4 ms·

I disagree with your definition of "market rate", but let's suppose you're right: Do you not see it as a problem that Google alone decides the cost of entry to

I disagree with your definition of "market rate", but let's suppose you're right: Do you not see it as a problem that Google alone decides the cost of entry to an entire market?

FartyMcFarter 6y ago
Why do you think that Google alone can afford to hire software engineers? edit - I see how my post was misleading. I should have said X is a "lower bound" for the market rate.
- benrbray 6y ago
  Do you mean upper bound?
whatshisface 6y ago
Google isn't the only well-paying software company. If they were, they wouldn't throw money away by paying so much in the absence of competition. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping you from paying $100,000/hour and beating Google if you wanted to. If your business can't make good enough use of programmers to justify paying more than Google, then maybe their talents would be best allocated where they would be most valuable.
msla 6y ago
> Do you not see it as a problem that Google alone decides the cost of entry to an entire market? This puts Google in the position of being a monopsony for the labor of programmers; that is, they're the only or primary buyer of that commodity. Part of antitrust laws is preventing that, so, yes, there is a problem if a monopsony arises, but Google isn't in that position anyway because jobs aren't completely interchangeable the same way programmers aren't completely interchangeable. For example, companies can compete on the basis of not being Google, which attracts some people. Companies can compete on the basis of being based in some other geographic location, or having other things to work on, or having a different mix of salary and benefits. Google offering the highest salary doesn't mean they automatically get everyone. It means they get people who want the highest salary to do what Google's interested in as opposed to wanting to work on some kinds of technology Google isn't pursuing.

I disagree with your definition of "market rate", but let's suppose you're right: Do you not see it as a problem that Google alone decides the cost of entry to an entire market?

FartyMcFarter 6y ago

Why do you think that Google alone can afford to hire software engineers? edit - I see how my post was misleading. I should have said X is a "lower bound" for the market rate.

benrbray 6y ago
Do you mean upper bound?

whatshisface 6y ago

Google isn't the only well-paying software company. If they were, they wouldn't throw money away by paying so much in the absence of competition. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping you from paying $100,000/hour and beating Google if you wanted to. If your business can't make good enough use of programmers to justify paying more than Google, then maybe their talents would be best allocated where they would be most valuable.

msla 6y ago

> Do you not see it as a problem that Google alone decides the cost of entry to an entire market? This puts Google in the position of being a monopsony for the labor of programmers; that is, they're the only or primary buyer of that commodity. Part of antitrust laws is preventing that, so, yes, there is a problem if a monopsony arises, but Google isn't in that position anyway because jobs aren't completely interchangeable the same way programmers aren't completely interchangeable. For example, companies can compete on the basis of not being Google, which attracts some people. Companies can compete on the basis of being based in some other geographic location, or having other things to work on, or having a different mix of salary and benefits. Google offering the highest salary doesn't mean they automatically get everyone. It means they get people who want the highest salary to do what Google's interested in as opposed to wanting to work on some kinds of technology Google isn't pursuing.