Referring to yourself as a "subject" is a very unhealthy worldview. There are a lot of bad bosses, but there are a lot of great ones who regularly put their neck on the line for the teams they serve. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences, but you should not generalize them to the whole world.

Well, could go either way on the healthy/unhealthiness of it. I would argue that it's accurate though. I've had good bosses too! They're not demons, just doing their job. It doesn't change that relation between us though: I'm subject to their whim, for payment. We're not peers, not collaborators, it's a hierarchical relationship of dependence with clear boundaries. I recognize the lines can be more blurred with more layers of management in large corporate structures, when the direct manager is subject to similar pressures that the end-worker is under.

I understand that my boss is not my friend, but to describe oneself as a “subject” is not something I relate to. In fact, I think it’s absurdly dramatic.

It’s not though - when you look at what really “drives” the relationship. You trade your labor for money in a system designed to keep us so anxious, we will accept as little wage as possible, by the same capital owning class.

We are subject to their desires as they are bound, by law, to choose profit for shareholders over employees.

We are their subjects. “Ain’t no war but class war” applies to us in tech as much as it does to the miners a mile underground in PA.

I’m sorry, but your description of a relationship with an employer doesn’t match mine at all.

I don’t feel anxious. I feel comfortable.

I don’t accept as little as possible. I negotiate with the knowledge that I have options.

I don’t toil in the mines for 80 hours a week to barely afford to feed myself. I spend 40-50 hours a week doing something I rather enjoy, and for that, I’m paid a salary that affords a lifestyle few could have imagined even fifty years ago.

I understand that my employer would pay me less if they could. Then again, if I could find a plumber who could fix my shower for $200 instead of $250, I’d patronize the former, all else equal. Does that make the plumber my “subject”? I don’t think so.

Your employer can also choose to terminate that relationship at any time. No problem, you could just get a job at another shop, right? Except when the black swan appears and all the other companies are doing layoffs and freezes, flooding the market with talent while limiting positions. Then, in that hour of crisis, is the true nature of the relationship revealed at last.

That's why you have savings to wait out that period...

As software devs. we can save, right? :). Not sure the same logic applies to people on low wage jobs. Or people like the characters in the movie "Nomadland" (which is supposed to be true to life)

Or live in a country that affords you a safety net and has rules for terminations.

I know the feel, but I also think this is misplaced anxiety. Work can be difficult, stressful, feel pointless, etc, which is why we get paid to do it. And you need some level of stress to get over the hump and get it done, to fight off complacency. The problem starts when we start blaming the person telling us what to do, for having to do it.

The problem starts with putting in charge those people that do not understand what needs to be done.

What you describe is a trade relationship, not "subject".

The same kind of trade relationship as that between American mining companies and Ghanaian miners.

I started managing a team a couple years ago, prior to which I was an individual contributor for a little over 20.

What you describe demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity. All I can say is I’m glad you are not on my team.