3 ms·

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The parent says that tech industry workers are "deluded" because they think of themselves as pa

by toehead2000 12y ago

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The parent says that tech industry workers are "deluded" because they think of themselves as part of the "ownership class" rather than the "working class," thus allowing the "fruits of their labor" to be "stolen," so clearly he's talking about the behavior of individuals, albeit en masse. Because they're deluded, they're acting irrationally. All I'm saying that given the job fluidity within the tech industry as a whole, it is unlikely that individuals are going to allow themselves to be compensated at rates very much less than the value they provide. Having the government force employers and employees to account for their work on an hourly basis, so that their labor is not "stolen," is a restriction on their respective individual freedom. So the other side to the parents argument is that maybe the tech industry as a whole is not deluded, maybe it just wants this freedom.

incision 12y ago
>'All I'm saying that given the job fluidity within the tech industry as a whole, it is unlikely that individuals are going to allow themselves to be compensated at rates very much less than the value they provide.' The industry is not necessarily fluid [1] and more importantly any intra-industry fluidity there might be is irrelevant in the context of an entire industry demonstrating the issue you mean to avoid. >'So the other side to the parents argument is that maybe the tech industry as a whole is not deluded, maybe it just wants this freedom.' I'd hardly call that 'the other side'. A possibility, sure and if you personally feel that way, fine. To suggest that the industry as a whole would or does consciously trade an considerable amount of pay for that 'freedom' is absurd. Also, please stop selectively quoting the grandparent (neatly avoiding the predicating 'partially' of course) in these responses as if you didn't just sum up and summarily dismiss an entire side of this discussion with 'go find another job' in the intervening posts. 1: http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-... - Note: 1M people is a enormous number in relation to an industry the BLS sizes at ~4M, plenty large enough to be worth considering as capable of characterizing an entire industry.

incision 12y ago

>'All I'm saying that given the job fluidity within the tech industry as a whole, it is unlikely that individuals are going to allow themselves to be compensated at rates very much less than the value they provide.' The industry is not necessarily fluid [1] and more importantly any intra-industry fluidity there might be is irrelevant in the context of an entire industry demonstrating the issue you mean to avoid. >'So the other side to the parents argument is that maybe the tech industry as a whole is not deluded, maybe it just wants this freedom.' I'd hardly call that 'the other side'. A possibility, sure and if you personally feel that way, fine. To suggest that the industry as a whole would or does consciously trade an considerable amount of pay for that 'freedom' is absurd. Also, please stop selectively quoting the grandparent (neatly avoiding the predicating 'partially' of course) in these responses as if you didn't just sum up and summarily dismiss an entire side of this discussion with 'go find another job' in the intervening posts. 1: http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-... - Note: 1M people is a enormous number in relation to an industry the BLS sizes at ~4M, plenty large enough to be worth considering as capable of characterizing an entire industry.