[kkhire]

I’ve never worked in the Bay Area, so could just be OOL but I’m genuinely surprised that this is such a big deal, or that this blog post got so much praise.

Never discussed politics at any of the companies I’ve worked for, we were always too busy with...work!

[nullc]

Coming from the east coast (and maybe a little from an earlier era) I also find the attitude on this stuff a little mystifying.

"In my day" -- it was just poor form to bring up that kind of stuff at work. If you did so at all, you usually tried to avoid being "that person". You don't get to choose each person you work with, so it pays if everyone puts in a bit of extra effort to not give anyone else a hard time.

I think some of these work politics issues--in particular around the bay area-- is partially a product of extremely homogeneous work forces (at least politically), partially poor work-life balance cultures (no life outside work), partially social networking (massively increasing the visibility of your co-workers out of work activities), and <???>-- I don't feel I really have a complete understanding of what is going on.

Maybe a factor is a breakdown in our wider culture's ability to see people who disagree as being people who are still good people with reasonable points but just have different understandings or priorities (or even just to patronize them as stupid or uninformed). But instead perhaps there is a trend to rapidly decide people we disagree with are irredeemably evil just based on a soundbitized version of some insanely complicated political trade-off (or maybe even just by association)... But I'm not really sure how much that breakdown is actually happening compared to the appearance of it happening in the reporting funhouse mirror ("Reasonable people do a reasonable thing" said no headline ever).

Some of it might also be due to a transition from products to services-- people seem a lot more willing to view product sales as anonymous and totally transactional, while they seem to view a service as something more akin to a marriage.

A big downside of reactions like coinbases' might be that in what I would consider the traditional regime there was still an opportunity for employees to bring a little bit of their politics to work-- so long as they were professional and not obnoxious about it, or in places where there were genuine interactions with work ("How about lets not buy the toner cartages made from clubbed baby seals?") ... but if you can't count on people to control themselves and you're forced to set bright line policies then there is probably a lot less room for people to be reasonable.

[kleinsch]

I worked for companies on the east coast, then moved to SF and now work at a big tech company. The companies I worked for on the east coast were mostly B2B, so we were focused on making a good product for businesses so they’d pay us more money. Big tech companies recruited for a long time with the pitch that we’re changing the world. That has brought in a bunch of employees who joined bc they want their employment to make a positive change in the world. Companies are now realizing the conflict being a neutral platform poses to these people - if I have a belief that my employment should make a positive change in societal issues, how could I work somewhere that I believe contributes to making things worse?

[SecretRepub2]

I think a big factor is fewer people starting families. Single adults tend to latch onto radical politics as a source of meaning

[cblconfederate]

I often wonder about the other side: Why do people who work in SV seem so militant on political issues? After all they live in a very privileged space (or "bubble") which is severely disconnected from the reality of most of the Earth, and even nearby american cities. I don't know enough about the demographics of the region and what can drive this behaviour but it is full of contradictions. For example, while they all seem invested in political causes, and seem to be using donations as a way to show virtual support to causes, I notice that they rarely venture into actual politics themselves.

[hackerfromthefu]

A combination of factors .. here's some ideas

A cognitive limitation that it's hard to see the bubble we are in.

Being smart at the things in our bubble makes us over-confident about things we really don't have deep nuanced experience about.

We don't know what we don't know, but we think we do .. until we gain enough experience to appreciate life's complexity and our own limitations.

[hnrodey]

>After all they live in a very privileged space (or "bubble")

It's my personal view that so much of the current political vitriol is because as a society, we've run out of things to worry about. We've reached critical mass of people solving Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and therefore, we are dwelving in to other arenas where we are feeling neglected.

[stevehawk]

because they are over educated and wealthy and it lends itself to the thought of "if i'm this smart and this successful how could i be wrong and why don't you want this life?"

[itsoktocry]

>Never discussed politics at any of the companies I’ve worked for, we were always too busy with...work!

Same, and that's the conundrum.

"Activist" employees put others on the spot by querying coworkers' political views and expecting discussion. And for those who have had their head in the sand for the past few years, things like "being a Joe Rogan fan" are now considered unacceptable politics.

[3np]

> things like "being a Joe Rogan fan" are now considered unacceptable politics

For one who has had their head in the sand and is only vaguely familiar with Joe Rogan; why?

[moduspol]

Virtually every meaningful task humans have accomplished has been a result of groups of us putting aside our differences to unite and focus on solving the problem at hand.

[jeromegv]

??? Nice way to rewrite history. Would you say the civil rights movement was successful because it wanted to put aside differences? Or because they fought for their rights, their difference, and the privileged majority had to make concessions?

[CPLX]

It’s pretty common for the problem at hand to be a group of violent extremists attempting to seize power.

[demygale]

What if the problem at hand is ending structural racism in the workplace?

[hn_throwaway_99]

> we were always too busy with...work!

I think that's one side effect of having these gargantuan, hugely profitable tech companies. They can essentially have a huge portion of their workforce be unproductive if the essential "money machine" at each company (e.g. AdWords at Google) is running smoothly.

Other, smaller companies can't afford to have as much fat in their workforce, so their workers need to be actually focused on, you know, work, and if they're not, their lack of productivity is much more visible.

[throwaway4715]

SV companies sell candidates on changing the world and disrupting the status quo. They literally target and recruit the type of people who would want to discuss politics at work.

[tarkin2]

But most company's work becomes political now.

You only want to work on a feature for a social media platform? No politics there, right?

[hackerfromthefu]

Most companies? Maybe most SV ones?