Maybe it's uncharitable, but one could interpret that as you thinking it's a great thing that Google gets to keep more of its profits rather than sharing them with its employees. Is the solution to tech worker entitlement really to let big tech companies have the advantageous position in salary negotiations?

In a nation with such massive wealth inequality, in a city where people are living in tents under highways, I see people complaining about $300k TC as a "lowball offer."

From an individual perspective, I get it: why wouldn't you want to strive for the maximum you could possibly get? People are motivated by money, that's fine.

But man, it sure feels like the guillotines should be coming out pretty soon.

I don't do a very good job of clearly explaining the why aspect of my comment, however I did write an unreasonably long response to multiple comments further down that probably clarifies nothing but at least expands on my original comment. You can see it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30449521

OP is not arguing that Bezos is totally and completely deserving of his billionaire status.

They're just saying that it feels a little gauche to bitch and moan publicly about losing 10% of your 200k compensation in a time where 60% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Maybe those workers do deserve more! Maybe much more! But man, it's hard to not feel a little tone deaf.

Obviously, this is only one small facet of a large and complicated discussion. No one is "fighting for" managers and owners here. The OP isn't even explicitly anti-union! Just pointing out the "bad taste."

Maybe that's what they meant (I don't know, I'm not a mind reader). But what they wrote was that location-based salary ranges were "great", when clearly they're just one way of giving employers more power in the employer-employee relationship. And they won't do much to address entitlement -- you still get those big bucks living near SF.

Also super long, to the point where I feel like this will just be like shouting into thin air.

---

My intended message was that in the much broader context of the labor market as a whole, tech workers make enough money that instead of trying to scratch out another $30k in bonuses or some arbitrary perks... they should focus on ways to better generate & distribute the wealth in the economy to match their perception of "fair & just".

I would say the same thing to lawyers, doctors, and other highly paid skilled professions if the article was about them. Take the capital you have, whether it is financial or political, and do something to help someone who actually needs it.

If you feel like you should be paid more, that's a private discussion between you and your employer. Save the blogs, articles, disgruntled forum comments, and general bellyaching for a professional discussion with your manager/HR/whatever.

So when I say I think this is a good thing, I mean that in the same way I would say that my young son tripping and falling on his face is a good thing after I told him for the 20th time to stop running in the damn house. He's a tough kid, he's got plenty of energy and won't have any problems recovering from the fall. Maybe he will bleed a bit, maybe he will cry, and just maybe.... he will slow the fuck down and be a bit more mindful of his surroundings.

Unlike my son though, we are whole ass grown adults who don't need a hug and a pat on the head after tripping a bit.

---

Honestly the meat of the problem I am (poorly) trying to communicate is that EVERYONE just seems too damn loud, too damn entitled, and never actually focused on even just identifying societal scale solutions to perceived issues, much less implementing any useful change.

It sounds & feels like noisy chickens pecking for higher place in the order, using real (business owners hoarding $$$$$x100+ of easily liquidated assets) and fabricated (managers making $$, while engineers make $) adversaries to justify their "unselfish" desire for an ever growing slice of the pie.

(1) How about we look at fixing the (supply/cost) issues preventing young adults earning the median income for their demographic from purchasing a starter (2bd 1ba) home/apartment/loft in the vast majority of metropolitan areas?

Well this would require big government to start regulating and taxing property ownership more, which affects only the individuals who are in a position to bitch about how it isn't fair to them.

(2) How about we address the sheer inadequacy public education's curriculum on personal financial literacy?

Well to do that we need to pay teachers more, and now we're in the weeds about state budgets, federal spending, corruption in education departments, etc.

(3) How about doing something about the predatory college system that places young adults in a position of either not being able to earn enough for rent (See 1 & 2) or unable to save enough capital to try their hand at becoming an entrepreneur (the American Dream?!) due to their crippling student loans?

Well, you can't fix it going forward without someone complaining about how it doesn't help those already affected. Then you get into debates about personal accountability versus unfair lending practices, etc.

(4) How about we address the culturally ingrained expectation of a globally unsustainable standards of living created by minimally regulated, generations deep, deceptive marketing practices?

Here you are up against an ARMY of people whose relationship with the truth is best described as abusive, spinning things around and around until somehow it is the consumer's fault for thinking they could possibly afford to be the statistical average joe. If you do manage to open a dialogue for even identifying the problem scope, you'll end up down another rabbit hole about personal accountability & how those who have everything are somehow morally superior to those left longing for the image of eden they're constantly followed around by.

---

I could go on and on about issues that are both important AND urgent that make this "problem" a tiny insignificant blip affecting only the lives of people who could do more if they weren't so focused on so little.

But to be fair, I don't do anything about these problems either, so full steam ahead I guess.

It's possible for each individual to do more, but there's a limit to what we can realistically expect. No one is changing the world for the better even a little by being less assertive when it comes to their own salary, although they could allocate part of that salary to worthy causes. When you write this:

> EVERYONE just seems too damn loud, too damn entitled, and never actually focused on even just identifying societal scale solutions to perceived issues

I don't understand how not displaying what you feel is the requisite amount of gratefulness (by seeking a higher salary publicly) prevents people from identifying societal scale solutions to perceived issues. And I don't see how having every individual identify societal scale solutions to perceived issues really helps; that's a lot of cooks in the "let's fix society" kitchen. There's room for division of labor, right? I don't need to save the Amazon from deforestation, free Uighurs from detention camps, reduce food insecurity in rural Alabama, lobby US congresspeople to improve affordable housing, and try to rescue abandoned house rabbits in Columbus, OH. I can pay someone to do that stuff (because I've extracted enough value from my multibillion dollar market cap employer).