I get both you and your parent's PoV but you gotta be aware that the people working on the first iPhone and Android were also working basically 24/7 up until the launch, and Apple even moved them into hotels next to the office so they wouldn't have to commute.
Similarly, China is also now in a race of rapid technologization to catch up or surpass the US competitors and you don't get there by working only 40h/week.
US big tech success proved that for the right amount of money clearly enough skilled people would work brutal schedules, so I also see no problem if this work relationship is consensual and agreed by both parties and can be terminated at any time if it's not bearable for the workers, especially since those skilled tech workers have plenty of other options for working lax schedules for less money if they wish so.
But if they voluntarily choose the brutal schedules for the money, it's their call and why should I or other parties have a say in this?
1) There's a huge difference between a temporary 'crunch' (as in the examples you gave) and a prevailing company culture; organising a company such that the (unwritten?) expectation is of '007' working just shouldn't be an acceptable model.
2) I think you're conflating two different issues, deliberately or not. Fundamentally, yes, I agree that individuals should have a free choice over how they spend their time and their physical capital in return for money; and further, in this case, given we're taking about educated and sought-after workers, some of the arguments that apply to treatment of lower-paid workers don't apply. However, the issue is to what extent one views it as moral that a company is organised, implicity or explicity, along these lines: as the argument often goes, if you can't run your company profitably or effectively without resorting to such measures, you need to rethink your fundamentals.
3) And here, of course, it's probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, given it's R&D and they're apparently offering double the market rate: it's just about an pre-existing toxic company culture. And given what we know about people's output not scaling linearly with extreme hours worked, it doesn't even make rational sense. In theory, they could pay lower (but still attractive) salaries, hire 50% more people, work them less hard, and (all else being equal) probably be even more productive.
Huawei is in state of existential crisis. If they (China) don't have a breakthrough in chip manufacturing in 2-5 years, Huawei as the company will be finished and along with China's plan to be independent of Western world. So, think of this as their Manhattan project, not sexy or romantic, but necessary.
China rarely if ever bets on one horse. This is one of the reasons the west struggles to understand why China isn't collapsing. It's not Soviet style command economy with a single organisational structure in control over one sector. China even has multiple competing state-owned investment banks, and in most fields they have competing both state owned and private companies (note: I'm not assuming there aren't cases where this competition is heavily rigged or biased; the point is not to imply it is a free market, but that it is not the Soviet model).
With respect to Huawei, if Huawei goes, Huawei goes, and little else changes other than that the government might need to prop up some of their supply chain.
China might find itself struggling to gain full independence on the top end, but they have a range of separately operating foundry companies (SMIC, YMTC, Wingtech, Hua Hong), chip production equipment Manufacturers (Maura, JCET), and a multitude of chip design companies. China can afford a number of these - and Huawei - to fail and still have other bets.
I agree with you that the overall "project" is their Manhattan project in a sense, but that does not mean all, or even many, of the companies need to survive - they'll let individual ones fail if they don't feel like they're pulling their weight, and instead fund new/other options.
In other words: This might be "necessary" for Huawei, because Huawei wants to survive. But it's not necessary for China for Huawei to survive. Ironically that might be part of the reason for the pressure - they know there's no guarantee they'd be bailed out.
Rinzler89|1 year ago
Similarly, China is also now in a race of rapid technologization to catch up or surpass the US competitors and you don't get there by working only 40h/week.
US big tech success proved that for the right amount of money clearly enough skilled people would work brutal schedules, so I also see no problem if this work relationship is consensual and agreed by both parties and can be terminated at any time if it's not bearable for the workers, especially since those skilled tech workers have plenty of other options for working lax schedules for less money if they wish so.
But if they voluntarily choose the brutal schedules for the money, it's their call and why should I or other parties have a say in this?
mft_|1 year ago
1) There's a huge difference between a temporary 'crunch' (as in the examples you gave) and a prevailing company culture; organising a company such that the (unwritten?) expectation is of '007' working just shouldn't be an acceptable model.
2) I think you're conflating two different issues, deliberately or not. Fundamentally, yes, I agree that individuals should have a free choice over how they spend their time and their physical capital in return for money; and further, in this case, given we're taking about educated and sought-after workers, some of the arguments that apply to treatment of lower-paid workers don't apply. However, the issue is to what extent one views it as moral that a company is organised, implicity or explicity, along these lines: as the argument often goes, if you can't run your company profitably or effectively without resorting to such measures, you need to rethink your fundamentals.
3) And here, of course, it's probably not about scraping by in a low-margin sector, given it's R&D and they're apparently offering double the market rate: it's just about an pre-existing toxic company culture. And given what we know about people's output not scaling linearly with extreme hours worked, it doesn't even make rational sense. In theory, they could pay lower (but still attractive) salaries, hire 50% more people, work them less hard, and (all else being equal) probably be even more productive.
blackoil|1 year ago
vidarh|1 year ago
With respect to Huawei, if Huawei goes, Huawei goes, and little else changes other than that the government might need to prop up some of their supply chain.
China might find itself struggling to gain full independence on the top end, but they have a range of separately operating foundry companies (SMIC, YMTC, Wingtech, Hua Hong), chip production equipment Manufacturers (Maura, JCET), and a multitude of chip design companies. China can afford a number of these - and Huawei - to fail and still have other bets.
I agree with you that the overall "project" is their Manhattan project in a sense, but that does not mean all, or even many, of the companies need to survive - they'll let individual ones fail if they don't feel like they're pulling their weight, and instead fund new/other options.
In other words: This might be "necessary" for Huawei, because Huawei wants to survive. But it's not necessary for China for Huawei to survive. Ironically that might be part of the reason for the pressure - they know there's no guarantee they'd be bailed out.
onethought|1 year ago
[deleted]