4 ms·

I’m confused - are we underpaid? If people from all those other industries are scrambling to break into tech because it’s so lucrative, what is it you or I are

I’m confused - are we underpaid? If people from all those other industries are scrambling to break into tech because it’s so lucrative, what is it you or I are bringing to the table that they couldn’t?

cumshitpiss 4y ago
You're underpaid by definition if the company reports a revenue >0. If your labor was compensated for the actual value it produced, no company could turn a profit. Thats the fundamental problem of capitalism
- bluGill 4y ago
  You fail to appreciate the value provided by capital. The work I do today will earn my company zero this year, since the code won't be released to production yet. (in embedded we don't have the luxury of releasing on each push). Capital provides the pay I need to work today and will recover it over the next few years.
  - cumshitpiss 4y ago
    sure, but thats not revenue and doesnt contradict what i wrote above. The revenue of year 2 replaces the investment of year 1, everything beyond is unbounded profit. Whether capital investment earns the right to sole access of those profits is the question. You can see before your eyes what happens when the answer to that question is "Yes".
Clubber 4y ago
I dunno, but I would guess tech ability. >I’m confused - are we underpaid? Most certainly yes. If nothing else, just by nature of corporations setting "market rates," or at least defining the position and what they are willing to pay. Another example, that famous productivity pay gap chart? Most of that is through automation done by computerization. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
- mattcwilson 4y ago
  If you set a house for sale at the “market rate,” are you getting less than you’re supposed to?
  - Clubber 4y ago
    Define the market rate, that's the trick. If I define the market rate and I'm the only one to do that, I say your $200K house is really only $180K, then that's what payers will be willing to pay assuming a not-fire market. Right now, it's a seller's housing market, it's also a seller's market in tech. One market has sky-high prices, one does not.
    - mattcwilson 4y ago
      But isn’t that idea - the level at which both sides agree the transaction is “worthwhile” / the arrangement is “worth keeping” the definition of “market rate?” Price is what the market will bear, all that? In your example, I have two options. I take your “lowball,” grumble about it, etc - but I also establish that evidently my house is worth $180K. Or, I sit back and wait, grumble about it, etc, and see if in fact my house is worth $200K after all. And then that gives you two options; both involve grumbling, one involves establishing a “market rate”
      - Clubber 4y ago
        There's all kinda of things in the labor market to pressure lower prices than the housing market. For example, H1B visas, offshoring, etc. Also, if people don't work, they starve, so there is an incentive to take a job whether it's a good one that pays what they need or not. This also doesn't exist in a housing market. Comparing the labor market to the housing market only works if you squint and don't compare it too long.
        mattcwilson 4y ago
        I acknowledge that analogies fail at a certain remove. I wasn’t particularly trying to make a comparison to the housing market, it was just the example that sprang to mind. Any market should operate similarly, no? Buyers and sellers negotiating over what they consider acceptable terms of exchange? Regarding the “things... [which] pressure lower prices,” how do you account for the record high pay in the US tech sector [1], or pay increases being greater than the overall US average over the past several years [2]? I suppose I’m just wondering how much of this is real examples of corporate malfeasance / runaway capitalism / extortionate price extraction and how much of it is standard side-effects of the way markets operate. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/tech-salaries-just-hit-record-highs-but-nearly-half-of-workers-still-feel-underpaid/ https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/tech-salaries-just-... [2] https://www.hrdive.com/news/high-performing-tech-workers-see-pay-increases-while-average-wages-stagnate/573936/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/high-performing-tech-workers-see...
bluGill 4y ago
You can be both underpaid and paid far more than most people. Different jobs have different values, and so someone in a correctly paid job can still make more money by switching to an underpaid position that has far more value. Of course in reality pay is about to supply and demand, not value. Thus underpaid just means you haven't found it worth your while to switch to a job that pays better. There might be good reasons for this.
- mattcwilson 4y ago
  If I’m satisfied enough with the money I’m getting for the position I’m working that I’m not looking to leave, how is that not just “paid?” Flipping it around, if the company isn’t ready to fire me for underperforming, does that make underworked?

cumshitpiss 4y ago

You're underpaid by definition if the company reports a revenue >0. If your labor was compensated for the actual value it produced, no company could turn a profit. Thats the fundamental problem of capitalism

bluGill 4y ago
You fail to appreciate the value provided by capital. The work I do today will earn my company zero this year, since the code won't be released to production yet. (in embedded we don't have the luxury of releasing on each push). Capital provides the pay I need to work today and will recover it over the next few years.
- cumshitpiss 4y ago
  sure, but thats not revenue and doesnt contradict what i wrote above. The revenue of year 2 replaces the investment of year 1, everything beyond is unbounded profit. Whether capital investment earns the right to sole access of those profits is the question. You can see before your eyes what happens when the answer to that question is "Yes".

Clubber 4y ago

I dunno, but I would guess tech ability. >I’m confused - are we underpaid? Most certainly yes. If nothing else, just by nature of corporations setting "market rates," or at least defining the position and what they are willing to pay. Another example, that famous productivity pay gap chart? Most of that is through automation done by computerization. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

mattcwilson 4y ago
If you set a house for sale at the “market rate,” are you getting less than you’re supposed to?
- Clubber 4y ago
  Define the market rate, that's the trick. If I define the market rate and I'm the only one to do that, I say your $200K house is really only $180K, then that's what payers will be willing to pay assuming a not-fire market. Right now, it's a seller's housing market, it's also a seller's market in tech. One market has sky-high prices, one does not.
  - mattcwilson 4y ago
    But isn’t that idea - the level at which both sides agree the transaction is “worthwhile” / the arrangement is “worth keeping” the definition of “market rate?” Price is what the market will bear, all that? In your example, I have two options. I take your “lowball,” grumble about it, etc - but I also establish that evidently my house is worth $180K. Or, I sit back and wait, grumble about it, etc, and see if in fact my house is worth $200K after all. And then that gives you two options; both involve grumbling, one involves establishing a “market rate”
    - Clubber 4y ago
      There's all kinda of things in the labor market to pressure lower prices than the housing market. For example, H1B visas, offshoring, etc. Also, if people don't work, they starve, so there is an incentive to take a job whether it's a good one that pays what they need or not. This also doesn't exist in a housing market. Comparing the labor market to the housing market only works if you squint and don't compare it too long.
      - mattcwilson 4y ago
        I acknowledge that analogies fail at a certain remove. I wasn’t particularly trying to make a comparison to the housing market, it was just the example that sprang to mind. Any market should operate similarly, no? Buyers and sellers negotiating over what they consider acceptable terms of exchange? Regarding the “things... [which] pressure lower prices,” how do you account for the record high pay in the US tech sector [1], or pay increases being greater than the overall US average over the past several years [2]? I suppose I’m just wondering how much of this is real examples of corporate malfeasance / runaway capitalism / extortionate price extraction and how much of it is standard side-effects of the way markets operate. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/tech-salaries-just-hit-record-highs-but-nearly-half-of-workers-still-feel-underpaid/ https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/tech-salaries-just-... [2] https://www.hrdive.com/news/high-performing-tech-workers-see-pay-increases-while-average-wages-stagnate/573936/ https://www.hrdive.com/news/high-performing-tech-workers-see...

bluGill 4y ago

You can be both underpaid and paid far more than most people. Different jobs have different values, and so someone in a correctly paid job can still make more money by switching to an underpaid position that has far more value. Of course in reality pay is about to supply and demand, not value. Thus underpaid just means you haven't found it worth your while to switch to a job that pays better. There might be good reasons for this.

mattcwilson 4y ago
If I’m satisfied enough with the money I’m getting for the position I’m working that I’m not looking to leave, how is that not just “paid?” Flipping it around, if the company isn’t ready to fire me for underperforming, does that make underworked?