←back to thread

215 points LaSombra | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.283s | source
Show context
codesections ◴[] No.23080330[source]
I agree with this, but also think that working for an employer that is "making a negative impact on the world" might _sometimes_ be the right choice. Specifically, it could be justified for two reasons:

First: you might have more impact on the organization from the inside than from the outside (this is most relevant to people joining at a high/senior level). For example, Google seems to be making privacy far, far worse. Yet there are some people on the inside fighting to limit the privacy violations, which leads to decisions like banning GPS tracking in their contact tracing app[0]. Would the world be better or worse off if the only people working at Google were people who don't care at all about user privacy? I'm honestly not sure, but I can at least see an argument that it might be even worse off.

Second: you might get something from the organization that lets you do good that outweighs any harm you contribute to (this is more relevant to junior employees). Many employers provide something (training, future job opportunities, or a high enough income to open your own small business/non-profit). A thoughtful employee can go into a "negative impact" employer with eyes wide open and a plan to get something, and get out.

However, in either case, self awareness and a definite exit plan are _key_. As Drew writes, once you are working at a "negative impact" employer,

> Doublethink quickly steps in to protect your ego from the cognitive dissonance, and you take another little step towards becoming the person you once swore never to be.

The way to avoid that sort of conative dissonance is 1) know that you'll experience it and be on guard against it, and 2) know all along that you're there temporarily and should never get too comfortable. Even then, you should be realistic about how long you can maintain your personal values in face of a very different culture. For a junior employee, I'd say two, maybe three years should be the absolute limit before you get out.

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ap...

replies(3): >>23080599 #>>23080707 #>>23080728 #
snarf21 ◴[] No.23080707[source]
I agree that we have a moral line we can decide to cross at work or not. We can step in and say "this isn't right". We all have our own limits. If a company passes our line, we can decide to stay and be a dissenting voice in a sea of "yes men" or we can move on.

The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end? Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Facebook or other company that is making the world worse? Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies? We can all do more to make the world a better place but each individual has to decide their own thresholds. It is impossible for each of us to stand against all the evils in the world. Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be stopped. Most people just want to provide for their family and live their life. Not everyone can (or wants to) be a social justice warrior. It is a very complicated issue and I think we paint it too black and white at times.

replies(4): >>23080750 #>>23080871 #>>23080996 #>>23081522 #
1. pjc50 ◴[] No.23080871[source]
The problem is that the political sphere has become so dysfunctional that we're forced to act through the economic one. Not that it's terribly effective either, but the opposite leaves you vulnerable to "not living your principles" attacks to drive you out of the political argument.