good luck finding a new job if you're over 40 and aren't a part of management! Given abuses of labor like these (or, you know, the wage cartel that got posted several times in this thread or efforts to drive down wages through immigration reform) it's absurd to claim that tech workers don't have skin in the fight for workers rights, although I'll be the first to admit that the concerns and rights that tech workers have differ immensely from the working poor. But just because there are differences doesn't make workers in the tech industry any less exploited in their own way. Tech workers may ignore the plight of the working poor at their peril, but let's not hesitate to think that the real owners of capital (like those in upper management) don't benefit economically when the poor and the tech workers tear each other limb from limb instead of joining up to lay the richest of the rich down low.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Yup. It's silly to be arguing from a stance that tech workers have fundamentally different concerns from "middle class" workers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Yup. It's silly to be arguing from a stance that tech workers have fundamentally different concerns from "middle class" workers. Not ENTIRELY. There's truth to the matter that the concerns of tech workers and the concerns of the working poor are different in scale (tech workers aren't having to worry about their car breaking down, preventing them from getting to their third minimum-wage part-time job that they need to feed their three children), and that can lead to criticism of tech workers who can't empathize with this plight (hence my commentary about ignoring the plight of the working poor at their peril), but fundamentally exploitation happens, just in a different guise (and to a different degree). EDIT: Tech workers can be faulted for not empathizing and supporting the movement of the poor as fervently as they should (because it not only shows empathy, it helps everyone in the long run) but I don't think being divisive about these things help anyone other than those who benefit the most from not having the spotlight shone on them. I mean, even tech workers with all their earnings can't buy off a Congressman, but focusing the news on attacks on Google Buses certainly helps keep the news busy instead of doing real investigations on what really matters. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Not ENTIRELY. There's truth to the matter that the concerns of tech workers and the concerns of the working poor are different in scale (tech workers aren't having to worry about their car breaking down, preventing them from getting to their third minimum-wage part-time job that they need to feed their three children... Yeah but neither does anybody else with an income of 100k (which, incidentally, does not describe all or arguably most tech workers). What's the point of separating them out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Tech workers in this conversation is being used as shorthand for the high income tech workers of the Bay Area in general. Obviously the systems administrator for HJG Manufacturing in Topeka who pulls $37,000 a year isn't involved here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Tech workers in this conversation is being used as shorthand for the high income tech workers of the Bay Area in general. Obviously the systems administrator for HJG Manufacturing in Topeka who pulls $37,000 a year isn't involved here. I do realize that, but why are they different from the wall street guys who make six figures? Or anybody else who works and has a high income. This whole thread has really been focusing on tech workers and their perceived gooniness and naivety, but I just don't think it's been justified as to why they're distinct. Because there's a few loud mouth idiots like the person in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah but neither does anybody else with an income of 100k (which, incidentally, does not describe all or arguably most tech workers). What's the point of separating them out? Which separation do you mean? Separating tech workers from the ruling class, separating them from other 6-figure earners, or separating them from the working poor? EDIT: Okay. In that case, I don't think it's especially meaningful to separate them from other six-figure earners except to the degree that those six-figure earners do not make their earnings from their labor. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:39
|
|