Meta CTO says employees should use AI productivity gains to do more work, calls request for extra days off "very dumb"

[FF222]

Learn what words mean. The difference between voluntary employment -- especially high-paid sedentary employment for a company like Meta -- and slavery couldn't be more stark.

You have exactly zero reading comprehension. Which.... explain a lot, if not everything.

Near-identical rhetoric was used by the National Socialists

No, it wasn't. And reductio ad Hitlerum is a logical fallacy, not an argument anyway.

If you realized you've no argument, just admit to that. Or just stay silent.

 

[FF222]

- US salaries are significantly higher than European salaries, often by 30% to 60% depending on the industry.

No, they're not. They are just counted differently. Like one before taxes and including bonuses and benefits, and the other is after tax and benefits and bonuses are not included in it. Also benefits differ, as do the costs associated with living, like health care.

- US VAT: 0%. EU VAT average: 22%.

- EU sales tax: 0%
- US sales tax: 7.53% to possibly 1000% or beyond (because sales tax is applicable at every transaction, while VAT is not, only technically)

Also, there's no "average EU VAT", and it's especially not "22%" on average. In reality VAT rates differ between products and countries, and is somewhere around 14.1% on average (ie. that's the ratio VAT of/on all total spending).

- Share of households with air conditioning. US: 91%. Europe: 20%

Annual average temperature in Europe weighed by population: 12 °C
Annual average temperature in the US weighed by population: 13.5 °C

Also "air conditioning" means completely different things in Europe, where it's only the capability of cooling the air is considered A/C, whereas in the USA heating is also done mostly through A/C, which is a completely different system in Europe.

- Average home size. US: 2450 sq. ft. Europe: 1100 sq. ft (820 sq. ft in the UK!)

Ratio of brick houses in the US: 18%
Ratio of brick houses in Europe: 97%

In the US, my average wait time to see a medical specialist is less than a week. In the EU, its several months, with a substantial percentage of people in the UK waiting well over one year.

Average annual healthcare cost to the patients in the US: $1,620
Average annual healthcare cost to the patients in Europe: ~€530 (~$611)

Healthy life expectancy at birth in the US: 63.9 years
Healthy life expectancy at birth in Europe: 66.0 years

Healthy life years per spent $1000 in the US: 5.1 years
Healthy life years per spent $1000 in Europe: 17.8 years


Also, what was the point you were trying to make (but obviously failed at anyway)?

 

[Loadedaxe]

One problem with society at the moment is that very little of the spoils come to workers when the businesses do well. Instead, it all goes to the upper management who "did so well" and get their bonuses, while the staff are laid off even when business goes well. Especially big tech has shown face here.

What the execs and shareholders forget is that the entire work force in the business makes the business do well. But currently workers are seen as disposable.

For those who say: "you got hired to work 40 hr/WK". Why are the execs not held to the same standard and "deserve" their bonuses?

This is actually a much better angle on the discussion, and I'm glad you brought it up.

The real question isn't simply whether AI makes a task easier or harder. It's who gets the benefit when productivity increases.

If an employee can produce 20% more in the same 40 hours because the company gave them better tools, that extra value can go toward higher pay, bonuses, shorter hours, more investment, lower prices, higher profits, or some combination of those. The frustration starts when the worker's share is simply... “Great, now do 20% more.”

Your executive bonus point is especially good. We constantly hear that workers agreed to perform a job for a set salary, which is fair enough. But executives also agreed to perform jobs for compensation, yet when the company has a great year we're told large performance bonuses are necessary and deserved.

Companies clearly understand that sharing success can incentivize people. The debate should be over how far down the organization that philosophy extends.

I don't agree that workers never benefit from successful companies, but this is a far more interesting and legitimate discussion than pretending AI itself invented burnout.

Good point. This thread needed this angle.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Then by that same token, if the employee becomes more productive and the company makes a bigger profit , then the employee should make a higher wage to equal the percentage of gain of the company. Or you are the type that says: our employees are more productive now, so lets keep paying them the same as always and we will keep the fruit of their labor?

Yes, employees should share in meaningful long term productivity gains through raises, bonuses, promotions, profit sharing, or better benefits.

But “equal the percentage of the company’s profit gain” is where you lose me.

The employee didn’t personally finance the AI infrastructure, data centers, R&D, software, training, hardware, or take the financial risk if the investment failed. Labor is part of the equation, not the entire equation.

If Meta spends billions making an employee 20% more productive, I absolutely think a successful employee has a reasonable case for better compensation.

What I don’t think follows is....“AI made me 20% more productive, therefore I deserve 20% more pay.”

Otherwise, when the company spends billions and profits fall 20%, are we applying the same formula in reverse?

There should be shared upside. There just isn’t an automatic one for one conversion between productivity, corporate profit, and an individual employee’s paycheck.

I got news for you, all Tech workers fall under salaried workers not hourly, they do not get overtime and are expected to finish a task regardless of how long it takes them, in "decent "companies they will gave you "comp time" when this happens, but alas most companies are not "dent or good"

That actually strengthens the point more than it weakens it.

First, not every tech worker is automatically salaried and exempt from overtime just because they work in tech. That depends on the job duties and compensation structure.

But even using your salaried worker example, there’s an inconsistency here.

If a salaried employee sometimes has to work longer because a project takes more time, the argument is usually, “That’s part of being salaried.”

Fair enough.

But then when better tools make that same employee more efficient, suddenly the saved time is supposed to belong entirely to the employee?

That’s a very convenient one way interpretation of salary.

Good companies should absolutely reward sustained productivity and extra effort with raises, bonuses, comp time, promotions, or more flexibility. I have no problem with that at all.

What I disagree with is the idea that every efficiency gain automatically converts into fewer working hours while compensation stays exactly the same.

If technology lets you accomplish more during the same workday, that is productivity. And that is one of the primary reasons the company paid for the technology in the first place.

Meta is spending billions on AI infrastructure, software, training and development specifically to make its workforce more capable and efficient. The company is taking the financial risk and paying for the tool.

So if the argument is that every hour saved by that investment automatically belongs to the employee as additional paid time off, then what exactly is the company purchasing?

Nobody is suggesting the employee should reimburse Meta for making their job easier. But by the same logic, the employee isn't automatically entitled to personally pocket every productivity gain created by an investment the employer paid for.

The sensible answer is shared benefit...the company gets more productivity, while successful employees can benefit through compensation, bonuses, advancement and flexibility.

Otherwise we're basically saying, “Thanks for spending billions making my job easier. I'll be leaving early now.”

 

[subnex]

Yes, employees should share in meaningful long term productivity gains through raises, bonuses, promotions, profit sharing, or better benefits.

But “equal the percentage of the company’s profit gain” is where you lose me.

The employee didn’t personally finance the AI infrastructure, data centers, R&D, software, training, hardware, or take the financial risk if the investment failed. Labor is part of the equation, not the entire equation.

If Meta spends billions making an employee 20% more productive, I absolutely think a successful employee has a reasonable case for better compensation.

What I don’t think follows is....“AI made me 20% more productive, therefore I deserve 20% more pay.”

An employees wage by default should be less than their productivity. It is this difference that results in the business being able to operate at a profit, and is necessary for the system to work. However, productivity increases can and should be passed down to the employees.
For example: Say an employee produces for 100 items a month, his wages equal less that that, say the profit of 50.
When the employee's productivity increases by 20% because of new tools, environment, support or something else, it is very reasonable that the employee received 20% of the spoils in one gorm ør the other. He is now producing 120 items. If he were to get an 20% increase in his compensation, he will be compensated for 60 items, while the companies profits also covers 69 items now. So both win.

Another thing that we don't realise, and that investors don't advocate is that both take a risk. An investor contributes his money and a worker by his labour. The investor is exposed through losses if business is bad. However an employee carries similar risks. What if hes injured on the job? He might not be able to perform his job anymore and loses income. His job might be on the line if business is bad. Or, the investors want higher returns.

Somehow the system is getting geared more towards that making money of your money is perceived as being more justified than making money of your labour. And while for some people the money to invest increases, your own personal labour force has hard limits

 

[Loadedaxe]

An employees wage by default should be less than their productivity. It is this difference that results in the business being able to operate at a profit, and is necessary for the system to work. However, productivity increases can and should be passed down to the employees.
For example: Say an employee produces for 100 items a month, his wages equal less that that, say the profit of 50.
When the employee's productivity increases by 20% because of new tools, environment, support or something else, it is very reasonable that the employee received 20% of the spoils in one gorm ør the other. He is now producing 120 items. If he were to get an 20% increase in his compensation, he will be compensated for 60 items, while the companies profits also covers 69 items now. So both win.

Another thing that we don't realise, and that investors don't advocate is that both take a risk. An investor contributes his money and a worker by his labour. The investor is exposed through losses if business is bad. However an employee carries similar risks. What if hes injured on the job? He might not be able to perform his job anymore and loses income. His job might be on the line if business is bad. Or, the investors want higher returns.

Somehow the system is getting geared more towards that making money of your money is perceived as being more justified than making money of your labour. And while for some people the money to invest increases, your own personal labour force has hard limits

This is probably the strongest argument made in the thread so far, and I agree with part of it.

Sustained productivity gains should absolutely create opportunities for employees to benefit through raises, bonuses, profit sharing, promotions, or better working conditions.

Where I disagree is treating a 20% productivity increase as though the employee personally created 20% more value and therefore should automatically receive a matching 20% increase in compensation.

If that productivity gain came from better software, AI infrastructure, training, process improvements, equipment, and capital the company paid for, then the gain was created by a combination of labor and investment.

The worker contributed to the result. So did the company.

The same applies to risk. Employees absolutely face real risks...layoffs, lost income, career disruption, and workplace injury. Investors also face risk, but it is a different kind of risk. Employees are generally paid their agreed wage even during periods when the company earns little or loses money, while invested capital can lose value or disappear entirely.

Neither contribution is somehow more morally justified than the other. They simply serve different functions in the system.

Where we agree is that a company should not celebrate permanent productivity gains while pretending employee compensation never needs to move. If workers are consistently producing more value, they should share in that success over time.

But that is very different from saying, “The company bought a tool that made me 20% more productive, therefore I am automatically owed 20% more.”

And just for the record, in your example, 120 minus 60 leaves 60, not 69.