zlacker

> The interesting dynamic: Category 2 workers are often most vocal about collective action because individual performance evaluation threatens their position. Category 1 workers are more likely to focus on skill development and value creation, and frankly are the most to benefit from the evolution of AI tooling.

> "Labor solidarity" messaging often fails to resonate with the most effective and productive workers.

That's what the rentier class wants you to think. It's convenient if everyone is a temporarily embarrassed CEO, makes them much happier to act against their own class interests.

>>lmm+(OP)
The "rentier class" framing assumes all value extraction happens at the top, but /r/overemployed will demonstrate that is false.

Low-performers extract value from high-performers at every organizational level. A developer carrying three mediocre teammates isn't being manipulated by "the rentier class" when they prefer merit-based evaluation.

Your argument requires believing that productive workers can't accurately assess their own interests.

>>aeon_a+uv1
> A developer carrying three mediocre teammates isn't being manipulated by "the rentier class" when they prefer merit-based evaluation.

What happens when they get their wish? Do they start getting paid something close to the combined salary of the team they were carrying? Or do they get an attaboy and a pizza, and a precedent for "merit-based" layoffs that will be turned against them soon enough? I know which way I've seen it play out.

> Your argument requires believing that productive workers can't accurately assess their own interests.

Is it so implausible that people skilled in a specific field might be bad at cooperating (perhaps because they're bad at communicating with each other, at least relative to another class) and politically naive? If you think workers have a good understanding of their own interests then why has the labour share of income kept dropping?