←back to thread

We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

(drewdevault.com)
215 points LaSombra | 4 comments | 05 May 20 13:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.358s | source
Show context
OneGuy123 ◴[05 May 20 14:05 UTC] No.23080116[source]▶
Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in.

Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that.

Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad.

That makes them care for their family first.

replies(5): >>23080177 #>>23080188 #>>23080197 #>>23080228 #>>23080294 #
Loughla ◴[05 May 20 14:14 UTC] No.23080197[source]▶
That was sort of the entire point of the writing. Because tech folks are in a privileged class, they have the ability to move jobs based on morals. And therefore they should. Not doing that, when you are making as much as you are as a programmer at BIGCORP means you are complicit in the bad behavior.

That was the entire point. He addressed your concern in the first two paragraphs.

replies(3): >>23080419 #>>23080449 #>>23080740 #
lotsofpulp ◴[05 May 20 14:34 UTC] No.23080419[source]▶
If you were to ask my circle of friends and family, even bigcorp programmer money isn’t sufficient to feel secure due to future economic volatility. Especially if your goal is to make sure your kids get to live in the richer neighborhoods and go to the richer schools, and so on and so forth.

And it’s not just a perceived fear. The data shows that if you’re not in the portion of people increasing their rate of income/wealth growth, then you’re in the portion that is decreasing in income/wealth growth, and that compounds for your kids.

I would want a few hundred thousand in passive income before I would say I had FU money, which also means a few million in diversified assets other than my house. Especially in the US, where quality healthcare is a minimum $20k per year for a family in insurance premiums alone plus a few ten thousands in out of pocket costs.

replies(7): >>23080488 #>>23080493 #>>23080524 #>>23080759 #>>23080864 #>>23080919 #>>23081066 #
1. ddevault ◴[05 May 20 14:43 UTC] No.23080524[source]▶
The level of hubris shown here is obscene. The median household income in the United States was $63,179 in 2018. Richer neighborhoods? Richer schools? Give me a break. This is wanton greed on plain display, and blatant disregard for the systemmic suppression of the poor that you are directly enabling by working at bigcorp.
replies(3): >>23080652 #>>23080989 #>>23100564 #
2. bcrosby95 ◴[05 May 20 15:23 UTC] No.23080989[source]▶
Do people that make the median household income in the USA feel secure? If they don't, your statistic is irrelevant. And in my experience they don't, especially if they live in higher cost of living areas where most of the tech jobs are.
replies(1): >>23081223 #
3. ddevault ◴[05 May 20 15:41 UTC] No.23081223[source]▶
No, you're not understanding my point. I'm contrasting this income with the one the OP says they want. The median household works hard for 60K, but the OP is suspending their ethical judgement until they have "a few hundred thousand in passive income". You don't need 6x the median income to feel secure.
4. _odnes ◴[07 May 20 07:19 UTC] No.23100564[source]▶
Wow, as a fan of your web persona, I find your stance on this intriguingly Stallman-ish. All the more because you omit making the utilitarian fungibility-talent margin argument, which I'd expect you to be aware of.

I find refusing to "build the tools of oppression" more defensible on utilitarian grounds than denying to even use such tools (apart from practical considerations, that is e.g. vendor lockdown, privacy issues etc).

And yet you already claim to be boycotting evil corporations, which in my eyes amounts to pretty much that.

I suppose I can buy the "we shouldn't normalize morally wrong behaviour" as long as it remains defensible on utilitarian grounds i.e. working for megacorps. But I have a hard time seeing my use of e.g. google translate as morally wrong.