4 ms·

Do unions decrease employment? I wasn't aware of that. As I said in a different comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21982787 https://news.ycombinator

Do unions decrease employment? I wasn't aware of that. As I said in a different comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21982787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21982787), I don't think it's 100% sure that games would become more expensive. But if they do, I think it's a tradeoff we have to make in a humane society.

usefulcat 7y ago
I didn't say that unions decrease employment. I did describe the mechanisms by which employment might be reduced due to increasing costs (regardless of the cause of the cost increases). In the referenced comment, you speak of "profit from abuse/exploitation", which presupposes that abuse or exploitation is occurring. Most game developers (programmers at least) have skills that are valuable in other kinds of SW development. If they wanted to, they could usually find work that didn't require so much overtime and in many cases would pay better as well. So if they choose to continue working on games, it's just that: a choice, not something that is being forced upon them. Given that, the implication that they are somehow being 'abused' sounds at best paternalistic.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  If our only consideration for every decision is whether or not if it will increase cost for employers, then we would still have child labor and slavery. I don't believe this is a hyperbolic statement. The specter of increased costs is used to justify opposing everything from higher minimum wages to the 40-hour workweek.
  - usefulcat 7y ago
    You're missing the point. The point is that the large majority of these developers are choosing this line of work, not being forced into it. Including the long hours and frequently lower than average pay. Any comparisons to slavery or child labor are an insult to all those who actually suffer(ed) under those conditions.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      You’re missing the point, which is that failing to act for fear of “increased costs” is a poor justification for being satisfied with a status quo. And just because people currently are satisfied with mistreatment doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of change. Whether if that change comes from unions, or from the companies themselves.
      - usefulcat 7y ago
        I misspoke; I should have said, "you're missing my point". I think we may be talking past each other a bit. > ..failing to act for fear of “increased costs” is a poor justification for being satisfied with a status quo. Saying this is about "increased costs" is a gross oversimplification of my position. Personally I don't care much about what the costs are for these companies; I'm more interested in what things will be affected by changing those costs. If SW dev talent is made more expensive for game companies (for whatever reason), then fewer SW devs will be employed there than would otherwise have been. Now this may or may not be a good thing, but it does seem like a very likely and unintended effect. > And just because people currently are satisfied with mistreatment doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of change. If they don't like it, the particular people in question are literally free to stop putting up with it at pretty much any time! We're talking about people with very marketable skills working in a relatively thriving industry. Here I'm speaking of all software, not just games, since most skills of SW devs working on games are useful in other kinds of SW as well. If more of them chose to not put up with such mistreatment, then game companies would be forced to increase compensation and/or improve the work environment in order to find people to work for them. That's a point I keep trying to make. It's easy to see that the status quo sucks; understanding why requires more consideration. There is a reason why these adverse conditions are more common in the games industry than in other areas of SW dev, and that reason is that there are a lot of people who want to work on games compared to other kinds of SW dev work. Having worked in games myself, I can think of a few reasons for this: * Games are fun to play (well, ideally). * There is a great variety of different kinds of technical problems that need to be solved in a typical game: graphics, sound, collision detection, network communication, performance, all manner of different kinds of custom development tools, to name just a few. Personally I always liked this aspect. * There is definitely a certain cachet to being able to tell people that you work on games, and even more so if it's a game they know of. I know it may sound a bit far fetched, but don't underestimate this one. If unionization were to achieve the goals of better working conditions and/or higher pay, then one would expect demand for gamedev jobs to increase further, but certainly not to decrease. Now perhaps you would argue that regardless of all the above, game developers shouldn't have to put up with those adverse conditions, that they should get to work in their field of choice without having to work long hours for relatively lower pay. I totally agree that that is a very fine goal. I simply ask you to consider that 1) unionization does not address the underlying cause, namely the surplus demand for gamedev jobs and 2) trying to force these changes via unionization will have unintended consequences, namely fewer jobs. The benefits (better working conditions) are obvious but the costs are much more diffuse and much less obvious. In short, the best way to refute my concerns about the unintended consequence of lower SW dev employment in a post-unionization game industry would be to show that either a) it won't happen or b) the benefits for those who have a job outweigh the loss of jobs that would have existed but don't. Personally I think a is very unlikely to be true, so I think it's really down to b: is it better or worse (and for whom) to have fewer, better jobs?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

usefulcat 7y ago

I didn't say that unions decrease employment. I did describe the mechanisms by which employment might be reduced due to increasing costs (regardless of the cause of the cost increases). In the referenced comment, you speak of "profit from abuse/exploitation", which presupposes that abuse or exploitation is occurring. Most game developers (programmers at least) have skills that are valuable in other kinds of SW development. If they wanted to, they could usually find work that didn't require so much overtime and in many cases would pay better as well. So if they choose to continue working on games, it's just that: a choice, not something that is being forced upon them. Given that, the implication that they are somehow being 'abused' sounds at best paternalistic.

Apocryphon 7y ago
If our only consideration for every decision is whether or not if it will increase cost for employers, then we would still have child labor and slavery. I don't believe this is a hyperbolic statement. The specter of increased costs is used to justify opposing everything from higher minimum wages to the 40-hour workweek.
- usefulcat 7y ago
  You're missing the point. The point is that the large majority of these developers are choosing this line of work, not being forced into it. Including the long hours and frequently lower than average pay. Any comparisons to slavery or child labor are an insult to all those who actually suffer(ed) under those conditions.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    You’re missing the point, which is that failing to act for fear of “increased costs” is a poor justification for being satisfied with a status quo. And just because people currently are satisfied with mistreatment doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of change. Whether if that change comes from unions, or from the companies themselves.
    - usefulcat 7y ago
      I misspoke; I should have said, "you're missing my point". I think we may be talking past each other a bit. > ..failing to act for fear of “increased costs” is a poor justification for being satisfied with a status quo. Saying this is about "increased costs" is a gross oversimplification of my position. Personally I don't care much about what the costs are for these companies; I'm more interested in what things will be affected by changing those costs. If SW dev talent is made more expensive for game companies (for whatever reason), then fewer SW devs will be employed there than would otherwise have been. Now this may or may not be a good thing, but it does seem like a very likely and unintended effect. > And just because people currently are satisfied with mistreatment doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of change. If they don't like it, the particular people in question are literally free to stop putting up with it at pretty much any time! We're talking about people with very marketable skills working in a relatively thriving industry. Here I'm speaking of all software, not just games, since most skills of SW devs working on games are useful in other kinds of SW as well. If more of them chose to not put up with such mistreatment, then game companies would be forced to increase compensation and/or improve the work environment in order to find people to work for them. That's a point I keep trying to make. It's easy to see that the status quo sucks; understanding why requires more consideration. There is a reason why these adverse conditions are more common in the games industry than in other areas of SW dev, and that reason is that there are a lot of people who want to work on games compared to other kinds of SW dev work. Having worked in games myself, I can think of a few reasons for this: * Games are fun to play (well, ideally). * There is a great variety of different kinds of technical problems that need to be solved in a typical game: graphics, sound, collision detection, network communication, performance, all manner of different kinds of custom development tools, to name just a few. Personally I always liked this aspect. * There is definitely a certain cachet to being able to tell people that you work on games, and even more so if it's a game they know of. I know it may sound a bit far fetched, but don't underestimate this one. If unionization were to achieve the goals of better working conditions and/or higher pay, then one would expect demand for gamedev jobs to increase further, but certainly not to decrease. Now perhaps you would argue that regardless of all the above, game developers shouldn't have to put up with those adverse conditions, that they should get to work in their field of choice without having to work long hours for relatively lower pay. I totally agree that that is a very fine goal. I simply ask you to consider that 1) unionization does not address the underlying cause, namely the surplus demand for gamedev jobs and 2) trying to force these changes via unionization will have unintended consequences, namely fewer jobs. The benefits (better working conditions) are obvious but the costs are much more diffuse and much less obvious. In short, the best way to refute my concerns about the unintended consequence of lower SW dev employment in a post-unionization game industry would be to show that either a) it won't happen or b) the benefits for those who have a job outweigh the loss of jobs that would have existed but don't. Personally I think a is very unlikely to be true, so I think it's really down to b: is it better or worse (and for whom) to have fewer, better jobs?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]