by Hendrikto 15 hours ago
> I am not sure what has happened over the decades regarding actually being proud of the work you produce.
Simple:
1. People lost ownership of the things they work on. In the early 1900s, more than half of the workforce was self-employed. Today, it is 10% in the US, 13% in the EU.
What you produce is not “yours”, it’s “your employer’s”. You don’t have ownership, and very limited to no agency.
2. People lost any tangible connection to the quality and quantity of their output.
Most workers don’t get rewarded for working harder and producing more or better output. On the contrary, they are often penalized with more and/or harder work.
To quote Office Space: “That makes a man work just hard enough not to get fired.”
3. People lost their humanity. They are no longer persons. They are resources. Human resources. And they are treated like it.
They are exploited for gain and dumped when no longer needed.
One weird thing about software jobs as opposed to other crafts is the persistence of the workpiece.
A furniture maker builds a chair, ships it out, and they don’t see it again. Pride in their craft is all about joy of mastery and building a good external reputation.
In most software jobs, the thing you build today sticks around and you’ll be dealing with it next month. Pride in your craft can be self serving because building something well makes life easier for future-you
That only applies if you expect to be at one job for a long time. Current business culture makes that a poor bet, both due to pernicious Jack Welch style layoff management and the career and salary benefits of changing jobs every few years.
> Pride in your craft can be self serving because building something well makes life easier for future-you
But, it doesn't. It's not as if you get to sit around doing nothing if you did a great job, you just get some new software project. The company gets to enjoy the benefit of a job well done.
Getting a new software project beats the hell out of going back and digging through the cruft of a legacy software project. At least the new software project offers the chance to learn current tech.
I think this ignores the codebase churn in Big Tech. The code you write today probably won't be there in ten years. It will be heavily refactored, obsolete, or the product will be outright canceled. You can pour your heart in it, but in all likelihood, you're leaving no lasting mark on the world. You just do a small part to keep the number going up.
Tech workplaces are incredibly ephemeral too. Reorgs, departures, constant hiring - so if you leave today, in 5-10 years, there might be no single person left who still remembers or thinks highly of the heroic all-nighters you pulled off. In fact, your old team probably won't exist in its current shape.
If you build quality furniture for your customers, chances are, it will outlive you. If you work on some frontend piece at Amazon, it won't. I think the amount of pride in your workmanship needs to scale with that.
Well said. I’ve always also thought that writing code and craftsmanship is a forced metaphor. At most, the product is the craft, not the code. And a product is exactly as good as people’s experiences of using it and how well it solves their problems. The underlying code quality is correlated with these things, but let’s be honest a badly designed product that doesn’t meet the customers needs can have PERFECT code and zero tech debt and still be a bad product because of it.
Also you know what, some code is disposable. Sure, we all want to craft amazing sculptures of metaphorical beautiful wooden chairs that will last a lifetime, but sometimes what the customer needs is a stack of plastic chairs, cheap, and done next week. Who cares if they break after like 1 year.
So, sometimes when I accept that my boss wants something rushed through, I don’t complain about the tech debt it’ll cause, I don’t fight back about how it should’ve designed to have wonderful code… not because I have no pride in my work, but because I understand the businesses needs.
And sometimes the business just wants you to make plastic chairs.
I feel like to some degree, things have gotten less affordable. And I have seen a big push of the idea that “a job is just making money, find your happiness somewhere else”. Which led to more and more people looking for a job that pays well with less thought about whether they enjoy it at all. Many professions had an influx of people in for the money, not the passion.
Now of course you I can’t blame people for wanting more money and better standards of living, and that’s always been a thing. But many jobs that used to afford you a middle class life don’t anymore for young people.
I saw my engineering school software engineer department going from the least sought after specialty to the most in one year. The number of people passionate about tech didn’t suddenly jump, but each year we have a report about the last promotion average starting salary and software engineering was at the top for the first time.
The stuff we don’t really need (TV etc) has become much more affordable. The stuff we can’t live without (food and shelter) has become less affordable.
This is almost certainly a nice story we tell ourselves about a mythical past that just didn't exist.
It can be annoying to say, but modern factory produced things are in an absurdly higher quality spectrum than most of what proceeded them. This is absolutely no different from when machined parts for things first got started. We still have some odd reverence for "hand crafted" things when we know that computer aided design and manufactured are flat out better. In every way.
As for ownership, I hate to break it to you, but it is very likely that a good many of the master works we ascribe to people were heavily executed by assistants. Not that this is too bad, but would be akin to thinking that Miyazaki did all of the art for the movies. We likely have no idea who did a lot of the work we ascribe to single artists throughout history.
On to the rest of the points, even the ones I somewhat resonate with are just flat out misguided. People were ALWAYS resources. Well before the modern world.
Computer and machine manufactured parts can be better, but it's a mistake to believe they always are. Take two contrasting examples.
In guitar manufacturing, CNC machines were a revolution. The quality of mid-range guitars improved massively, until there was little difference between them and the premium ones.
In furniture, modern manufacturing techniques drastically worsened the quality of everything. MDF and veneers are inherently worse than hand-crafted wood. The revolution here was making it cheaper.
CNC and other machining techniques raise the high bar for what's possible, and they have the potential to lower costs. That's it. They don't inherently improve quality, that's a factor of market forces.
I would wager that the general change in availability of wood is by far the biggest driver in difference for the markets you are describing?
Particularly, furniture benefits greatly from hard wood. At least, the furniture that is old that you are likely to see. It also benefits heavily from being preserved, not used.
> MDF and veneers are inherently worse than hand-crafted wood.
Generally incorrect, but it depends. Wear can cause mdf/veneer to have "bad optics" compared to solid wood, but mdf/veneer can have more suitable physical properties and enables more consistent visual quality and design possibilities.
I suppose it depends on your definition of worse. It is more versatile. It's also toxic and fragile, and far more likely to break in ways that are hard to repair. I can only think of one object I own where the physical properties of particle board or MDF are a positive: a subwoofer where its consistency helps with acoustics.
Comparing a cheap thing to an expensive thing is absurd.
The appropriate comparison is which is better for the same price
If the cheap thing replaces the expensive thing and there is no same-price comparison, is it absurd? My point is that many products that were handmade at high quality no longer exist because of modern manufacturing. If you want a chair or, say, a set of silverware at the same inflation-adjusted price it would have been available for seventy years ago, you can't get it because the market sector has shifted so thoroughly to cheaper, worse products (enabled by modern manufacturing) that similar quality is only available through specialty stores at a much higher price. This happens even if the specialty stores are using computer-aided techniques and not handcrafting, because of the change in economics of scale.
The catch here is that most people did not have high quality hand made furniture. Most people had low quality hand made things. Pretty much forever. And is why they aren't here for you to see them.
Modern process controls allow us to hit intended outcomes consistently at lower costs. But that doesn't mean the intended outcomes are always better that what you would aim for with less capability.
There are real customers that want cost reductions that lead to reduced lifetimes, because they have no intention of using the thing they are buying for decades. It isn't just manufacturers looking to make money through planned obsolescence.
>1. People lost ownership of the things they work on. In the early 1900s, more than half of the workforce was self-employed. Today, it is 10% in the US, 13% in the EU.
At a high level nobody works smarter and harder than people working for themselves because they see the direct results in near linear proportion. So basically half the workforce was in that situation vs a tenth. Say nothing about taxation and other things that cost more the higher up you go and serve to fractionally break or dilute the "work harder, make more, live better" feedback loop.
By "self-employed" - are you referring to subsistence farming? Everything I know about subsistence farming makes it appear much more precarious than corporate work; where hard work is especially disconnected from your rewards; governed by soil conditions, weather, etc.
> are you referring to subsistence farming?
It says early 1900s, so no. It does largely refer to farming, but farming was insanely lucrative during that time. Look at the farms that have the houses of that era standing on them and you'll soon notice that they are all mansions.
Remember, subsistence farming first had to end before people could start working off the farm. Someone has to feed them too. For 50% of the workforce to be working a job off the farm, the other 50% being subsistence farmers would be impossible.
> Look at the farms that still have the houses of that era standing on them and you'll soon notice that they are all mansions.
Those are usually large plantations, and the people who owned them weren't just farmers but vast landholders with very low paid labor working the farm (at one time usually enslaved). I doubt they were representative of the typical turn of the 20th century farm.
If we're speaking from vibes rather than statistics, I'd argue most 19th century farmhouses I've seen are pretty modest. Not shacks, but nothing gigantic or luxurious.
> Those are usually large plantations
There are no plantations around here. This was cattle and grain country in that time. Farmers got rich because all of sudden their manual labour capacity was multiplied by machines. The story is quite similar to those who used software to multiply their output in our time, and similarly many tech fortunes have built mansions just the same.
> Not shacks, but nothing gigantic or luxurious.
Well, they weren't palaces. You're absolutely right that they don't look like mansions by today's standards, but they were considered as such at the time. Many were coming from tiny, one room log cabins (stuffed to the brim with their eight children). They were gigantic, luxurious upgrades at the time. But progress marches forward, as always.
> Farmers got rich because all of sudden their manual labour capacity was multiplied by machines.
This sounds like a semantic disagreement.
I think you are using the word "farmer" to mean "large agricultural landlord". Today, those terms may have a lot of overlap, because most of us don't work in agriculture like we did then, but in the past, it wasn't so much the case.
Back then, the landlord who had the "big house" wasn't called a farmer, but often a "Lord" or "Master".
"Farmers" were mostly people who worked as tenants on their land. The confusion in US history started early as the local feudal lords of the time (the founding fathers) rebranded themselves as farmers in opposition to their British rulers, but the economic structure of the societies was scarcely different.
> Back then, the landlord who had the "big house" wasn't called a farmer, but often a "Lord" or "Master".
Feudalism in North America, in the 1900s? Your geography and timelines are way off.
Sharecropping was very common. And a hard way to earn a subsistence living.
> Look at the farms that have the houses of that era standing on them and you'll soon notice that they are all mansions.
> There are no plantations around here.
FWIW you haven't really stated where "here" is for you. It's not necessarily going to be the same for everyone, and based on the parent comments, the potential area under discussion could include the entirety of the US and Europe (although the initial comment only mentioned UK specifically, it doesn't seem clear to me that it's explicitly only talking about that). I'm not sure you can categorically state that no one in this conversation could be talking about areas that have plantations.
I think it’s pretty dependent on where you farmed. Orchards in California being vastly more profitable than like North Dakota.
Also hard to ignore the survivorship bias there. The small/bad/ugly/whatever houses are gone.
> Also hard to ignore the survivorship bias there.
It's not ignored. It is already encoded into the original comment. No need to repeat what is already said.
> It says early 1900s, so no. It does largely refer to farming, but farming was insanely lucrative during that time. Look at the farms that have the houses of that era standing on them and you'll soon notice that they are all mansions.
Already in the original comment. Already in other replies as well. How, exactly, does one end up not ready anything in the thread before replying?
> Look at the farms that have the houses of that era standing on them and you'll soon notice that they are all mansions.
TLDR: survivorship
The typically large farms with nice houses were making reasonable money, and in a lot of places, only the house remains of the farm. My old neighborhood was a large farm, subdived into about 1000 postage stamp lots around 1900; the owner's house got a slightly larger lot and stuck around as your mansion.
The small farms that were within the means of more people tended to have shanty houses and those have not persisted. If the farm is still a farm, it's likely been subsumed into a larger plot.
> farming was insanely lucrative during that time
That is wildly inaccurate. Do you think people were flocking to cities to flee the "insanely lucrative" jobs they already had?
Farm labor paid significantly less than industrialized labor at the time. I suspect in addition to just making things up, you're looking at a few landowners who were quite wealthy due to their land holdings (and other assets) and what they have left behind while completely ignoring the lives led by the vast majority of farmers at the time.
> Do you think people were flocking to cities to flee the "insanely lucrative" jobs they already had?
The non-farmers were already accounted for. Did you, uh, forget to read the thread?
No, I absolutely read the thread. You either are just refusing to accept you're wrong, you have an exceptionally incomplete definition of farmer you refuse to share (which is really just a specific form of wrong that seems likely in this case), or you have some very exiting undiscovered data to share about life in the early 1900s in the US.
I read the thread. I don't see where that's addressed
I also see survivorship bias keep coming up. Each time it claims to be have been addressed in the original comment, and that's that. Yet I don't see how the existence of surviving mansions today proves anything about the prevalence of wealthy farmers at the time
Similarly, there's no inherent reason subsistence farming should prove or disprove work outside the farm. The existence of farms large enough to grow and sell surplus food, that doesn't mean all farms could do so
I was about to say, it's not like the early 1900s were particularly great for a lot of people... especially people whose ancestors were, uh, not in the country of their own volition.
How many people agree with the above but "disagree" with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
Lololol
Edit: I'm already down one - for people that don't read wikipedia here are the 4 dimensions of alienation of a worker as listed in the wiki:
1. From a worker's product
2. From a worker's productive activity
3. From a worker's Gattungswesen (species-being)
4. From other workers
Edit2: People [in America] will moan about their jobs, their bosses, their dwindling purchasing power, their loss of autonomy, etc etc etc but then come back as champions of capital. You see it all the time - "my job sucks but entrepreneurialism is what makes America great!!!!!!!". I've never seen a more rake->face take than this (and on such an enormous scale). It's absurd. It's delusional.
I don't specifically disagree with Marx's theory of alienation. However I disagree with communism. I think communism makes the problem worse, not better.
Identifying the bad stuff is not hard. Marx is far from unique in being able to do that. I find his class framing and assessment of the roles the various classes do in the status quo to be particularly good even if it ought to be deeply unflattering to the HN tax brackets.
Advising on where to go from there in an actionable way that produces good results is the hard part. Marx didn't do it. Those attempting implementation of his ideas have an exceptional record and not in a good way. And worse still, some of the worst aspects of those movements are the ones that stuck around to be peddled again and again under different brands.
I mean, there's a really simple solution between "Ayn Rand cinematic universe" and "abolishing private property" that gets you downvoted to oblivion: suggest forming a union. No communism required, just workers with bargaining power, like in other developed nations (Germany has very strong unions. Coincidentally, they also have a high quality of life and infrastructure that works). Instead, you get a bunch of people making six figures who sit around either whining or hand-wringing about losing their jobs, while continuing to support the economic system that is abusing them. After a certain point, you just have to throw your hands up and hope that people someday realize the power they have.
The bad idea from Marx that lead him astray into pseudo-science territory wasn't worker alienation. It was the labor theory of value (and the other stuff he created to make it looks like it works).
Worker alienation is perfectly visible on the real world. I don't think anybody disagrees it's common.
But software development is different. There has been many decades where software developers suffered very little alienation. It only changed with the universal adoption of "corporate agile".
At age 62, I'm wondering which mythical decade did not alienate software developers?
There was a brief ray of hope in the late 90s, with the startup gold-rush idea that we would all be millionaires soon. Then the I realized the founders had 4000x my equity those companies...
Developers used to be freer to choose their tools, organize their routines, decide the result of their work, acquire transferable knowledge, and had access to their tools without any link to any organization (though that one has been steadily improving instead of post-peak).
There is more to alienation than equity.
My 40 years of alienation was not about equity, I was pointing out that the optimistic "We are all going to be rich" vibe of the 90s was wishful thinking due to the massive inequality in the tech world.
Few teams other than green-field start-ups have flexibility regarding tools or technology. My first job was COBOL, 'nuff said about that. Even at start-ups the leads / architects choose most of the technology, and many of my ideas were shot down, such as using C++ in the late 90s, and using Scala in 2010.
People seem to think agile has increased alienation, when in fact the pre-agile world was also terrible. What matters is the quality of the team, not the methodology.
One comedy that did a good job of depicting programmers with no sense of hope circa 1999 was Office Space.
> But software development is different. There has been many decades where software developers suffered very little alienation. It only changed with the universal adoption of "corporate agile"
Lol are you really gonna go with "I'm a software developer, fuck all the restaurant workers, teachers, plumbers, janitors!"
This is why Marx's ideas failed in the West - toxic individualism - and flourished in the East.
Flourished, you say?
Great retort, I actually laughed out loud.
I don't know how delusional you have to be to look at the conditions behind the Iron Curtain, where nations had to build walls to keep their citizens from leaving and a meaningful number of people were willing to risk death to get out, and say they were flourishing, but I'm glad I don't have what it takes to get there.
> where nations had to build walls
Name the Eastern nations plural that built these walls please. As far as I am aware, the G in GDPR stands for Germany, a country/nation/state which is (and always has been) firmly Western. People on here have such an infantile recollection of actual history.
Anyway, leaving aside debates of where the prime meridian of West vs East falls, it should've been manifestly obvious that in 2025 I was talking about China...
Edit: DPRK counts I guess although I'm not sure how many people would call what they have over there "communism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Juche_Idea
You mentioned one, which is North Korea, and I'm sure you're going to concoct some story to deflect the fact that China only began moving towards any semblance of prosperity after ditching Mao's fundamentally flawed economic policies, so have at it.
Surely Marx would disagree with such assessment and call it idealistic and not grounded in material reality?
There is no reason to buy into the whole Marxist framework just because you share one single sentiment that various thinkers had before and after him.
> one single sentiment
Lol alienation of labor is not a single "sentiment" - it's a core principle. So like it or not you share a core principle with Marx.
The sentiment is shared with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Ketteler, Louis Blanc and probably lots of other less known people. Marx's theory of alienation is far more developed and nuanced than the generic cog-in-the-machine critique that is explored by many other people of various political inclination, not only Marx.
> sentiment
...
> theory
these two words aren't interchangeable
> Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Ketteler, Louis Blanc
...
> generic cog-in-the-machine critique that is explored by many other people
literally only one of the names you mentioned were writing post industrial revolution - the rest had literally no notion of "cog in the machine"
you're trying so hard to disprove basically an established fact: Marx's critique of exploitation of labor post industrial revolution is certainly original and significant in his own work and those that followed.
> these two words aren't interchangeable
Exactly. That's why you can't jump from "people don't feel like they own their labor" and "people bemoan their boss" to Marx's theory of alienation.
> literally only one of the names you mentioned were writing post industrial revolution - the rest had literally no notion of "cog in the machine"
But the very framing that this is an ill that is unique to industrial society is Marxist. Slavery, corveé labor, taxes, poor laborers, marginalisation existed for thousands years in one form or another.
> you're trying so hard to disprove basically an established fact: Marx's critique of exploitation of labor post industrial revolution is certainly original and significant in his own work and those that followed.
I don't dispute that Marx's critique of exploitation of labor post industrial revolution is original or significant. I dispute your claim that people who share similar sentiment have to agree with Marx's theory of alienation.