6 ms·

"If Canadian companies were willing" This comes up in every thread about Canada, but it seems a lapse of logic to anthropomorphize a market like this. The mark

by okfine 8y ago

"If Canadian companies were willing" This comes up in every thread about Canada, but it seems a lapse of logic to anthropomorphize a market like this. The market doesn't "will" anything, and people's willingness to offer/accept a salary is more a consequence of local conditions than a cause. Those conditions include the option of getting paid more if you're willing to leave the country, which some are. Presumably that affects the market for those who choose to remain, but it would be interesting to know by how much. It's not obvious. Canadian companies complain about lack of talent about as much as their employees complain about lack of salary. Isn't it a sign of a market reaching its level when both sides complain about the price but nevertheless accept it?

dblohm7 8y ago
Well, the Canadian employees are moving south. They clearly aren't accepting it.
- okfine 8y ago
  I meant employees of Canadian companies, who by definition are. (I edited it to say "their employees" instead of "Canadian employees". Hopefully that will help.)
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    If “Canadian tech companies have employees” is your criterion for Canada’s tech companies paying good wages, you’re in for a bad time. TFA is about Canadian employees leaving for the US for better wages, as the other commenter pointed out.
    - okfine 8y ago
      I didn't say they were paying "good" wages, but that they are paying market wages. The argument that Canadian software salaries aren't a market, but rather a stubborn choice by companies not to do the right thing, is curiously magical. The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things. To change it would require some change in the fundamentals, such as if the government made it harder for people to leave.
      - jonathanyc 8y ago
        > The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things. This is a horrible false dichotomy. It takes time for companies to decide on and implement changes. Do you think that companies magically always make optimal decisions at all times? You claim that other people are anthropomorphizing companies, but that’s precisely what you’re doing here, on top of a healthy dose of failure to make the is-ought distinction. I‘m also not sure why you are misinterpreting “good wages.” I’m not talking about “deserved wages” or anything like that. Again, read TFA. Lastly, your suggestion that the Canadian government make it harder for people to leave is horrific, inhumane, and quite frankly the most regressive possible “solution” to this problem. I’m astounded that anyone would even suggest it.
        okfine 8y ago
        I didn't any say of those things! From my perspective, you've put my words through a really intense filter and then gotten angry at your filter. For example, I didn't suggest that the government should do such a thing. It's a hideous idea, besides being an obvious legal and political impossibility. What I said was that if they did, it might affect the software salary market in Canada, in contrast to other things people commonly bring up, which seem oddly imaginary.
        burfog 8y ago
        It may be politically impossible, but it isn't legally impossible. Laws, including constitutions, can be changed. This works for both sides of the border. Killing NAFTA is an easy start. Canada can have a wall to keep people in without even building it: simply lobby US politicians to have one built.
        okfine 8y ago
        I meant impossible under the Charter of Rights, which could change, but isn't going to. You're right that that's for political and not legal reasons, so "politically and legally impossible" is in a way redundant. In another way it isn't, though, since constitutions do constrain politicians.
- netheril96 8y ago
  Those who have left are not accepting it. Those who stay are.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
Yes, using personalized anthropomorphic terms is silly. Except that behind the Great Toronto tech market there are real people, making decisions. At the government, at the investment, and at the management level. And by and large those people have made decisions which see engineering talent here as a resource that they have to push the cost down on even if it means losing domestic talent to the US. Part of this is accomplished by importing talent from abroad or exporting the work abroad, or underpaying when they can get away with it. It's not a surprise that locally developed talent leaves after graduation, when the industry is actively recruiting from abroad. And part of this is relying on the percentage of talent hat simply will not or cannot consider moving abroad (people like myself).

by okfine 8y ago

dblohm7 8y ago

Well, the Canadian employees are moving south. They clearly aren't accepting it.

okfine 8y ago
I meant employees of Canadian companies, who by definition are. (I edited it to say "their employees" instead of "Canadian employees". Hopefully that will help.)
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  If “Canadian tech companies have employees” is your criterion for Canada’s tech companies paying good wages, you’re in for a bad time. TFA is about Canadian employees leaving for the US for better wages, as the other commenter pointed out.
  - okfine 8y ago
    I didn't say they were paying "good" wages, but that they are paying market wages. The argument that Canadian software salaries aren't a market, but rather a stubborn choice by companies not to do the right thing, is curiously magical. The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things. To change it would require some change in the fundamentals, such as if the government made it harder for people to leave.
    - jonathanyc 8y ago
      > The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things. This is a horrible false dichotomy. It takes time for companies to decide on and implement changes. Do you think that companies magically always make optimal decisions at all times? You claim that other people are anthropomorphizing companies, but that’s precisely what you’re doing here, on top of a healthy dose of failure to make the is-ought distinction. I‘m also not sure why you are misinterpreting “good wages.” I’m not talking about “deserved wages” or anything like that. Again, read TFA. Lastly, your suggestion that the Canadian government make it harder for people to leave is horrific, inhumane, and quite frankly the most regressive possible “solution” to this problem. I’m astounded that anyone would even suggest it.
      - okfine 8y ago
        I didn't any say of those things! From my perspective, you've put my words through a really intense filter and then gotten angry at your filter. For example, I didn't suggest that the government should do such a thing. It's a hideous idea, besides being an obvious legal and political impossibility. What I said was that if they did, it might affect the software salary market in Canada, in contrast to other things people commonly bring up, which seem oddly imaginary.
        burfog 8y ago
        It may be politically impossible, but it isn't legally impossible. Laws, including constitutions, can be changed. This works for both sides of the border. Killing NAFTA is an easy start. Canada can have a wall to keep people in without even building it: simply lobby US politicians to have one built.
        okfine 8y ago
        I meant impossible under the Charter of Rights, which could change, but isn't going to. You're right that that's for political and not legal reasons, so "politically and legally impossible" is in a way redundant. In another way it isn't, though, since constitutions do constrain politicians.
netheril96 8y ago
Those who have left are not accepting it. Those who stay are.

cmrdporcupine 8y ago

Yes, using personalized anthropomorphic terms is silly. Except that behind the Great Toronto tech market there are real people, making decisions. At the government, at the investment, and at the management level. And by and large those people have made decisions which see engineering talent here as a resource that they have to push the cost down on even if it means losing domestic talent to the US. Part of this is accomplished by importing talent from abroad or exporting the work abroad, or underpaying when they can get away with it. It's not a surprise that locally developed talent leaves after graduation, when the industry is actively recruiting from abroad. And part of this is relying on the percentage of talent hat simply will not or cannot consider moving abroad (people like myself).