3 ms·

I see. You're arguing that some theoretical, immaculate, incorruptible organization that represents employees selflessly (with no regards to the negotiator's ow

by beagle3 11y ago

I see. You're arguing that some theoretical, immaculate, incorruptible organization that represents employees selflessly (with no regards to the negotiator's own status, for example) would be better than what we have now. Well, yes. But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. > Makes perfect sense. Unions negotiate lower salaries for everyone. sarcasm No, but they do negotiate higher salaries for people who can't find a better job, at the expense of lower salaries for the top earners. > There's no need to negotiate upper limits on pay. There also should be no need to end individual negotiations. If unions aren't currently structured in a way that benefits the employee then the structure of what we consider to be a union should be changed. Oh, but there is a need - the corporate's need, of course - which the corporate demands and enforces, and the union representatives usually agree one way or the other - often legally bribed. You imply that all the bargaining power is with the employees, and that is simply not the case. > IF unions aren't structured that way then they should be. The government shouldn't decide on some arbitrary hierarchy for a union that ends up not benefiting people. People acting together in organized groups generally don't want to fuck themselves over with stupid things like upper limits to salary and ending all individual negotiations with the employer. Try to reconcile this statement with all the things your government does that fuck you over, which surely yourself (and a large group, some of it well organized) does not want. When you've reconciled it, you might have some insight about why you are wrong, or about how to set the right kind of union/government -- if it's the latter, I'll vote for you. But the former is overwhelmingly more likely.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
> But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. So you agree, but you think this is an ideal not worth fighting for because the probability of success is way to low. I can't argue with that since that's an opinion. From my perspective though, we have a better chance making these "ideal" unions happen then we have of stopping the polar ice caps from completely melting. Higher pay is something we all want. And by "all" I mean the 99%. If 99% of people can't fight for something they want then we can't do anything.
- beagle3 11y ago
  No, I think it's an ideal in the style of "wouldn't it be nice if there was affordable healthcare / no crime (pick your pet peeve)". I mean, 99% of people want affordable healthcare / no crime, why can't we get to a state when there's affordable healthcare / no crime? (and the simple answer is the same: the existing power structure and enough pawns benefit from the existing situation as it is). I am saying that as someone living in a country with affordable care, btw - but the last 80 years of politics in the US indicate it will take a miracle or catastrophy for the US to do the right thing. I bet on the latter. I think that without another very significant shift in the status quo (one I can't really anticipate, and it seems neither do you), it CANNOT work. Take your idea ad absurdum - the world needs laptops - why don't all the [currently chinese] laptop manufacturers unionize and charge 5 times as much? I mean, we can definitely afford them, they provide most people with enough benefit to support that price. Exactly the same arguments apply, and similar reasons why it won't work. Programmers are not special snowflakes - they (we) are much closer to being a commodity. Also, I think you are delusional in thinking all programmers deliver >$300k of value (which is needed for a $200k salary, all things considered - don't forget payroll taxes, healthcare, and other expenses, as well as minimal profit). Some only deliver $50k in value, and are well paid at the $80k they earn.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >Also, I think you are delusional in thinking all programmers deliver >$300k of value (which is needed for a $200k salary, all things considered - don't forget payroll taxes, healthcare, and other expenses, as well as minimal profit). Some only deliver $50k in value, and are well paid at the $80k they earn. You're the one that's delusional. 50k? that's a loaded number. A more realistic number is at least half a million per head, and that's the LEAST. Many times it can be much MORE. Take the annual revenues of google and divide it by the number of their engineering employees, then come back to me. >but the last 80 years of politics in the US indicate it will take a miracle or catastrophy for the US to do the right thing. I bet on the latter. The probability is in the favor of the rich. There's no doubt about that. I disagree with you in thinking that the probability is so low that it's impossible. In the past decade I've seen entire industries go extinct, literally within a couple years. Taxis and television to name a few. If you asked me in the early 2000s whether TV would be around in 10 years I would've said definitely. Which one sounds more unrealistic to you? Bringing down the entire television empire or forming one goddamn union for one company that fits my ideal? If there's one thing that's unpredictable it's the movements of the mob. The status quo was and never is with the people at the top of the power structure. The power is with the 99%, and it's a thin line stopping us from acting on it. You from canada or something?

by beagle3 11y ago

crimsonalucard 11y ago

> But there's no such thing, and the likelihood of one forming is probably comparable to the same person being struck by lightning 20 times over 20 countries over 20 years. So you agree, but you think this is an ideal not worth fighting for because the probability of success is way to low. I can't argue with that since that's an opinion. From my perspective though, we have a better chance making these "ideal" unions happen then we have of stopping the polar ice caps from completely melting. Higher pay is something we all want. And by "all" I mean the 99%. If 99% of people can't fight for something they want then we can't do anything.

beagle3 11y ago
No, I think it's an ideal in the style of "wouldn't it be nice if there was affordable healthcare / no crime (pick your pet peeve)". I mean, 99% of people want affordable healthcare / no crime, why can't we get to a state when there's affordable healthcare / no crime? (and the simple answer is the same: the existing power structure and enough pawns benefit from the existing situation as it is). I am saying that as someone living in a country with affordable care, btw - but the last 80 years of politics in the US indicate it will take a miracle or catastrophy for the US to do the right thing. I bet on the latter. I think that without another very significant shift in the status quo (one I can't really anticipate, and it seems neither do you), it CANNOT work. Take your idea ad absurdum - the world needs laptops - why don't all the [currently chinese] laptop manufacturers unionize and charge 5 times as much? I mean, we can definitely afford them, they provide most people with enough benefit to support that price. Exactly the same arguments apply, and similar reasons why it won't work. Programmers are not special snowflakes - they (we) are much closer to being a commodity. Also, I think you are delusional in thinking all programmers deliver >$300k of value (which is needed for a $200k salary, all things considered - don't forget payroll taxes, healthcare, and other expenses, as well as minimal profit). Some only deliver $50k in value, and are well paid at the $80k they earn.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >Also, I think you are delusional in thinking all programmers deliver >$300k of value (which is needed for a $200k salary, all things considered - don't forget payroll taxes, healthcare, and other expenses, as well as minimal profit). Some only deliver $50k in value, and are well paid at the $80k they earn. You're the one that's delusional. 50k? that's a loaded number. A more realistic number is at least half a million per head, and that's the LEAST. Many times it can be much MORE. Take the annual revenues of google and divide it by the number of their engineering employees, then come back to me. >but the last 80 years of politics in the US indicate it will take a miracle or catastrophy for the US to do the right thing. I bet on the latter. The probability is in the favor of the rich. There's no doubt about that. I disagree with you in thinking that the probability is so low that it's impossible. In the past decade I've seen entire industries go extinct, literally within a couple years. Taxis and television to name a few. If you asked me in the early 2000s whether TV would be around in 10 years I would've said definitely. Which one sounds more unrealistic to you? Bringing down the entire television empire or forming one goddamn union for one company that fits my ideal? If there's one thing that's unpredictable it's the movements of the mob. The status quo was and never is with the people at the top of the power structure. The power is with the 99%, and it's a thin line stopping us from acting on it. You from canada or something?