4 ms·

If unions are the best way to improve compensation why do un-unionized FAANG employees get paid so much more than unionized developers in Europe?

est31 8y ago
I've said that they are good means, not the best means. And I guess the reason why they are paid so little is the higher profit margins of FAANG companies as well as probably the alternative in SV that you can found a startup and make much much more if you're good (and lucky).
fwip 8y ago
Because they're in Europe.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fucking_tragedy 8y ago
You're replying in a thread about how those very same FAANG companies colluded to keep engineer compensation artificially low.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Yeah but even at that point faang (or well at that point apple, Ms, google, Netflix didn't exist and Facebook broke the cartel) compensation was significantly more than people in Europe were making.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    And with anti-collusion labor protections, engineers stood to make even more. In the US, union workers make between 10% to 30% more than their non-union peers[1]. You're comparing pay across two different economies and only looking at unionization as a variable. It's like wondering why engineer rates in Omaha, Nebraska aren't on par with those in New York, and concluding that it has something to do with differing fire codes. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      > And with anti-collusion labor protections, engineers stood to make even more. Correct, but these protections exist (and existed at the time) independent from a union. > In the US, union workers make between 10% to 30% more than their non-union peers There's very few high-skill jobs which are commonly unionized. In a market where supply is greater than demand, then yes unions have absolutely shown to improve worker outcomes[1]. I'm not aware of any evidence for markets where demand outstrips supply (like that for skilled software engineers). It's not immediately clear that union protections would be beneficial. >You're comparing pay across two different economies and only looking at unionization as a variable. No, I'm simply pointing out that your flippant response to esoterica doesn't actually address the question. If unions are better for workers, why is it that a non-union area !!with a cartel depressing wages!! was still substantially better for workers than a unioned area with no such issue? Saying "oh the market is different" ignores the question of why the market is different. [1]: Indeed, that's kind of exactly what happened with this cartel. Facebook wanted to hire skilled engineers, and was willing to pay more, so broke the cartel. That kind of thing won't happen when workers are generally equivalent, but SWEs aren't.
      - labcomputer 8y ago
        > There's very few high-skill jobs which are commonly unionized. Sure there are. Doctors and actors, to name just a couple. In both cases the "union" actively works to create barriers to entry. The AMA colludes with medical schools to set artificially-low student body quotas. If you've ever wondered why teaching "XYZ for pre-meds" is such a miserable experience, this is why. You have to earn straight A's to get into med school because there are so many more qualified candidates than openings (but it's not clear to me how, say, art history or algebra-based physics makes you a better doctor). SAG (the screen actors guild) requires actors to have already performed in a SAG production a a condition of membership. And they also strictly limit the number of non-SAG performers on SAG productions. That chicken-and-egg problem was very intentional If you've ever taken a macro economics course, you know what effect these actions have on prices. > I'm not aware of any evidence for markets where demand outstrips supply (like that for skilled software engineers). It's not immediately clear that union protections would be beneficial. See above. Unions can create a market where demand outstrips supply. > If unions are better for workers, why is it that a non-union area !!with a cartel depressing wages!! was still substantially better for workers than a unioned area with no such issue? Saying "oh the market is different" ignores the question of why the market is different. So tell me why professional associations exist, then. Why do doctors form a union to increase wages, if as you say, they would be better off without it?
walshemj 8y ago
Different Culture and engineers have a lower social status in Europe in general

est31 8y ago

I've said that they are good means, not the best means. And I guess the reason why they are paid so little is the higher profit margins of FAANG companies as well as probably the alternative in SV that you can found a startup and make much much more if you're good (and lucky).

fwip 8y ago

Because they're in Europe.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fucking_tragedy 8y ago

You're replying in a thread about how those very same FAANG companies colluded to keep engineer compensation artificially low.

joshuamorton 8y ago
Yeah but even at that point faang (or well at that point apple, Ms, google, Netflix didn't exist and Facebook broke the cartel) compensation was significantly more than people in Europe were making.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  And with anti-collusion labor protections, engineers stood to make even more. In the US, union workers make between 10% to 30% more than their non-union peers[1]. You're comparing pay across two different economies and only looking at unionization as a variable. It's like wondering why engineer rates in Omaha, Nebraska aren't on par with those in New York, and concluding that it has something to do with differing fire codes. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    > And with anti-collusion labor protections, engineers stood to make even more. Correct, but these protections exist (and existed at the time) independent from a union. > In the US, union workers make between 10% to 30% more than their non-union peers There's very few high-skill jobs which are commonly unionized. In a market where supply is greater than demand, then yes unions have absolutely shown to improve worker outcomes[1]. I'm not aware of any evidence for markets where demand outstrips supply (like that for skilled software engineers). It's not immediately clear that union protections would be beneficial. >You're comparing pay across two different economies and only looking at unionization as a variable. No, I'm simply pointing out that your flippant response to esoterica doesn't actually address the question. If unions are better for workers, why is it that a non-union area !!with a cartel depressing wages!! was still substantially better for workers than a unioned area with no such issue? Saying "oh the market is different" ignores the question of why the market is different. [1]: Indeed, that's kind of exactly what happened with this cartel. Facebook wanted to hire skilled engineers, and was willing to pay more, so broke the cartel. That kind of thing won't happen when workers are generally equivalent, but SWEs aren't.
    - labcomputer 8y ago
      > There's very few high-skill jobs which are commonly unionized. Sure there are. Doctors and actors, to name just a couple. In both cases the "union" actively works to create barriers to entry. The AMA colludes with medical schools to set artificially-low student body quotas. If you've ever wondered why teaching "XYZ for pre-meds" is such a miserable experience, this is why. You have to earn straight A's to get into med school because there are so many more qualified candidates than openings (but it's not clear to me how, say, art history or algebra-based physics makes you a better doctor). SAG (the screen actors guild) requires actors to have already performed in a SAG production a a condition of membership. And they also strictly limit the number of non-SAG performers on SAG productions. That chicken-and-egg problem was very intentional If you've ever taken a macro economics course, you know what effect these actions have on prices. > I'm not aware of any evidence for markets where demand outstrips supply (like that for skilled software engineers). It's not immediately clear that union protections would be beneficial. See above. Unions can create a market where demand outstrips supply. > If unions are better for workers, why is it that a non-union area !!with a cartel depressing wages!! was still substantially better for workers than a unioned area with no such issue? Saying "oh the market is different" ignores the question of why the market is different. So tell me why professional associations exist, then. Why do doctors form a union to increase wages, if as you say, they would be better off without it?

walshemj 8y ago

Different Culture and engineers have a lower social status in Europe in general