12 ms·

And furthermore, it's how it compares to the profits of the company. If an engineer is returning $500,000k annually in profit to a company from their work, and

And furthermore, it's how it compares to the profits of the company. If an engineer is returning $500,000k annually in profit to a company from their work, and getting paid $75k of that, they are being exploited. (Or at the very least are undervaluing their labor.)

bogwog 5y ago
That's an unnatural/weird way to look at it. If the engineer provides $500k value per year, and they get paid $500k per year, the company makes $0 profit. By that logic, the only way to not be underpaid is for the company to be in the red; but if that happens, there won't be a company to pay you! Plus, it's likely any other engineer could provide the same value. So (as always) it's about supply and demand. In this case, there are a lot of qualified engineers that want to work in games, and relatively few positions. Unions could affect that, but I think it'd do more harm than good at the high end (it would definitely help lower paid positions like QA though). Maybe if Epic wins their case against Apple, it'll unleash a tidal wave of anti-trust lawsuits against the likes of Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, etc. and the game industry will explode with new business opportunities, new investments, and new jobs to balance out the supply/demand curve for game developers at all levels! (...or not)
- _qwfv 5y ago
  It's not unnatural at all, or at least it's not any more unnatural than someone getting to keep a portion of your labor's profit just because they put the most money down when they started the company. A workers co-op, for instance, splits all the profits between all the employees in an arrangement that is basically "we collectively produced profit X we all get an equal share of that profit." While "unnatural" is the wrong word, imo, I think it's fair to say that it's "unfamiliar" to most folks and "uncommon" out in the world.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    There are no laws against worker co-ops. They are just a pretty inefficient way of running a business in that it's difficult if not impossible in most cases to raise sufficient capital. This is particularly true of software companies, where firms with 20 or 30 employees raise tens of millions of dollars. There is no conceivable way the employees would be able to put up that kind of money by themselves. It's why many existing co-ops such as Bob's Red Mill were founded, funded, and built by capitalists but later gifted to the employees once mature.
    - Pfhreak 5y ago
      Of course. I just bristle at the suggestion that they are "unnatural".
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    it's unnatural because that's not how a business builds. Even with profit sharing, you need to put a portion back into the business (not the CEO, not the worker, but into a metaphorical savings account). if you're giving 100% of labor back to the workers, there's no room for the company to grow and eventually everyone gets $0 when the company shutters. Even a mom and pop shop of 1 needs to operate on these parameters. Heck, even a personal checking account. You keep some money in reserve for a rainy day, and some in the deep reserves for retirement (401k). You very rarely get 100% of your money in liquid (regardless of if you feel underpaid or not), nor do many desire to.

bogwog 5y ago

That's an unnatural/weird way to look at it. If the engineer provides $500k value per year, and they get paid $500k per year, the company makes $0 profit. By that logic, the only way to not be underpaid is for the company to be in the red; but if that happens, there won't be a company to pay you! Plus, it's likely any other engineer could provide the same value. So (as always) it's about supply and demand. In this case, there are a lot of qualified engineers that want to work in games, and relatively few positions. Unions could affect that, but I think it'd do more harm than good at the high end (it would definitely help lower paid positions like QA though). Maybe if Epic wins their case against Apple, it'll unleash a tidal wave of anti-trust lawsuits against the likes of Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, etc. and the game industry will explode with new business opportunities, new investments, and new jobs to balance out the supply/demand curve for game developers at all levels! (...or not)

_qwfv 5y ago
It's not unnatural at all, or at least it's not any more unnatural than someone getting to keep a portion of your labor's profit just because they put the most money down when they started the company. A workers co-op, for instance, splits all the profits between all the employees in an arrangement that is basically "we collectively produced profit X we all get an equal share of that profit." While "unnatural" is the wrong word, imo, I think it's fair to say that it's "unfamiliar" to most folks and "uncommon" out in the world.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  There are no laws against worker co-ops. They are just a pretty inefficient way of running a business in that it's difficult if not impossible in most cases to raise sufficient capital. This is particularly true of software companies, where firms with 20 or 30 employees raise tens of millions of dollars. There is no conceivable way the employees would be able to put up that kind of money by themselves. It's why many existing co-ops such as Bob's Red Mill were founded, funded, and built by capitalists but later gifted to the employees once mature.
  - Pfhreak 5y ago
    Of course. I just bristle at the suggestion that they are "unnatural".
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  it's unnatural because that's not how a business builds. Even with profit sharing, you need to put a portion back into the business (not the CEO, not the worker, but into a metaphorical savings account). if you're giving 100% of labor back to the workers, there's no room for the company to grow and eventually everyone gets $0 when the company shutters. Even a mom and pop shop of 1 needs to operate on these parameters. Heck, even a personal checking account. You keep some money in reserve for a rainy day, and some in the deep reserves for retirement (401k). You very rarely get 100% of your money in liquid (regardless of if you feel underpaid or not), nor do many desire to.