Remember when tech workers dreamed of working for a big company for a few years, before striking out on their own to start their own company that would knock that tech giant over?
Then that dream shrank to: work for a giant for a few years, quit, do a fake startup, get acqui-hired by your old employer, as a complicated way of getting a bonus and a promotion.
Then the dream shrank further: work for a tech giant for your whole life, get free kombucha and massages on Wednesdays.
And now, the dream is over. All that’s left is: work for a tech giant until they fire your ass, like those 12,000 Googlers who got fired six months after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years.
We deserve better than this. We can get it.
Calling google workers proletariat is out of touch and borderline insulting to real working class.
3-month salary for a junior at google is what a “real” proletarian do in a full year, with addition of pension, stock options, benefits and bonuses
The line dividing working class from owning class is not their monthly salary. It’s their relationship to capital. Do they work for their living, or do they own for their living?
same reason why being an athlete sucks – even though you’re making insane sums, the guys at the top are making far more than that, without putting their body on the line in any way whatsoever, indefinitely [whereas most players retire in their 30s, if they’re lucky enough to have that long of a career]
The ones who do make insane sums can pretty easily pivot to being an owner of stuff, if they so choose. We’re starting to see more of that now. A-Rod seems to be investing in businesses now, and was on Shark Tank as a Shark. More generally in entertainment, Ryan Reynolds has been cleaning up, and Kevin Hart is also starting a bunch of businesses. Ashton Kutcher is/was an pretty big in startup investing for a while. The you have Dr Dre with Beats (acquired by Apple), and Jay-Z with all kinds of stuff.
As long as they don’t blow all their money on drugs, women, jewelry, and cars, they don’t have to work for someone else for very long.
Of course, once you start a business you effectively work for the customers, or the board of directors. Everyone has a boss somewhere, unless their just living off dividends or royalties.
Even the CEO is working class by that definition.
Difference in stock options as compensation for executives vs managers or the entire middle management layer is beyond insane. Like exponentially more.
Some. But at firms of even modest size, though, a CEO receives ownership of capital, not just salary, as compensation.
So do plenty of mid level engineers at Google.
They are petit bourgeoisie, they work for a living but their interests are aligned with capital as they’re hired by the owners to extract as much surplus labor as they can and will often get bonuses tied to how well they do that, they’re the overseer.
Software developers work and contribute to the company, they are the ones whose surplus labor is being extracted. They may get a larger chunk of the value they create but they don’t get all of it. They are still in class conflict with the owners to get all the value they create. They’re house slaves, treated better but still fundamentally against the owner.
Would you say that the only people who are not proletariat are those who are “financially independent” in the sense that they don’t need to work for an income?
No, I’d say that “financially independent” really means your dependent on capitalism, and that dependency will lead you to defend capitalism from any challenges. That is the bourgeois position and puts you against the proletariat. Their are other classes though besides proletariat and bourgeoisie with different relations to capital. Petite bourgeoisie are neither bourgeoisie nor proletariat but there interests align with the bourgeoisie/capital and against the proletariat, but they are not completely dependent on capitalism so they won’t defend it as zealously. There is also the independent worker class who work for themselves outside a corporate structure, eg. An independent farmer, whose interests don’t align with either the bourgeoisie or proletariat.
Google engineers have capital, both invested and cash. Enough to start their own company if they wanted. They simply decide that living as googler is easier and more convenient
As long as their livelihood is dependent on labouring, they’re working class. You should show some solidarity, rather than trying to divide the working class.
Even bourgeois class works. Even aristocrats… CEOs work.
Working is not what identifies proletariat.
I show solidarity, I have former colleagues working at google. They have all my solidarity, but they are not proletariat.
An average google engineer have more capital than most CEOs around the world.
They need to unionize, but they are not proletariat. My company is unionized, and we are not proletariat. There are unionized people owning multiple porsches. They are not proletariat. They simply find easier to live out of a good salary instead of the stress of having their own company
I didn’t say they didn’t work. I said that their livelihood isn’t dependant on labouring.
I don’t know what you gain out of gatekeeping the working class. The whole invention of the middle class has been a tool by the owning class to separate the working class.
I gain nothing other than I prefer politics to be well directed. Unions for tech jobs is clearly needed, and it is fine. As said I work for an unionized company.
Problem of putting together real working class and people like me, or Google engineers that are even in a better position, it’s bad to orient policies that helps the real working class. I want everybody to enjoy the privileges of mine and google engineers. Putting as in the same bucket as deliveroo drivers is not good for society. As society, we need to really works on the struggle of real proletariat. As tech workers we are far from the priority. Tech workers need to unionize, yes, but they are not proletariat.
You keep saying that it’s bad, but you haven’t actually said why. Just this nebulous idea that standing together is somehow bad. Worker’s rights benefit all workers. And the more people demanding them, the better. Even more so if the people demanding them have greater access to the resources needed to actually make a difference.
Never once has “divided we conquer” been true.
Tell me you know fuck all about unionization without telling me. Its all the same. We all, the working class, are advocating for the same fucking rights, boundaries, and protections. Deliveroo driver and tech employee both wanna go home at a reasonable time of night and sleep well knowing they can pay their bills.
Ah yes, just what the working class desperately needs, a gatekeeper.
I am not a gate keeper. I work in an unionized company in fintech. But I also recognize that calling me “proletarian” is detrimental for battles of real proletariat. Because I have a better salary than a medical doctor with a 5th of the stress. And I don’t make near google salary. I have former colleagues who went to google… They are not absolutely struggling. They need to unionize? Surely. But let’s keep it real, use words properly, because there are people in the current economy who are struggling. Proletariat means that the only “capital” owned by someone is their children. It evolved to mean working class, where only capital is ability to do a work.
Google engineers have real capital invested in stock market and pension funds, a great salary and benefits, transferable skills, and their biggest asset is their knowledge. They need to unionize only to fight back to mass lay offs, and have more saying on the company direction. Other than that they are doing pretty fine.
Dog the shadeholders who let google pay you that high wage to convince people to join this profession also own the fucking overpriced housing and grocery stores that take it riiiight back.