4 ms·

Why is that fair? They don't have the same education (in general), they aren't doing the same job, they don't contribute the same value, etc etc etc.

calibraxis 11y ago
One dev (who I gave a plum job to) used exactly those arguments. When trying to dissuade me from helping marginalized coworkers with thieving bosses. I shrugged, and decided to stop helping his sociopathic entitled white male self. (And got him to occasionally help people nobler than him, as I had sufficient power to do so.)
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > his sociopathic entitled white male self You're a bigot. You're a sexist and a racist. Flagged.
danbruc 11y ago
Why should a developer working 40 hours a week earn more than say someone cleaning toilets 40 hours a week? Both are investing 40 hours of their time, both add value worth 40 hours of work. Actually cleaning toilets seems a way less pleasant job and should be paid better. On the other hand the developer spend more time in education not getting paid and has to recapture this investment. They would probably not end up with the exact same wages but I see no justification for enormous differences. The supply and demand situation is of course very different allowing developers to ask for high wages and on the other hand allows forcing the toilet cleaner to work for a low wage but this does by no means make this fair.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Because one skill takes vastly more investment to perform and it also is able to be performed by far fewer individuals (meaning competition for those that do exist).
  - danbruc 11y ago
    As I said it is of course totally okay to get back the investment you made with your longer education. But the difference over the lifetime between being a developer and a toilet cleaner is way larger than that. Your second points is just exploiting the supply and demand situation - you can ask for a higher wage if your skill is rare but it does not mean you deserve it.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Why do you deserve to get back the investment made on the education? Is 'deserving' an oracle, where you stick in some action and it arbitrarily assigns the conclusion of 'does' or 'doesn't'?
      - danbruc 11y ago
        Let's ignore supply and demand for the moment. What would be a fair wage? I argue it would be fair to get paid as much as you invest, an hour of work is an hour of work, in first approximation no matter what you do. Pretending to work obviously doesn't count, you really have to work as good as you can. If you do a hard job, say risking your health in a mine, you should get paid better because of that. There should also be some gradient to account for skill and experience compared with others doing the same or similar work. And if you spend several years at university to obtain the skills required for the job this is an upfront investment that has to be paid back by the wage or their might be a lack of incentives to go down this road. In essence it really boils down to you invest an hour of your lifetime - working or upfront to get prepared for the job - and you get paid for that hour, what exactly you do does not matter much modulo some adjustments for especially risky or unpleasant jobs.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        That is like saying that the gold watch should cost the same as the gold plated watch, which shouldn't depend upon the supply and demand of the materials it is made out of. Also, considering most digital goods can be copied in mere seconds, it would appear that they should be priced at $0.01. As for food, beef that is 30% fat should cost just as much as beef that is 3% fat. And heaven forbid we apply this to relationships. If you are looking for a one night stand and spend the required hours, then you must get a one night stand. The supply and demand of your particular looks/social skills aren't factored in, only the time you invested.
- johnbabboozle 11y ago
  I think it's brilliantly fair. You get what you can negotiate for. Seems like a perfect way to do things to me.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    You are exploiting the supply and demand situation but how does that imply you deserve it? What makes your 40 hours more valuable than someone others 40 hours besides the difference in demand? Shouldn't someone doing unpleasant or dangerous work get paid better than someone sitting in an air-conditioned office independent of the required skills and supply and demand situation?
    - johnbabboozle 11y ago
      No I don't believe in any of that. I believe the only way to determine what someone should be paid is to keep offering money until someone you think is good enough takes the job, or it until it stops being worth offering the job at that level. Anything else is artificial and causes more pain than good. And that's despite it being nobody's business how much I get paid or how much my company choses to pay me.
      - danbruc 11y ago
        Until someone takes the job or it isn't worth it - that's entirely supply and demand based. I neither argue that this is something that doesn't work nor do I think I can suggest a better alternative. I just argue that this is not fair from a moral point of view because I see no good reasons that investing an hour of your lifetime cleaning toilets is any less valuable than investing an hour of your lifetime developing software.

calibraxis 11y ago

One dev (who I gave a plum job to) used exactly those arguments. When trying to dissuade me from helping marginalized coworkers with thieving bosses. I shrugged, and decided to stop helping his sociopathic entitled white male self. (And got him to occasionally help people nobler than him, as I had sufficient power to do so.)

cbd1984 11y ago
> his sociopathic entitled white male self You're a bigot. You're a sexist and a racist. Flagged.

danbruc 11y ago

Why should a developer working 40 hours a week earn more than say someone cleaning toilets 40 hours a week? Both are investing 40 hours of their time, both add value worth 40 hours of work. Actually cleaning toilets seems a way less pleasant job and should be paid better. On the other hand the developer spend more time in education not getting paid and has to recapture this investment. They would probably not end up with the exact same wages but I see no justification for enormous differences. The supply and demand situation is of course very different allowing developers to ask for high wages and on the other hand allows forcing the toilet cleaner to work for a low wage but this does by no means make this fair.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Because one skill takes vastly more investment to perform and it also is able to be performed by far fewer individuals (meaning competition for those that do exist).
- danbruc 11y ago
  As I said it is of course totally okay to get back the investment you made with your longer education. But the difference over the lifetime between being a developer and a toilet cleaner is way larger than that. Your second points is just exploiting the supply and demand situation - you can ask for a higher wage if your skill is rare but it does not mean you deserve it.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Why do you deserve to get back the investment made on the education? Is 'deserving' an oracle, where you stick in some action and it arbitrarily assigns the conclusion of 'does' or 'doesn't'?
    - danbruc 11y ago
      Let's ignore supply and demand for the moment. What would be a fair wage? I argue it would be fair to get paid as much as you invest, an hour of work is an hour of work, in first approximation no matter what you do. Pretending to work obviously doesn't count, you really have to work as good as you can. If you do a hard job, say risking your health in a mine, you should get paid better because of that. There should also be some gradient to account for skill and experience compared with others doing the same or similar work. And if you spend several years at university to obtain the skills required for the job this is an upfront investment that has to be paid back by the wage or their might be a lack of incentives to go down this road. In essence it really boils down to you invest an hour of your lifetime - working or upfront to get prepared for the job - and you get paid for that hour, what exactly you do does not matter much modulo some adjustments for especially risky or unpleasant jobs.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        That is like saying that the gold watch should cost the same as the gold plated watch, which shouldn't depend upon the supply and demand of the materials it is made out of. Also, considering most digital goods can be copied in mere seconds, it would appear that they should be priced at $0.01. As for food, beef that is 30% fat should cost just as much as beef that is 3% fat. And heaven forbid we apply this to relationships. If you are looking for a one night stand and spend the required hours, then you must get a one night stand. The supply and demand of your particular looks/social skills aren't factored in, only the time you invested.
johnbabboozle 11y ago
I think it's brilliantly fair. You get what you can negotiate for. Seems like a perfect way to do things to me.
- danbruc 11y ago
  You are exploiting the supply and demand situation but how does that imply you deserve it? What makes your 40 hours more valuable than someone others 40 hours besides the difference in demand? Shouldn't someone doing unpleasant or dangerous work get paid better than someone sitting in an air-conditioned office independent of the required skills and supply and demand situation?
  - johnbabboozle 11y ago
    No I don't believe in any of that. I believe the only way to determine what someone should be paid is to keep offering money until someone you think is good enough takes the job, or it until it stops being worth offering the job at that level. Anything else is artificial and causes more pain than good. And that's despite it being nobody's business how much I get paid or how much my company choses to pay me.
    - danbruc 11y ago
      Until someone takes the job or it isn't worth it - that's entirely supply and demand based. I neither argue that this is something that doesn't work nor do I think I can suggest a better alternative. I just argue that this is not fair from a moral point of view because I see no good reasons that investing an hour of your lifetime cleaning toilets is any less valuable than investing an hour of your lifetime developing software.