site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is about layoffs in tech and what they underscore about modern economy.

https://blog.interviewing.io/how-much-have-2022-layoffs-affected-engineers-vs-other-departments-we-dug-into-the-data-to-find-out/

According to our data, almost half of HR people and recruiters got laid off, as compared to 10% of engineers and only 4% of salespeople.

This passage feels obvious. Of course companies will let go those employees first who contribute little to the bottom line. Of course companies will hold onto their critical resources--engineers and salespeople in this case--until the very worst moment.

But underneath this is a statement about how many bullshit jobs are there in our economy. Jobs that are merely simple busywork. Jobs that exist solely as a way to redistribute the fruits of capitalism from those who have found a way to way to produce for society and those who didn't. It's basically a giant social contract about providing for a rather large part of society that would not otherwise be able to sustain itself.

If anything, this speaks of how deep our humanism runs. Instead of sawing off the sickly branch, we embrace it with care, doing so in a way that doesn't over-infringe on the patient's dignity (Consider how powerful a mark of status it is to provide for the weak and poor--now this status-marker has been democratized).

Thus we learn something practical: don't take anything HR says or does too seriously. They play an unpopular, minor role in the fabric of a company, relegated to the equivalent of keeping the litter box clean: ensuring legal compliance, tackling on/off-boarding paperwork, and organizing company celebrations. That, and be wary of HR departments that seem to outgrow their function. A fat, active HR department is a sign that a company isn't allocating its funds efficiently. Or that it usurps power from more important departments, eg. the power to design and run the hiring process (they should only take care of the mechanical parts; the candidate qualification process should be in the hands of subject-matter experts). Either way, it's a bad sign.

You should be skeptical of narratives that make you feel good about yourself. I’m assuming here that you’re an “engineer”. In that case, your insight into the usefulness of the HR department is limited- in fact, the better they do their job, the less you should notice it.

That’s not to say HR are more valuable than the people who actually make and sell the product, but there’s a range between “most useful” to “bullshit job”, and IME HR doesn’t fall in the “bullshit” part of that range. In fact, I can’t think of any broad category of jobs that really are “bullshit” once you understand their function.

That's a fair point. I admit I have an axe to grind with HR and that's skewing my perceptions. It's useful for me to air it out and get some pushback--thank you.

That said, can you describe what value HR brings to a company? I can think of a couple of things, such as managing the recruiting pipeline and on/off-boarding processes. Plus taking care of mandatory trainings and providing employees with an interface with the benefits & insurance. Also: tackling employee grievances. But that still means the ratio of HR-to-employee should be low. Perhaps something like 1:25 or even more, since you get economies of scale as the number of employees grow.

That's a fair point. I admit I have an axe to grind with HR and that's skewing my perceptions. It's useful for me to air it out and get some pushback--thank you.

That's big of you.

That said, can you describe what value HR brings to a company?

At its core, HR applies or enforces management's decisions regarding their employees. This is a very broad scope, and the exact borders change depending on the organization - smaller organizations will include payroll in HR, for example, while very big ones may separate even employee well-being to its own department. In most cases, though, they'll have to handle everything to do with e.g. promotion policy, PTO for individuals and for the entire org, hours worked (sometimes offloaded to payroll, which may be a separate entity), insurances & benefits (including negotiations with whoever supplies those, maybe annually), internal transfers according to company policy, and of course compliance with the law (i.e. external policy). HR is a bit like the police or the court system in that it actually makes sure that the decisions from higher up are carried out, as well as keeping track of those decisions. Otherwise management's decisions are meaningless, like an unenforced law.

For a small organization, you can get away with not having HR, or handing it all to one person such as the CFO. For a big organization, HR is essential, otherwise you get chaos.

For an example that I'm closely familiar with, if an employee wants to relocate from one branch of a large organization to another (this could be inside a country or even between countries), then the person who actually manages everything will be from HR. They'll take care of visas if needed (or hiring a law firm for it, much more likely), they'll make sure the employee gets whatever relocation bonuses they're do, they're in charge of the actual numbers f what those benefits are - all according to the policy that the company's management decided on. Or if your company offers tuition assistance, someone from HR will authorize it.

It's mostly bureaucracy, but I honestly can't see how an organization functions without it in any meaningful way.

Perhaps something like 1:25 or even more, since you get economies of scale as the number of employees grow.

Absolutely. I think for my local branch of a globe-spanning org, it's closer to 1:100. (I actually just went ahead and counted, and got to ~1:250, but I think I'm missing a few). Spit-balling, I'd say over 1:50 even is overkill.

Thanks, that's illuminating. Now I just have to adjust my monkey brain.