> Workers would benefit much more from unionization than they would from holding the stock at a company without a union.
Maybe this would work if the employees have some sort of monopoly like the people who work at the ports. However, with knowledge workers there’s a threshold when it’s simply cheaper to move states or even countries.
Employees who are well compensated also do not have an incentive to form a union.
You’re still wrong. What’s your next proposal? Investment bankers should unionize?
Investment bankers job is to deploy capital. How would unionizing help them? Will unionizing increase the amount of capital? No, so no sane person would suggest that.
Software engineers are primarily manufacturers. They make products. The barrier to entry is extremely low for this line of work. I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately. Your only leverage is to band together with others doing your work and demand your fair share from the business’ owners.
> I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately.
This is my point, and you’ve just bolstered it. If knowledge workers ”band together”, the company will just hire elsewhere. Your arguments are terrible
It’s very difficult to just up and move a company. When the employees are unionized, the company is not able to leverage the knowledge of some workers to facilitate the transition.
If the reason not to unionize is that the company will just move, how much job security do you have without the union? As soon as it’s cheaper to do your job elsewhere, your job will be gone. At least with a union, you have a hope of protecting your livelihood.
> It’s very difficult to just up and move a company.
This makes sense for factories, but it’s a weak argument for knowledge workers. There’s a lot less physical infrastructure and we’ve literally just proven that remote work is effective for entire organizations within the last 3 years.
> As soon as it’s cheaper to do your job elsewhere, your job will be gone
Did you not read my previous comments? The second a union is created is the same second it’s cheaper to move elsewhere for knowledge workers. You’ve even validated this argument with your “engineers from other places are good enough” line
You haven’t thought this through given your terrible logic, and your comments make it seem like you still haven't graduated and started work yet.
> Did you not read my previous comments? The second a union is created is the same second it’s cheaper to move elsewhere for knowledge workers. You’ve even validated this argument with your “engineers from other places are good enough” line
I did read your comment. If the company is perfectly free to close up shop and move, then what is applying upward pressure on your wage? Nothing. You can expect your wage to continually fall until it is inline with other college-educated professionals. You don't even need to be licensed to be a software engineer, and many influential engineers aren't even college educated. It's just not that hard of a job. Median college educated salary is $80,000, which is in-line with mechanical and civil engineering salaries. You can expect software engineering salaries to settle around there absent any intervention from labor.
One issue I have with your argument is that you are providing hypotheticals. "Hypothetically, software businesses will relocate when faced with unionization." But software companies are already paying an extreme premium for labor. That premium implies it's not possible to find the required talent elsewhere. There also are unionized software shops, e.g. game developers, so it's not a given that businesses will automatically be relocated.
Essentially my argument is one along the lines of preparing for a rainy day. The best time to save is when times are good so you can spend when times are bad. Times have been good for software engineers. Now the times are changing. Those who haven't saved are in for a rough ride.
> I did read your comment. If the company is perfectly free to close up shop and move, then what is applying upward pressure on your wage? Nothing.
Keeping in my that we are talking about Google and companies like it; historically, investors such as angels and VCs want to minimize risk when investing in volatile startups. How do you do this when investing in knowledge based companies? One way is by past accomplishments of the founders, but a more common method is by looking at their credentials. You invest based on an individual’s university alma mater and previous employers. The institutions matter. The more exclusive the better. There’s less criticism on your judgement if you hire from Stanford and MIT. Fast forward. When a company matures, this mentality of hiring stays within its cultural DNA whether or not they admit it. There are a finite number of those graduates from those schools with those majors.
> It's just not that hard of a job.
It’s a much harder job than being an armchair economist. This is not accurate at all. You should just stop being very wrong with overconfidence. The only thing you’re achieving is constantly reminding me that economics isn’t a real science that it pretends to be. It has no repeatable theoretical model, hence all of the contradictory conclusions.
> You can expect software engineering salaries to settle around there absent any intervention from labor.
It may happen in the next 10 - 20 years, but that’s not reality at the moment or in the past.
> One issue I have with your argument is that you are providing hypotheticals. "
Wow, the kettle likes calling the pot black. Most if not all your arguments are also hypotheticals.
> That premium implies it's not possible to find the required talent elsewhere.
See my first paragraph for the reason
> Essentially my argument is one along the lines of preparing for a rainy day.
If we remember the original argument being that Google engineers should unionize, this is just stupid. Time and effort are finite resources. By the time the day of reckoning comes, and I agree that it will one day, our generation will be either retired or transitioned because we have a half life. Most engineers transition to other positions like management and other job functions by their early to mid 40s, or even much sooner. Unionizing now isn’t logical because it interferes with maximizing our gains now and in the immediate future ie promotions and immediate job stability. Seriously, before you double down on theory, maybe you should start a career first in the tech industry before you keep making terrible assumptions.
> The barrier to entry is extremely low for this line of work. I get that you think you’re really smart, but there are tens to hundreds of millions of people in the world who could do your job adequately.
This is so laughably insane when it comes to Google-caliber software engineers.
The thesis of my argument is hiring that caliber of engineer provides little marginal value over a lesser engineer. The evidence is that Google has struggled to release successful products despite their supposed advantage in engineering quality.
Maybe this would work if the employees have some sort of monopoly like the people who work at the ports. However, with knowledge workers there’s a threshold when it’s simply cheaper to move states or even countries.
Employees who are well compensated also do not have an incentive to form a union.
You’re still wrong. What’s your next proposal? Investment bankers should unionize?