1. 86
    The 501 Developer Manifesto show practices 501manifesto.dev
  1.  

  2. 21

    …we respect you for it. There’s probably some pity in there too, but honestly, it’s mostly respect.

    Haha, nice to know I’m pitied! How extraordinarily condescending! I just write code in my free time because I have nothing better to do really, does this mean I should be pitied?

    Not being a dick over being a rockstar

    Is writing a piece like this that puts down devs like me considered “dickish” behaviour or not? Just curious…

    1. 2

      We’re diverse people, we should embrace that. I love the subject of the document, how it exposes some developers to mindsets that might not be their own. The “pity” comment might make the manifesto feel as a cold shower to some, it might give a first impression that divides people rather than getting them to know each other. For this reason, I wouldn’t focus too much on that, rather, I’d focus on how interesting it is to get to know diverse viewpoints.

    2. 21

      This would read a lot better without the divisive “If you:” section.

      1. 15

        Yeah, I agree with this. I spend plenty of free time writing code — because I enjoy it. That’s also why I made it my job; I recognize that’s not true for everyone, and some people are working a job they aren’t interested in so that they can have a decent upper-middle class lifestyle. By all means feel free to do that, it’s understandable enough. But it feels aimlessly bitter to imply that having technical hobbies is a Machiavellian bid for power over your coworkers.

        We recognize that your willingness to allow your employment to penetrate deeply into your personal life means that you will inevitably become our supervisor.

        Maybe you liked writing code in the first place, and thus made it your employment? Even the inverse is possible: you could’ve made a financial decision to pursue software engineering first, and then afterwards discovered you truly found it interesting.

      2. 12

        Thanks for this link, it reminds me how entrenched into work I can be sometimes.

        That being said, I think the mention about open-source contributions is a bit different. I feel that when I’m contributing, I’m doing something like helping a (my?) community. Exactly like I would help my neighbor fix his TV, or help him cut down a tree in his garden, etc… pushing code to a project is helping communities.

        1. 1

          that’s true, but I think that’s why the manifesto makes it clear they respect people who contribute to open source/write technical blog/etc.

          1. 19

            It’s the followup paragraph which kind of reverses all that:

            We recognize that your willingness to allow your employment to penetrate deeply into your personal life means that you will inevitably become our supervisor. We’re cool with this.

            Doesn’t sound like respect to me and conflates open source contributions with employment somehow. I think it goes a bit off the rails there. It starts nicely enough but then it just seems to get lost in feeling bitter about people who like to do certain things with their free time, despite their claiming ‘we’re cool with that’ – then why bring it up at all? This part just doesn’t seem relevant to the overall point to me.

            1. 4

              fair, it does get unnecessarily mean to people who might have coding as their hobbies.

              1. 1

                I agree. The vast majority of them are victims to the employability dogma (aka rat race), not perpetrators.

              2. 2

                This didn’t sound bitter to me, but the opposite. People who do more coding are just naturally going to be better at coding. Rather than complaining that it’s unfair to the people who did less coding outside work time (and I have certainly heard that argument), the manifesto says yes, we get it, and we’re OK with that trade-off.

                1. 1

                  I agree that’s what it said. I don’t know that it’s true, though. It depends on what kind and quality of code they’re writing in that extra time. Writing more bad or mediocre code at home that’s totally unrelated to what’s done at work won’t make them better than coworkers. Also, if they start good but keep getting tired, the quality might go down in a way where however they manage that becomes consistent at other times.

                2. 1

                  I don’t think that this line:

                  We recognize that your willingness to allow your employment to penetrate deeply into your personal life means that you will inevitably become our supervisor. We’re cool with this.

                  Is related to paragraph and bullet point list above. I think this line says that if you work overtime, you will probably get promoted faster and become supervisor of a 501 dev.

                  This is my interpretation.

            2. 14

              I revived 501 manifesto, enjoy!

              1. 13

                10% “love and cherish your loved ones”, 90% palpable insecurity.

                To us it is just a job, but we still do it well.

                If you do your job well, there’s no need to put down other devs.

                1. 9

                  One of the issues I’ve seen with this is that people that are in favor of better work/life balance may not also be in favor of using their work time effectively. A team may accumulate a work debt and then have to trash work/life balance in order to pay it off–but efforts to just work more efficiently and aggressively before things get to that point are often dismissed because of things like this manifesto.

                  1. 7

                    I think our industry is notorious for overworking young people and causing burnout. I always thought one reason to insist on sane working hours is that you can then expect more features per engineer per week. I think consistently delivering and maintaining good boundaries if anything is a mark of professionalism.

                    1. 5

                      The pressure always come from business needs. In any given scenario, who is to decide that the workers are too slow instead of the managers setting unrealistic deadlines and too much pressure?

                      1. 21

                        As an executive in a public listed company, I can tell you if one of my managers tell me the reason they missed a target is because their workers are “too slow” I will fire the manager.

                        That is literally the only reason I hired a manager in the first place, and if they can’t take responsibility for the decisions they made to whip/trash work/life balance or set “unrealistic deadlines”, then they are not doing the job I hired them for and I will find someone else.

                        Reading HN, Reddit, and even Lobsters, it seems like working for some real shitty managers is common. I have no idea why people work for shitty managers. Maybe they have low self-esteem, or maybe they have little confidence in their employability that they feel “lucky” to have a job where they’re treated like shit. Maybe they think this is normal and/or necessary. It’s not necessary.

                        1. 7

                          A lot of this is normalized by the cultural spaces in which these jobs exist. “Startup Culture” and “Corporate culture” are dogwhistles for “ways to convince workers to work more for less”. It’s easier to pay a couple HR to whip the workers and maintain the ranks than to grow technical teams and so endless flows of bullshit are employed both at a company level and systemic level to keep them docile and obedient until they are in burnout and decide to leave for their next company, believing they are free and indipendent professionals that are sticking it to the man by resigning and finding a new job, while they are just improving the ability of a company to work with a high-turnover.

                          1. 2

                            A lot of this is normalized by the cultural spaces in which these jobs exist.

                            Reminds me of this article by Dan Luu on normalization of deviance:

                            https://danluu.com/wat/

                          2. 6

                            I have no idea why people work for shitty managers.

                            A lot of areas have mostly jobs with shitty managers. It’s hard to get good jobs. For many, it’s hard to get jobs period. It also seems like it’s easy for shitty managers to get their jobs in such situations.

                            1. 7

                              Also, statistics: Good managers keep their happy team while shitty managers have more churn (leaving, burnout, fired, etc). Thus, even if there are more good than bad managers, open positions are more likely under shitty managers.

                              1. 2

                                Strictly it depends on the parameters you choose. What proportion of good vs bad and what level of hiring for each class. The opposite conclusion is quite possible while keeping the inequality “more good than bad managers”.

                            2. 2

                              It’s almost impossible to keep only having good managers, even when I was lucky enough to have one, they either eventually resigned or moved to another position, and I got a shitty manager instead.

                              I can’t stand abusive managers, but incompetent ones are almost impossible to avoid in this business where people get promoted into management because they know a programming language well.

                          3. 2

                            One of the issues I’ve seen with this is that people that are in favor of better work/life balance may not also be in favor of using their work time effectively.

                            They may not be, but then again they may be. The flip side is that overworking leads to poor efficiency, leading to overworking, leading to all kinds of complications.

                            A team will always accumulate technical debt, I haven’t seen one otherwise. Working less doesn’t mean work less aggressively. The manifesto doesn’t even hint at that. It’s advocating for better work/life balance, not passive work. It even says, “to us it is just a job, but we still do it well”.

                            Sorry, but I see this remark being a very casual counterpoint that is polarizing.

                            1. 4

                              I mentioned work debt, not technical debt–the key difference (which I failed to articulate at the time) being that while technical debt matters to the engineers, work debt matters to the business. Not having a DRY admin page codebase is technical debt; not having an admin page at all is work debt. Lots of engineers in my experience are woefully oblivious to work debt.

                              Working aggressively is about getting the same amount of work done in a shorter amount of time, an analogy being to the mechanical definition of power (work over time taken). The problem is that people elect to work less (thus decreasing their work power) and then the work debt comes due and suddenly it’s time gun the engineering engine and either the work doesn’t get done (and everybody gets canned and replaced with engineers who are better about how they spend their time) or the work gets done at the cost of additional stress for the devs.

                              Basically, the failure mode I’ve seen is:

                              • Team commits to “work/life balance”.
                              • Everything is fine, team is trundling along.
                              • Some business demand comes up which increases the work debt.
                              • At this point, there is usually a window where working (for analogy) an extra 30 minutes a day (not even outside work hours…just doing 30 more minutes of paying down work debt instead of browsing the net or refactoring things to make them match dependabot’s complaints or whatever) would pay off the work debt and give slack back to the team.
                              • However, some or all of the team members (for a variety of reasons) refuse to do this.
                              • Deadline for the work debt draws nearer.
                              • Team must rush to meet work debt (or heads roll).
                              • Team is unhappy, blames it on work/life balance–when
                              • Repeat.

                              As much light and ink has been spent on the problem of burnout in tech, we definitely (due to cultural and historical reasons) oddly seem unable to address the (real) problem of malingering.

                              1. 2

                                I still feel like your argument is unclear. You are saying choosing better work/life balance could lead to ineffective work (browsing the net or refactoring as opposed to making that admin page). I find it a bit hard to believe that this happens because people believe in the 501-manifesto (I could be wrong). It’s more of an example of mis-prioritization of tasks.

                                I rather have this scenario, where someone or a group gets burnt because they chose to badly prioritize their tasks than everybody gets to overwork blindly.

                                1. 2

                                  My arguments/positions:

                                  • Work/life balance is sometimes used as a cover for malingerers.
                                  • Work/life balance is sometimes used to resist efforts to work more efficiently.
                                  • We as an industry focus on tech debt and work/life balance and ignore the very real issue of not clearing work debt, which in turn makes life harder for us.

                                  EDIT: Clarified “real” to be “very real”, so as to not sound dismissive towards tech debt and balance.

                                2. 2

                                  Isn’t the idea of Agile / Scrum / whatever to be able to account for new business needs (“work debt”).

                                  In any case, it’s not the team’s responsibility to make sure work debt doesn’t accumulate, it’s management’s. Comitting to “501” works both ways - you work your 40 hours a week but you give all that time to the company.

                                  1. 1

                                    Work debt has an inflow (management) and an outflow (engineering). If engineering isn’t clearing out work, the normal pace of inflow will cause accumulation.

                                    We can certainly complain about management dumping a gigantic pile of work and jamming the pipes, but I see almost no attention being paid to “hey, engineering, y’all need to work faster.”

                            2. 5

                              A few issues with this “manifesto”:

                              • it doesn’t really frame the solution and it seems to hint that it should be cultural or individual, rather than political (since the problem has a political nature)
                              • it just states the existence of people that don’t conform to the dogma of employability that dominates IT and they don’t buy into neolib propaganda. Good, but so what? It makes it seem like these people are a minority fighting an uphill battle that they are gonna lose. If you need to state your existence (and I don’t think it’s necessary in 2020, when the whole IT sector is being shaken by endless worker’s rights actions), you don’t really frame yourself as somebody capable of changing anything. It frames conscious workers as a minority that should be “proud”. They are, hopefully, still a majority. A silent majority? Maybe, but still a majority, at least outside the Silicon Valley or other meatgrinders.
                              • the formatting, lol
                              1. 2

                                it sets up a dichotomy upon which neither the poles nor the center exist, nor are particularly desirable for the self or for the other workers in the shop.

                                1. 3

                                  yeah, that’s also a good point. Dividing the IT workforce doesn’t really help anybody. I can get that shaming bootlickers would be good, but they are shaming the ones that have less means to reason about their position and get exploited the hardest.

                                  1. 8

                                    In the most general aspect, as a worker - and I’ve done some crap jobs (construction labor, retail, fast food) - you want your coworkers to do well and work reasonably hard. I think the socialist term might be “comradely”? Always clocking out at 5:01 is just kind of a jerk move. The work and your coworkers can be much more important in practice than the bossman and the employer. A lot of these anti-exploitation/pro-meekness manifestos seem to ignore that in favor of this atomized self-aggrandizing kind of muck.

                                    I’d argue that the starting lines for a pro-tech-worker manifesto might start like this:

                                    Workers of the tech world, we have become integral to our societys’ functions, and our roles are disparate. We must unite together to ensure that we are not, en masse, exploited by those holding power, regardless of the aim.

                                    1. 7

                                      First off. Thanks for starting this thread, it feels a lot more productive and, dare I say, human than the OP’s divisive tone.

                                      What it comes down to, context is everything. If your employer expects you to work overtime regularly without compensation or if it’s treated as a badge of honour, that’s toxic. On the other hand, if the shit hits the fan and you clock out at 5 to leave your co-workers to deal with it, in my book that’s pretty toxic, too.

                                      1. 2

                                        “Always clocking out at 5:01 is just kind of a jerk move. The work and your coworkers can be much more important in practice than the bossman and the employer.”

                                        That’s definitely true at my company. I often work overtime for that reason. My boss and I did 12 hours today vs 8. Some stay over despite the fact that they can’t make overtime. In some cases, esp with new people, we might stay over off the clock a little while just to make sure they’re OK if crazy stuff is going on. It’s not for the good of the company. It’s for the team, good people our work helps, recently the national good, etc.

                                        Then, there’s people that will always try to leave. We discourage them from being on our team just because we prefer folks that help out extra when it gets bad. We still try to get people time for their families, work with their schedules, etc. If folks go home, we don’t blame them. Company should’ve made a different hiring decision with a different up-front explanation of and contract/compensation for what they really wanted. There’s a balance to this sort of thing that varies depending on what type of job it is.

                                        1. 3

                                          Taking a related example, health workers often work long hours, including paid or unpaid overtime, because they feel obliged to support their colleagues or patients. I think that’s natural and laudable, but it’s also clear that if there were more staff this would not have to happen.

                                          Naively, it sounds to me like your team could do with some more staff so that you can cover all of the work while only rarely working long hours.

                                          1. 2

                                            Oh no, you got it right both with the general principle and what my company does. They aggressively minimize staff by default. We’re one of the companies whose volume is directly and indirectly impacted by the shutdown. It’s up so high that they decided to do a hiring spree. I don’t know if they didn’t hire enough people or the work just keeps piling up. It just feels similar to what it did before with still plenty of overtime.

                                            Most of our help are fresh hires, though. We have a lot to teach them. Things will get better as they gain experience.

                                            1. 1

                                              I hope that you’re able to retain a large enough team in future to avoid overtime. Maybe if you unionize you can fight back against that aggressive staff minimisation?

                                              1. 1

                                                Funny you say that. We’re union. It’s hard to get people to fight back effectively on day to day stuff. It’s usually the major stuff such as pay and benefits they move on. We just finished months of battling them on that where we almost went on national strike. Between that victory and current situation, I doubt I could get enough people to put time into something like this.

                                                Unfortunately, that’s just how these things work. At least, they hired more people.

                                                1. 2

                                                  I totally get that. Can’t fight everything at once :)

                                                  Maybe it could be attacked indirectly someday through agitating for higher and consistently paid overtime pay. That seems more likely to get support and would encourage the biz to hire more people.

                                        2. 1

                                          Working hard? Not necessarily. There’s no golden rule. Every case is specific but my personal rule of thumb is that hard work for your colleagues can be justified only if you cannot send the shit upward. Never send the shit sideways or downward if you’re a comrade. But this is not always obvious to everybody and it’s not always clear the system of power in place. But when it’s clear, never accept the shit without a fight. Unreasonable deadline? Before doing a rushed implementation that will impact myself in the future or a colleague of mine I try to challenge the deadline.

                                          Framing it as :

                                          you want your coworkers to do well and work reasonably hard

                                          is misleading. I wish them what I wish for me and it’s not to work hard so that shit doesn’t come to me. That’s selfish. I wish them to have reasonable schedules and be able to work at a sustainable pace and be able to produce quality code that won’t haunt us. Working less is not necessarily about lazyness. Yeah, I don’t want lazy colleagues because this means more shit for me but I don’t want hard working colleagues because that also means more shit for me (higher expectations, lower quality code, tension in the team because this might make them feel entitled to take more weight in decisional processes). The spectrum of “hard work culture” doesn’t map 1 to 1 on the spectrum of “worker’s solidarity”.

                                          1. 4

                                            I know where you’re coming from. Let’s just say I want everyone to pull their weight appropriately, with reasonable awareness that we’re all human.

                                            and, yes, there’s absolutely unpleasant and exploitative things that are framed as hard work etc.

                                  2. 3

                                    This whole argument just seems so lame. If you want a 9-5 life go work at a company that does that. If you want the other thing go do that. This is like the vim v emacs of this decade and it’s so incredibly dreary listening to people argue about this. God, I wish there were a tag just for this category so I could have less.

                                    1. 9

                                      I do not like this.

                                      Our families over the commercial goals of business owners

                                      Our families need to eat, right? Food costs money. Shelter costs money. Business owners pay staff for their time, expertise, and provided value. They don’t pay us because they have nothing better to do with their capital. Likewise, we don’t work for them because we have nothing better to do with our time. It’s reciprocal.

                                      Our personal creative projects over commercial products the world doesn’t need

                                      Exactly the same as above. If you don’t want the paid work, fine. Don’t take it. Move over. Vacate your seat and make way for someone less entitled, and likely far less privileged.

                                      Having money for stuff over getting free swag and work overtime

                                      Woah there. Really? So the “commercial goals of business owners” is a bad thing, and “commercial products” are a bad thing, but your own commercial gain is a good thing? Well, it sure didn’t take long for that hypocrisy to come out in the wash.

                                      Not being a dick over being a rockstar

                                      Resenting people who consider themselves “rockstars” while feeling entitled to free wealth is pretty much the definition of “being a dick”.

                                      There’s probably some pity in there too

                                      This condescension is absolutely disgusting.

                                      the success of the projects on which we work together depends largely upon the degree to which you treat us with respect

                                      …Because respect is something demonstrated in the rest of the manifesto? Right?!

                                      Get it badly wrong, and there’s a risk that we’ll piss all over your fireworks. There are more of us than there are of you.

                                      This is a weird threat that I’d suspect is written by someone with pretty serious social dysfunction. It’s a textbook delusion of grandeur.

                                      All of this is toxic bullshit.

                                      1. 22

                                        If these priorities are toxic bullshit, then we should instead prioritize:

                                        • The commercial goals of business owners.
                                        • Commercial products over our personal creative projects.
                                        • Getting free swag and work overtime over having money for stuff.
                                        • Being a rockstar over not being a dick.

                                        I love technology—software in particular—but I also love my friends and family. I value being thoughtful, kind, and considerate more than I value being a “rockstar” coder. If you don’t, I never want to work for you, with you, or around you. Were you my coworker, I would probably leave the company, and highlight your aggressive “work over life” attitude during my exit interview.

                                        that I’d suspect is written by someone with pretty serious social dysfunction

                                        I’m baffled how you can say something like this, but still have the crass audacity to call the original post toxic.

                                        1. 7

                                          I love technology—software in particular—but I also love my friends and family.

                                          Yes, me too. Perhaps what’s most interesting is that this “manifesto” is vague enough for both of us to interpret it in such wildly different ways.

                                          I value being thoughtful, kind, and considerate more than I value being a “rockstar” coder.

                                          I don’t consider myself a “rockstar” coder, and frankly I think the label is a bit silly. But supposing there are people who enjoy thinking of themselves that way; why are the virtues you listed mutually exclusive? Why can’t a highly productive person also be thoughtful, kind, and considerate?

                                          I’m baffled how you can say something like this, but still have the crass audacity to call the original post toxic.

                                          The original post makes vague, ominous threats, and also expresses pity for anyone who writes blog posts about technology. The rest may have been somewhat ambiguous, but this certainly isn’t. I don’t pity the countless programmers who have thought about something they care about (being thoughtful was one of the desired virtues you listed, right?) and were selfless enough to put the effort in to blog about it, publish it online, and share it with all of us here, for free. No, I don’t pity them. I admire them, I applaud them, and I aspire to be like them. I mean, that’s why we’re all here, right?

                                          Finally, other people in this comment section have also pointed out that this “manifesto” gets unnecessarily mean towards people who might enjoy programming as a hobby, so it can’t be just my uncharitable interpretation.

                                          1. 5

                                            Vague? It’s not vague at all. It’s a manifesto about which values are more important than others. For example, you ask why can’t a highly productive person also be thoughtful, kind, and considerate? They can. No one claimed otherwise. Only that we value “not being a dick” more than being highly productive. I think this was clear in the original post:

                                            As such, we are proud to say that we value: […] Not being a dick over being a rockstar

                                            And I respect people who write technical blogs and contribute to open source projects. So does the author:

                                            we respect you for it. There’s probably some pity in there too, but honestly, it’s mostly respect.

                                            Look around at the context. The values. Adjacent phrases like “in your spare time” and “mostly only,” and it’s obvious the author pities those with blogs and open source projects that “penetrate deeply into your personal life.”

                                            I also enjoy programming as a hobby from time to time. As you said, that’s why we’re all here, right? But, at least in Silicon Valley, people are often made to feel inadequate for not living and breathing code. It’s okay to have different life values. It’s okay to work on something other than your career. It’s okay to spend your free time away from a computer.

                                            1. 7

                                              It’s not obvious to me, and clearly I’m not alone on this.

                                        2. 2

                                          Our families need to eat, right? Food costs money. Shelter costs money. Business owners pay staff for their time, expertise, and provided value. They don’t pay us because they have nothing better to do with their capital. Likewise, we don’t work for them because we have nothing better to do with our time. It’s reciprocal.

                                          It’s not. If we work and they make profit, it’s because they don’t pay us the full value of our work. Otherwise there wouldn’t be profit. Also you say it: work is forced, not a free choice. If you don’t do it, you die and your family too. Extortion calls for retaliation.

                                          Woah there. Really? So the “commercial goals of business owners” is a bad thing, and “commercial products” are a bad thing, but your own commercial gain is a good thing? Well, it sure didn’t take long for that hypocrisy to come out in the wash.

                                          Individuals are not for-profit companies. Don’t try to equate them. They have leverage, individuals don’t. Manifestos like these are a way to gather forces to resist the exploitation. If they use propaganda to convince people that a beer on Friday makes up for 20k per year, it’s totally legitimate to say that it’s not and We should resist this propaganda.

                                          1. 0

                                            It’s not. If we work and they make profit, it’s because they don’t pay us the full value of our work. Otherwise there wouldn’t be profit.

                                            …And if the business makes a loss? What then? Do you as an employee shoulder any of the risk? No. You don’t.

                                            As I suspected, this is thinly-veiled Socialist propaganda. It rears its ugly head on the website yet again.

                                            Ugh.

                                            1. 12

                                              Do you as an employee shoulder any of the risk? No. You don’t.

                                              This is not strictly accurate, right. With the state of moonlighting in most parts of the US, the state of NDAs, the state of non-competes…there is an extremely high opportunity cost that is borne by the employee.

                                              And frankly, a business “shouldering a risk” is very different between than an actual person doing the same. If the company posts a loss for a quarter or a year, the shareholders complain, the customers go somewhere else, the investors do…something? maybe? apparently many don’t care about that at all (see unicorns).

                                              If I consistently post a loss for a quarter or god forbid a year, without enough funds in the bank, I’m homeless and without healthcare. My dog is homeless. My family and dependents starve and can’t get their medicine.

                                              One is often an annoying accounting issue, the other is the stuff revolutions are made of.

                                              1. 8

                                                Your comment seems to imply that all employers are rich people.

                                                They aren’t.

                                                There are so many employers who face the same plight you describe if their businesses go under.

                                                1. 7

                                                  And they face a massive upside if the business succeeds, whereas few employees do. They also can sell the business for parts, they can claim the IP of the employees and their side projects, and so on and so forth.

                                                  If you want to argue about a mom-and-pop small business, that’s one thing. I suspect that most of us do not work for those places.

                                                  If they’re can’t play the game properly, that’s their problem–after all, that’s the same line taken with labor again and again.

                                                  (And just to be clear, I’m a staunch capitalist in many regards. I just can’t stomach “Oh, somebody, please think of the poor business owners, they take all the risks” rhetoric.)

                                                  1. 1

                                                    nobody forces them to become entrepreneurs. If they do it is because they want to get rich, otherwise they would work. If they cared about solving problems or developing software, they would start a cooperative.

                                                    1. 4

                                                      If they cared about solving problems or developing software, they would start a cooperative.

                                                      LOL. Guessing you’ve never worked in a co-op… let me assure you they have all these problems and worse. You should try it.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        I was collecting resources on coops that people were posting. Unsurprisingly, nobody was posting the downsides. Could you give examples from your experience?

                                                      2. 4

                                                        Starting and running a business is itself work. It doesn’t contrast with selling your labor to a firm, they’re both types of work.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          It’s effort, but it’s not necessarily work. In a small company the same person could do both, but with the companies growing this stops being true. The difference is between activities that are done to create value for somebody (inside or outside the company) and activities done to secure more and more shares of the profit for one or a few people without creating value (or more likely burning value in the process). If you want to stay safe and focus on the first without raising doubts on your intents, you can again start a cooperative.

                                                  2. 4

                                                    What is so bad about socialism? I think the main problem with it is that the extreme version it does not work out with humans.

                                                    Still, it isn’t a binary decision. I believe the US would be better of being a little more socialist. I’m happy to live in Germany where we try to have a more social market economy:

                                                    In contrast to the situation in a free market economy, the state is not passive and actively implements regulative measures. Some elements such as pension insurance, universal health care and unemployment insurance are part of the social security system.

                                                    I like that employment is not just a relationship between employer and employee but that there is a state actor which tries to fix some problems in that relationship.

                                                    (Disclaimer: Germany surely isn’t perfect and there are probably countries doing it even better.)

                                                    I don’t agree with chobeat calling it “extorsion” (although there such cases). He is correct though that workers do not capture the full value they create. If they would, the employer made a bad deal employing them because the labor costs more than it brings in. I’m fine with it as a worker. For example, some of that uncaptured value stays with the employer to provide for my work place in future bad times (like a pandemic). Employers take that risk and should be compensated for it. Otherwise we would all be freelancers/day laborer.

                                                    1. 0

                                                      lol, this stuff clearly come from American liberals. If I give you some of the juicy leftist propaganda we are pushing on the IT sector, it would make you shiver compared to this.

                                                2. 2

                                                  “We’re ok and that’s ok.”

                                                  1. 0

                                                    Sustainable pace over muscle-man heroics

                                                    What does that even mean?

                                                    1. 17

                                                      Sometimes workplaces get into a bad state where things are always on the verge of collapse so people end up performing heroic feats to keep things running. They end up getting praised and other people start seeing it as the right way to work. This can create a work culture focused on sacrifice and heroics.

                                                      Alternatively, people could focus on not getting into problems in the first place (planning, testing, communication…). It’s fundamentally unsexy work, but it can be more stable and productive.

                                                      The former gives the illusion of speed through turbulence. However, you can burn a lot of cycles just trying to get out of the problems that you created for yourself.

                                                      Ultimately, slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

                                                      1. 6

                                                        It probably means that life is a marathon not a sprint.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          It means working for companies with competent management.

                                                          If you don’t know what that means, you should probably find another job:

                                                          Your boss should never ask you to work late/after hours or the weekend. Sometimes they make a mistake, and it is truly unavoidable, but they should compensate you fairly for this grave inconvenience, and I’m not talking about free pizza.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            I read it to mean “no more Stakhanovite horseshit”.