> 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.
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.