4 ms·

As respectfully as possible: what on earth are you even arguing at this point? You claimed that Hollywood superstars "don't need unions" -- I pointed out that t

by clipsy 4y ago

As respectfully as possible: what on earth are you even arguing at this point? You claimed that Hollywood superstars "don't need unions" -- I pointed out that the superstars seem to feel they do, and that prior to unionization they were oft exploited. What does their compensation relative to a handful of tech entrepreneurs have to do with that?

roenxi 4y ago
I work because I want to make money. My argument broadly is that we should adopt policies that maximise compensation for people who work to make money. Specifically, we should resist unions in the software industry because they are likely to have a net-negative impact on compensation. I expect my job would end up in Vietnam eventually, for example, and in the short term expect that wages would stagnate compared to an alternative strategy that doesn't involve unions. Hollywood's practices have expressly failed to maximise the amount of money they earn - at all levels they earn less than people who went in to non-union fields. It does not follow that we need to copy their practices. Indeed, this is superficial evidence that their labour practices are failing. What law of gods or man exists to say that actors should be paid less than a Red Hat software engineer? They get paid badly because of how their industry is designed, unions and all. Now I am happy to be on the record saying that the unions aren't the biggest problem that actors face - mainly their problem is that entertainment is a low value add industry and a lot of people are willing to starve if it gets them on a big screen. But the core problem is that small companies in the entertainment world can't make a good profit and can't afford to pay their employees much. The unions ain't helping with that problem, the unions are exacerbating it. I've avoided the whole industry because it looked like a hotbed of people who were going to stay poor and I don't want the industry that I'm in to start copying their failed ideas at how to align management and labour to make money.
- clipsy 4y ago
  > Hollywood's practices have expressly failed to maximise the amount of money they earn - at all levels they earn less than people who went in to non-union fields. It does not follow that we need to copy their practices. Indeed, this is superficial evidence that their labour practices are failing. What law of gods or man exists to say that actors should be paid less than a Red Hat software engineer? They get paid badly because of how their industry is designed, unions and all. You keep conveniently ignoring the simple fact that actors were worse off prior to unionization. No amount of rambling is going to change that; unionization improved their wages. I will not be responding further because it's increasingly obvious that you are not willing to actually entertain fact-based apples-to-apples comparisons and, frankly, you seem unable to differentiate your beliefs from facts.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    I dunno, how much of a change do you think it caused? How much does the typical actor make? I going out on a limb assuming it isn't better than the average wage. These aren't people who are savvy with monetary decisions. They're the sort of people who try to unionise to make more money and then end up living off breadcrumbs and thin soup based on the people I know from showbiz. When it comes to high wages they've done pretty much everything else wrong before joining a union, and then they unionise to continue that trend. I want to optimise my financial outcomes; a good start is copying success stories (which, again, mainly involve being flexible and responding quickly to changing circumstances) rather than trying to learn from famously-struggling actors. The evidence here is that the job you do (software vs. actor) has a bigger influence on your pay than union-vs-non-union. The unions are allowing actors to stay in jobs where companies believe they are adding no value. We're better off in the world of software with our systems that promote people quickly moving to jobs where people think we are adding high value. We'd literally all be better off if the free market were left to reign, kick them out and have the actors out to move into jobs where they are making a valued contribution. That is what happens in the software industry and all the software engineers I've met are making bank. Maybe some would have to move industries to something more useful than acting - seems likely, seems miserable and seems like they'd end up looking back and saying things like "yeah it sucked but I ended up making a lot more money and retiring comfortable because I learned a trade".
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Are you a Marxist?

by clipsy 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

I work because I want to make money. My argument broadly is that we should adopt policies that maximise compensation for people who work to make money. Specifically, we should resist unions in the software industry because they are likely to have a net-negative impact on compensation. I expect my job would end up in Vietnam eventually, for example, and in the short term expect that wages would stagnate compared to an alternative strategy that doesn't involve unions. Hollywood's practices have expressly failed to maximise the amount of money they earn - at all levels they earn less than people who went in to non-union fields. It does not follow that we need to copy their practices. Indeed, this is superficial evidence that their labour practices are failing. What law of gods or man exists to say that actors should be paid less than a Red Hat software engineer? They get paid badly because of how their industry is designed, unions and all. Now I am happy to be on the record saying that the unions aren't the biggest problem that actors face - mainly their problem is that entertainment is a low value add industry and a lot of people are willing to starve if it gets them on a big screen. But the core problem is that small companies in the entertainment world can't make a good profit and can't afford to pay their employees much. The unions ain't helping with that problem, the unions are exacerbating it. I've avoided the whole industry because it looked like a hotbed of people who were going to stay poor and I don't want the industry that I'm in to start copying their failed ideas at how to align management and labour to make money.

clipsy 4y ago
> Hollywood's practices have expressly failed to maximise the amount of money they earn - at all levels they earn less than people who went in to non-union fields. It does not follow that we need to copy their practices. Indeed, this is superficial evidence that their labour practices are failing. What law of gods or man exists to say that actors should be paid less than a Red Hat software engineer? They get paid badly because of how their industry is designed, unions and all. You keep conveniently ignoring the simple fact that actors were worse off prior to unionization. No amount of rambling is going to change that; unionization improved their wages. I will not be responding further because it's increasingly obvious that you are not willing to actually entertain fact-based apples-to-apples comparisons and, frankly, you seem unable to differentiate your beliefs from facts.
- roenxi 4y ago
  I dunno, how much of a change do you think it caused? How much does the typical actor make? I going out on a limb assuming it isn't better than the average wage. These aren't people who are savvy with monetary decisions. They're the sort of people who try to unionise to make more money and then end up living off breadcrumbs and thin soup based on the people I know from showbiz. When it comes to high wages they've done pretty much everything else wrong before joining a union, and then they unionise to continue that trend. I want to optimise my financial outcomes; a good start is copying success stories (which, again, mainly involve being flexible and responding quickly to changing circumstances) rather than trying to learn from famously-struggling actors. The evidence here is that the job you do (software vs. actor) has a bigger influence on your pay than union-vs-non-union. The unions are allowing actors to stay in jobs where companies believe they are adding no value. We're better off in the world of software with our systems that promote people quickly moving to jobs where people think we are adding high value. We'd literally all be better off if the free market were left to reign, kick them out and have the actors out to move into jobs where they are making a valued contribution. That is what happens in the software industry and all the software engineers I've met are making bank. Maybe some would have to move industries to something more useful than acting - seems likely, seems miserable and seems like they'd end up looking back and saying things like "yeah it sucked but I ended up making a lot more money and retiring comfortable because I learned a trade".
skinnymuch 4y ago
Are you a Marxist?