This is the ultimate first world problem. How were you being robbed? Someone holding a gun against your head stealing all your time? Or did you agree to a salary and are now so upset you could have been paid more. These companies make billions. They could afford to give everyone a raise. Why would they if you accept a lower salary? Why would a company try to pay you as much as possible for your work. Get over yourself.
Illegally colluding. The only reason they hire people is to make money. If they think paying more for employees will raise salaries all round and cause them to loose profit, they won't do it. It was cost benefit analysis.
You're making ad hominem attacks. Yes comparatively it is ridiculous to portray this as a major issue, but just because other people are less-off doesn't mean you should let yourself get screwed over. It's also worth considering that is a discussion on a tech-oriented website, so here it is important.
And you're basically right, it was a cost-benefit analyses. And it was illegal to act upon it the way they did, which is the whole point.
Absolutely if your an "engineer" on 150k pa you are still just a worker you still will face issues at work OK maybe slightly slightly different ones to say a semiskilled car worker or a Navvy might face.
But those sort of jobs dont face a lot of the issues that come with professional ones - if your a docker you boss is not going to trick you out of your vested stock and cost you millions ala silver lake partners.
This is the free market. People choose what they think they are worth. If you don't think Google is paying you enough, quit. Deals with companies to avoid poaching have a cost themselves. This doesn't need more government interaction this needs people to value their work, to think.
I'm not sure why this is being down voted... because it disagrees with your view?
I don't agree with the statement but it does represent a possible solution - all companies involved in this should have their employees go on strike!
People think this idea is ridiculous because they've been told it is over and over and over again. Are unions really evil or are they ever more necessary to balance out the insane profits companies are making?
Just some questions worth thinking about before you arbitrarily down-vote someone...
It's being downvoted because it represents intellectually dishonest argument (missing the obvious problem with monopolies/cartels) while using "free-market" (the term with positive connotations for most people) to justify it.
It doesn't help that this argument is main talking point of neo-liberal propaganda which make a lot of people's blood boil so it's difficult to resist emotional downvote.
Thanks, just to clarify I'm against unions as they come with a large political power which I think is undeserved.
My statement merely aims to say that I don't think there is anything currently wrong. These companies make billions. They could easily afford to pay larger salaries. Why should they if people will work for less? Why isn't everyone's salary like Eric Schmidt?
To expand a bit on the thought of unions in the Software industry...
Step 0 would be to convince software engineers that other software engineers who don't perform up to the same level as them should be protected for the good of the working-class engineer, instead of kicked to the curb to make room for a more productive engineer.
A bit of a hard sell, as engineers tend to see themselves as co-owners of the solutions they create and hate to see their work fail to launch because they're saddled with bad coworkers.
paraphrasing a quote I can't remember or find by searching "you can avoid worrying about consequences but you can't avoid the affect of consequences." To your point, people can think whatever they want about how much they think they're worth - but it's the free market, with aggregated supply and demand that actually values the worth.
This is by definition not the free market. You need to go back to remedial free market school. I suggest one course of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (pay attention to Book 2, Chapter 2 especially) to start.
If the issue doesn't clear up within the week, please seek further guidance from a licensed professional.
Employees have to think of themselves as an asset with their employer aiming to minimize costs. Salaries are a negotiation with risk involved. It is a free market, with many competing companies aiming to reduce costs. Does a free market mean all companies can't communicate? The companies are still free to hire whoever they want. People are still free to work for whoever they want.
Thanks for the book suggestion, please feel free to quote more books without debating my comments.
> obviously these companies were not competiting hiring engineers...
... They are competing for engineers! Why would they make these agreements? To benefit the company. Benefit/cost analysis.
Illegally colluding. The only reason they hire people is to make money. If they think paying more for employees will raise salaries all round and cause them to loose profit, they won't do it. It was cost benefit analysis.