The thing is, you are actually assuming the risk that your work is not profitable.. if the work is your personal work, your employer may sack you or withhold a raise. if the work is your team's then you share the risk, unless your team is the only team and then your employer goes out of business.
It is (usually) an exploitative relationship, most just don't know it. The fact that this arrangement is the norm speaks only of the power differential and nothing of fairness. Could you imagine what would happen to management if employees got a fair share of the work they produced.. for that matter, how much of Don's profits came from his hand and how much from the advertisers and how much from Disney's distribution network? Why are advertisers paid so much and box packers paid so little?
The fact that so many of us accept this system is because we don't have the power to demand profits (or we don't know any better) and we need to eat. We just tell ourselves that we prefer to earn a little less so we don't have to worry about risk. It makes it easier to sleep at night.
Not really. Once you get into understanding how investors, investment and VC, etc. work, the mathematics of risk and payoff become very clear. If you, as an investor, are throwing millions of dollars into a product that requires millions of dollars, and has only a 10% chance of success, then you a commensurate share of the payoff as well, which may even be most of it.
At my last job, I got to choose the balance between salary and equity I wanted -- and I really had to calculate if I wanted to earn a little less (or a lot less) in exchange for a greater share of future profits. Or to earn a little more (or a lot more) in exchange for giving that up. And having gained quite a bit of knowledge from the investor side of things, at least here in the tech industry in NYC, I don't think it's accurate at all to say it's "usually an exploitative relationship". At least, as long as employees bother to figure out how it all works.
Of course your employer can sack you or withold a raise. But of course you can leave for another company, or tell them you're leaving if they don't give you a raise.
But you've got to have enough skill to be of value, and enough negotiating skill not to be taken advantage of, as well. Just like a company has to have enough skill not to hire not to be taken advantage of by its employees -- the employees who don't contribute, the employees who spend more time playing politics, etc.
Absolutely! I agree with your whole post. I was meaning 'usually' in the sense of usual employer / employee relationships.
Most employee's do not know, nor know how to find out, their net worth to the company. They definitely do not get offered equity.
Most companies go to some lengths to obfuscate the earnings from their employees and contractually forbid their employees from speaking about their own earnings. Most employees, even if armed with such knowledge, do not have the power to demand their worth as there are a large queue of eager replacements for their position.
My point was essentially, if someone thinks they are trading off rewards / equity / ip royalties etc for job security, they probably do not have a good understanding of their relationship or value to their employer.
Don seems to have known full well what he was trading off, and as he explained when he drew the line and exercised his right to negotiate "they simply refused to actually ask permission". They refused to negotiate as they were so used to being in a position of power.
"But you've got to have enough skill to be of value"
I would say, you have to have enough skill to be of 'great' value.. then you have the power to negotiate or go elsewhere. If you do.. more power to you!
Yes, it is amazing how quickly some Americans shift from a discussion on whether it is justified to recognise the rights of non Americans to whether it is justified to not murder them.
It seems to me to be one of the central aspects to design, of any persuasion. It is a deliberate, thoughtful act which requires understanding rather than 'just' knowledge. It is a process of questioning and revision rather than merely production. All (good) designers do this.
I think the interesting idea in this article is actually it's corollary. Good knowledge workers ARE actually bad at 'just' working. They think to much, they spend too much time on things that give diminishing returns, they invest in dead ends... they learn. These things are not often valued in the job market.
Good knowledge workers ARE actually bad at 'just' working. They think to much, they spend too much time on things that give diminishing returns, they invest in dead ends... they learn. These things are not often valued in the job market.
I'd be curious to see some real data on the long-term evolution of (a) the insubordinate, always-learning curious people who get new knowledge out of every job even if they have to steal an education from work, and (b) the order-following ladder climbers. Within companies, (b) always wins. Who wins in the long-term career game? I honestly have no idea.
You also have people who do 40 hours of work in 20 hours and spend the other 20 learning. They satisfy the requirements of both (a) and (b). And they may very well have the advantages of both.
Great point! I think this is what happens. I've seen this person, and sometimes, I've been this person.
The employer/client often knows that some of the work this type of person does doesn't directly pay immediate tangible benefits. Sometimes they're even frustrated by it. But, on the other hand, the programmer is just so damn good that they have to put up with it.
Overall, the boss who doesn't understand this principle of "deep work" feels frustrated, but still has to acknowledge that these deep workers are his most effective producers. So the boss ends up feeling he has to "take the good with the bad," almost like you'd feel about a great painter who is a prima donna or something. (But in this case, the "prima donna-ness" is not due to a character defect, but rather, the underlying nature of software development).
At a large corporation, it's generally a good idea to avoid letting your boss know how much free time you have. The problem is that if you volunteer your extra time, you'll end up doing 80 hours of work in 40 hours. This is not nearly as beneficial to your career as spending the 20 hours developing deep skills.
I'm not saying lie. If your boss has something that needs to be done and asks you to do it, then get it done. But don't volunteer for extra work.
The times that I have been the person getting 40 hours worth of work done in 20 hours, I was using the other 20 hours to rewrite things with a different approach ... in other words, the "deep work" that the business didn't see a need for.
I knew that the deep work was why I could get 40 hours worth done in 20 hours, so I made sure I did the deep work. That, of course, put me behind in my directly assigned (non-deep-work) tasks. However, the deep work paid off in more powerful ways (more powerful abstractions, allowing me to find solutions to problems we thought we would be unable to solve, discovering real problems that we didn't yet know we had, etc.), and ultimately made it possible for me get my tasks done in the other 20 hours (or, to deliver something else of enough value that they decided my original tasks didn't matter).
It's not nearly as neat as "40 hours worth in 20 hours", and it certainly didn't lead to a bunch of free time sitting on my hands. It was just a case of knowing the deep work was necessary, even if those assigning me work didn't, and doing that deep work anyway, and having things work out well because the deep work really was necessary and powerful.
And I think that happens a lot with good developers in the "enterprise" software world.
I would be interested too (and BTW you have a great blog with interesting theories)
I just would NOT call good knowledge workers "bad" like the OP, "investing in dead ends".
Good knowledge workers care about the baseline and the consequences of their actions. The (b) type only care about improving their own profile - baseline be damned if it helps them.
Michael, it seems like maybe those of type (a) become independent consultants, and those of type (b) stay in one place and put a lot of energy into politics.
But that may be an overly cynical simplification :)
Interesting aside, monbiot actually publishes (publically) all his earnings. So you can find out exactly how (not particularly) wealthy he is. He started a campaign to encourage other journalists / columnists to do the same.
I am sure HNers have no problem discussing politics where it directly effected them - that's news. But where it effects others 'that's just politics'.
This is relevant because it is related to your / our actions. It is relevant because these 'bad' things are actually related. There was a time when we in the western world could claim ignorance.
And the reason he gets under your nose is he is a self described polemicist.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, ... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Yes, he's a political polemicist, hence shouldn't be on HN. I wouldn't want to see a Fox News columnist on here either. (I don't like extreme politics of any shade. Yes, he is extreme, even if you agree with him.)
A serious discussion of how tantalum's use in electronics is damaging to the people of Congo would be appropriate, this is not.
That is one thing I like about monbiot, he references his work. I check his facts. Not all polemicists are the same. I have never seen a fox 'journalist' reference facts.
When a polemicist references another polemicist does that count as facts? I watched the "Story of Stuff" referenced in his article in a class this semester. At one point the claim was made that Chinese peasants are being “forced” into cities and leaving a lifestyle “that has sustained them for generations”. That’s not even a remotely balanced take on the situation. Urbanization in China has lifted millions of people out of grinding poverty.
I am but one of the many. I did notice, however, that the average monthly spend for people 'like me' is more than the monthly income of people 'like me'. Curious.
Quick question, do you actually think it is the 'militant' or the 'islam' that scares the west?
And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'.
The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religion.
Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children. This was all based on emulating the behaviour of Mohammed (known as sunnah in islamic practice); Mohammed took 20% of the spoils from his army of warriors. (Some describe him as the profit of 20% because of this). This can be verified in The Life of Mohammed, the first biography of Mohammed (and written by a muslim 100 years after the death of Mohammed). The author, Ibn Ishaq, was a christian who was taken as a slave to Medina, and converted to islam for a better life (one of the inducements used in the spread of islam).
The real lesson is that christianity endured 300 years of this aggression, before Pope Urban made christianity do an about turn, and began the (very minimal) Crusades against islam. They were a failure, and islamic violence against European christendom continued until the Siege of Vienna (when Jan Sobieski defeated the muslim army on September 11, 1683).
The muslim attack against Europe continued beyond this. The white slave trade continued for hundreds of years (it was stopped by a joint British/US naval bombardment of Algeria in 1815). In 1951 the UN report on slavery calculated that 5% of the population of Saudi Arabia and Yemen were still slaves.
Buddhism did not respond in the same way as christianity to islamic aggression. Many experts on the history of buddhism say that buddhism died about 1000 years ago (e.g. Conze). And they explicitly attribute this death of buddhism to the onslaught of the islamic invasion & destruction in India.
The real lesson is that some religions are actually militant political movements wrapped up in religion. Islam is one such religion. Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind.
"Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation."
This is just plain bullshit! The introduction of islam to much of the world was through trade, just the same as the christians. And if you take slavery, trade and military occupations to be evidence that "The real lesson is that some religions are actually militant political movements wrapped up in religion." then I am afraid you will have to say the same of christianity.
Once again, the point is that extremists / militants use religion (or any other reason) to justify occupation, oppression and murder. To fight militant-ism you have to do just two things.
1.resist.
2.not become one.
ps: were you serious about that video you linked? seems like dumb paranoid aryan propaganda to me..
"The introduction of islam to much of the world was through trade, just the same as the christians. "
Would you care to provide evidence for that assertion about trade rather than jihad? There is evidence that for areas like Indonesia & Malaysia, trade was the route. For almost everywhere else, it was by war. Next you'll be telling me that the hundreds of years in which islam used violence to dominate Spain was a Golden Age of tolerance and multi-culturalism.
Ibn Ishaq's book "The Life of Mohammed" was known by muslims for hundreds of years as "The Book of Battles". Muslims must emulate Mohammed. In the 13 years he was in Mecca, he attained 150 followers. In Medina he embraced war, assassination, slave-taking and robbery. By the time he died, all of Arabia was muslim.
Essentially, Islam was spread by the sword.
Attacking that video as "dumb paranoid aryan propaganda" is an ad hominem fallacy. Deal with the facts.
> In the 13 years he was in Mecca, he attained 150 followers. In Medina he embraced war, assassination, slave-taking and robbery. By the time he died, all of Arabia was muslim.
So would you please care to provide evidence to this assertion? How someone with a mere 150 followers could control a whole nation ?
I think it is fair to say that both Islam and Christianity were spread with more or less the same mix of techniques. The two religions have a great deal in common.
However that should not be interpreted as praise of Islam. In fact, I think that comparison is extraordinary damming.
Not really, big coup for Christianity was conversion of the Roman empire and that was most definitely peaceful. Contrast that with how Middle east, and North Africa became Muslim
"Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children."
s/is islamic became muslim/was colonial became christian/
"Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind."
Try a search for the word "crusade" on wikipedia. You might find it enlightening.
In 636 CE, Muslim forces led by the Arab Rashidun Caliphs defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk, conquering Palestine...
== Western European situation ==
The western European idea of the Crusades came in response to the deterioration of the Byzantine Empire caused by a new wave of Turkish Muslim attacks...
How did the Romans/Byzantines get into Palestine in the first place? "They started it" as a historical excuse is a pretty poor rationalisation. The point is right now, in the current generation and given the current situation what is the best way to proceed.
How does this differ from the violent history of Christianization? From Theodosius I declaring Christianity mandatory and destroying the pagan temples, to Icelanders being held hostage to put pressure on them to convert (which they eventually voted to do, under that pressure), to colonial militias spreading Christianity in Africa and Asia, the religion basically spread by the sword. And it was maintained for hundreds of years thereafter through state violence: in most of Europe, if you attempted to convert to another religion, or declare yourself an atheist, you'd be executed as an apostate or a heretic. Even the Jews were expelled from many parts of Europe, where they had been tolerated by the Muslim empires (and prospered in Ottoman Istanbul and Salonica).
Next you'll be telling me that the hundreds of years in which islam used violence to dominate Spain was a Golden Age of tolerance and multi-culturalism.
I'll take moslem Spain over Torquemada any day.
It is complete stupidity to assert Islamic violence over European Christendom, when Europe became Christian because of the violence of the Roman Empire.
So what if Europe had been conquered by Genghis Khan and subsequently turned moslem? The Albigensians were exterminated by Catholics. Do you find that somehow better than if they had been exterminated by Sunnis? Do you think the Albigensians enjoyed being slaughtered by Catholics more?
At their basis, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are exactly the same horrid Old Testament garbage. If anything, Islam is less offensive because some of the worst bits of the Old Testament have been cut out, the same way Java is less offensive than C++.
> please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'.
No need to rewrite anything, it's both their hostility and philosophical differences that scare us. Overcoming that fear and reaffirming our values is the basis for one of the most important texts in the European culture — The Song of Roland.
EDIT: I do know what you mean and I'm sorry but those are just feel-good platitudes. West quite obviously is not afraid of militant Christians or atheists. Mostly because there aren't really any left, and those who still hang around don't regularly erupt in violence, but also because they're much more like us and it's easier for us to understand their particular extremism.
At this risk of getting this all out of order (since you edited rather than replying)..
The west is RUN by militant christians (and militant jews and militant atheists etc). They use armies to inflict their particular brand of extremism. They killed about a million iraquis. They murder people in cold blood by dropping missiles from drones from 50,000 ft up. Pretty fucking extreme if you ask me.
This is a commonly made argument, but it's silly. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were declared by the secular government of a secular state for geopolitical reasons. Most of the individuals are Christian, but the war and tactics have nothing whatsoever to do with Christian doctrine or motivations.
The "Muslim militants" under discussion launch attacks for specifically Muslim motives, with carefully constructed justifications cross-referenced to precise verses from the Koran and Hadiths.
Yeah, you got me there, I actually have no idea.. I just assumed there would be some people with other beliefs in the armed forces in US, UK, Israel, Australia (ie. the west).
I'd bet the UK and Australia have atheists in their armed forces, but they don't run the world. I've met militant Jews in Israel's armed forces, but they don't run the world either. The United States runs the world, but has a heavily Protestant tilt.
Point I was trying to make is the militancy is an end in itself and the belief structures are simply bent to serve it.. in refutation of the idea that militancy in the muslim world is peculiarly religious.
They find religious justifications for operational killings in order not to abandon their religion, not because their religion demands it. US forces just abandon religion when it suits them and call themselves a secular nation. The British made themselves a whole new religion answerable to the head of state. These are all just ways of twisting religion to serve power.
The hostility and philosophical differences of muslims or militants?
I think you also misunderstand. Militants are a small subset of society which also includes some muslims, some christians, hindus, atheists etc. Point is, vast majority of muslims are peaceful, just the same as christians or atheists.
