
Employers will do almost anything to find workers except pay them more - SQL2219
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-employment-20180710-story.html
======
sametmax
And if you think it's bad, it's even worse in Europe.

Taking the French example: I'm an freelancer, but I used to have a contract
with an American company.

They gave me 3x the salary most of my French colleagues would get, while
keeping the exact same social advantages (they paid me through a French
branch).

However, to them, the salary was twice lower than what they would have paid
for the same guy in the Valley.

Now as a freelancer, I move a lot from companies to companies, and I hear the
same complaint over and over: we can't find good devs.

But when I look at the job offers they publish, it's full of buzzwords and
cool attitude, yet the pay is not remotely matching the skills they are hiring
for.

You want somebody speaking 2 tongues, coding expertly in 3 languages (e.g:
server lang + js + css), knowing a bit of sysadmin, ergonomics, architectural
design, data base, and capable of understanding your undocumented stack du
jour + infra.

No, you can't pay that $2500 a month.

~~~
muse900
My example comes from Greece where I reside for the past 9 months.

People owning touristic buisnesses on the islands are moaning about how much
they need more staff and can't find any, and they are arguing why younger
people tend to not work and just receive benefits instead of going to work.

The argument here that they won't understand though is that, 1st they are
paying very low. They are all willing to pay the minimum salary available...
which is somewhat 500 euros. It varies from 500 to 900 euros and 1200 in best
cases. The unemployment benefit is 400+ euros per month. So tell me who in
their right minds would go to work for 500 euros or even 800 euros, whilst
they have to spend petrol to get from and to work, work prolly 10+ hours a
day, in the sun most likely cause thats what means tourism industry, get told
by 'BOSSES' on what to do, and get treated awfully. There is just no point.
And then all I hear from those guys owning massive hotels making 1m+ revenue
in their pockets per year saying : 'Cant find anyone good to work for you
nowadays, its all youngsters fault'. Well ok I'll admit that prolly youngsters
dont have the nerves that older people had in their age, but at the same time
you are not helping the situation at all when you are offering money that
someone will just pass by and you are making 1m+ euros in your pocket a year,
and then the only way to keep profiting is to steal a bit on tax and of course
not fully insure your employees. AWFUL system!

~~~
koolba
> The unemployment benefit is 400+ euros per month. So tell me who in their
> right minds would go to work for 500 euros or even 800 euros, whilst they
> have to spend petrol to get from and to work, work prolly 10+ hours a day,
> in the sun most likely cause thats what means tourism industry,

There are always people who don't just want to live off the dole.

Also a lot of the people who complain about crappy entry level wages (that
they're unwilling to accept) also complain that they are rejected from higher
jobs because they don't have any work experience.

> ... get told by 'BOSSES' on what to do,

That's kind of the norm at any job. I'm curious what alternative you propose,
a commune where workers decide on their own what they'll be working on?

> ... and get treated awfully.

That's not acceptable period though specifics matter.

~~~
EthanHeilman
>That's kind of the norm at any job. I'm curious what alternative you propose,
a commune where workers decide on their own what they'll be working on?

Pretty much all the software engineering jobs have worked at have given me
quite a bit of autonomy. At least within software engineering organizations
the purpose of a manager should be to make sure workers have the necessary
resources and coordination, but they shouldn't be telling workers what to do.

I know someone that got hired at a company to answer the phone for technical
questions from users. When she started they didn't have a phone hooked up yet
so she asked for github access and started writing software. They never
bothered hooking up a phone at her desk and she just wrote software for the
next 2 years. The software she wrote was valuable to the company and was
mostly self-directed. I don't think stories like this are that uncommon in the
software engineering world.

Edit1: Fixed typo, thanks PaulRobinson

Edit2: Added Anecdote

~~~
PaulRobinson
I think you mean "autonomy", and at larger firms, you're going to have to work
with others. The ideal is collaboration, but you don't normally get to choose
what you work on, your management does.

------
lkrubner
It’s interesting how much momentum there is in these processes. After several
decades of big wage gains, during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, the nominal
increases could not be stopped, even as the economy weakened in the 1970s and
1980s. Back then all the wage cuts had to done through inflation. Nowadays
there is no inflation, and no momentum to restart wage increases. This part of
the article says it right:

“””The underlying cause of the “labor shortage” is hiding in plain sight. It’s
the long-term trend of funneling the gains from labor productivity not to the
workforce, but to shareholders. As with any addiction, this process produces
short-term euphoria, reflected in share prices, but long-term pathology,
reflected in income inequality, poverty and social unrest.“””

~~~
baxtr
Which is somewhat great because if they don’t pay well startups can exploit
opportunities that open up as a consequence.

However, my experience lately from Germany is that large companies are
becoming more and more popular for developers. This was also reflected in a
recent HN discussion

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17286939](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17286939)

~~~
jimbofisher1
It seems like a very poor financial decision to turn down 300k from Google to
make 150k + fairy dust money from a Startup. Even if the 300k is lower than
what Google ought to be paying.

~~~
baxtr
Financially, I’d agree. But what about your lifetime?

~~~
jimbofisher1
Lifetime? Not sure what you mean. Given that the vast majority of Startups
fail and any equity you were granted would be worthless and even those that do
payout are usually just getting you to parity to people who were at a FAANG
over the same time frame I fail to see how a Startup would benefit. Even
Resume wise, recruiters won't care that you worked at a startup that had a
$100M exit but they definitely will if you worked at Google for 5 years.

------
Waterluvian
I worked for a Canadian company that's absolutely hemmoraging talent because
they refuse to pay well. I'm now paid about 50% more to work remotely for a US
company in an environment that is far far more fitting of my life goals of
being with my kids as they grow up.

It's beyond bizarre to watch them continue to refuse to pay anyone properly
despite their imminent collapse.

~~~
eloff
It's bizarre. Even Amazon Seattle pays 2x the salaries of Amazon Vancouver,
even although they are separated by only 200km and are the same company! I ask
every Canadian developer I meet, why are you still here? I like living in
Canada, so I work remotely even although I don't really like remote work.
Instant 70% raise.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Is there any difficulty in working across the border like that? I work for a
Canadian company due to having my roots here and find the thought of dealing
with remote work in another country intimidating. Is it much hassle?

~~~
eloff
I setup a company and structure the employment as a contractor with no
benefits. Most companies are happy to structure things that way, and all jobs
are basically at will employment anyway, so there's little practical
difference. US companies are used to spending a lot on benefits, so you can
negotiate a higher salary instead.

Compared to what you do every single day at work, it's not really much trouble
at all.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
So the extra effort is all in dealing with your own taxes / benefits, and the
rest is basically the same?

~~~
eloff
Yeah, it's really not a big deal.

------
kinkstone
"....As with any addiction, this process produces short-term euphoria,
reflected in share prices, but long-term pathology, reflected in income
inequality, poverty and social unrest."

Addiction is right, but it's not limited to wages in a corporate environment.
The same addiction in our overly-concentrated power structure is driving the
decisions to underfund schools, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. The same "me-
first" philosophy produced the recent tax law that will add billions to the
deficit in the coming years.

So frustrating.

------
creaghpatr
Love it when people compile montages of article headlines that circulate every
year to encourage the importation of more cheap labor.

Here's a recent favorite byline: "America’s labor shortage is approaching
epidemic proportions, and it could be employers who end up paying [their
workers more].

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/the-us-labor-shortage-is-
rea...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/the-us-labor-shortage-is-reaching-a-
critical-point.html)

Epidemic proportions!

~~~
adventured
You get those incredible dueling headlines from the same media outlets of how
wages are not rising fast enough, and how we need to have open borders
allowing in unlimited low skill, low wage labor. Who will pick the
strawberries if we don't import ten million low skill laborers in the next
decade? The Koch brothers must have their cheap labor or their industrial
profits will suffer. Wages must be carefully constrained or inflation might
tick up a bit after a decade of the Fed proclaiming they desperately want more
inflation (of course what they actually mean by inflation risk is that
business profit margins will take a hit and prices might climb some - if the
businesses have pricing power - due to the bottom half of workers earning
more).

And that income stagnation at the median? It's amazing what happens when the
middle class moves up [1], your natural population growth drops toward zero,
but you import tens of millions of low skill, cheap laborers over 30-40 years:
your median doesn't move up because you're treading water by offsetting
everyone that moved up.

[1] [https://i.imgur.com/IOgZLDc.png](https://i.imgur.com/IOgZLDc.png)

------
graeme
I've been thinking about this. Let's say a company has 1000 employees at
$50,000 per year.

They were able to find enough workers at that rate. Now let's say they need
100 extra workers.

They'd expect their labour costs to go up 10%. But, it turns out there isn't a
supply of 100 workers at $50,000. To pull in extra workers, they'd need to
offer $60,000.

So far, so good. Extra labour costs are only $6,000,000, and only $1,000,000
are from higher wages. Prior total was $50,000,000.

But, you can't just pay the old workers $50,000. Humans don't work like that.
You can't say "you were happy before, but these new people needed more money,
so they get more"

Instead, you pay everyone $60,000. So your new labour costs are $66,000,000.

That's a 32% increase in wage costs for a 10% increase in labour.

Is there a name for this? And does this explain why companies avoid raising
wages when they want a higher number of workers?

~~~
mrep
Yes, but I can't find the name for it right now. It is also the reason
companies have people work overtime even though it costs +50% more because it
is still cheaper than hiring more workers.

Most introductory economics textbooks go over it.

~~~
mrep
If you are still reading this thread and have not read any economic textbooks,
I HIGHLY recommend you start reading some economic textbooks. It is my
favorite subject, I read dozens of textbooks on my own after I read my first
introductory one, and I am a software engineer who majored in computer
science.

I think it is highly useful in learning the "science" behind how businesses
operate and I definitely think it is useful to learn regardless of what
industry you work in since all businesses are subject to the "science" of
business in capitalism.

I quote "science" because you cannot really test economic theory but it is as
close as you can get and it brings a lot of insights into businesses when you
learn it.

~~~
graeme
I actually majored in econ :) It was extremely useful in fact. But I don't
recall hearing this wage theory, possibly because it deals with a semi-
irrational aspect of wages. Econ historically wasn't good at irrational
things. (Using irrational in the strictly literal, econ sense)

We did talk about wage stickiness, and this is related.

------
whack
Expecting public companies to do anything except optimize for shareholder
value, is pure folly. We can debate morality all day, but there's a more
practical reason for this: shareholders hold all the power over management.
Regardless of how unhappy you as a customer/employee are, you do not have the
direct power to fire the directors/executives. You only have the indirect
power of pressuring the shareholders, and hoping they will pass it along.

Hence why CEOs and Board of Directors will optimize for shareholders interests
above customers/employees/society. Because if they don't, they will get fired
and get replaced with someone else who does. This is textbook Evolution and
Natural Selection.

If we aren't happy with the way corporations are paying their employees, the
solution has to come from outside the corporations. Demand that your
government increase the minimum wage, increase the capital gains tax rates,
raise tax rates for the 0.1%, and use the proceeds to fund basic income or a
better social safety net. he private sector does a great job of generating
wealth, but don't ever expect it to distribute it fairly.

~~~
scroot
Time to also reconsider different kinds of corporations, specifically those
that are wholly owned and operated by the people who work for them.

~~~
tjr225
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to work for one.

~~~
scroot
Do you? If so, which?

------
lewis500
I keep reading stories about how it's a puzzle that more jobs are being
created but wages aren't going up. Part of it seems to be this new ingenuity
at finding marginal workers and getting them to take jobs.

Paul Krugman has a theory that the recession has made companies averse to
raising wages, because it's hard to claw wage gains back if there's a
recession. So instead they are offering bonuses, because if a recession hits
you can just say "we don't have money for bonuses this year" which is a lot
easier than saying "everybody's salary is going down." I'd say, while the
cause (recession) is right, the companies are doing even more than switching
to bonuses: it's also aggressive recruiting, allowing remote work, making
workplaces cool, inflating the job's prestige, etc.

------
saturdaysaint
I wonder how other aspects of compensation like paid vacation time play into
this.

I've fielded interest from a lot of recruiters and interested companies.
Moderate pay increases seem easily available - the sticking point is that they
will all fight tooth and nail for anything beyond the bare minimum of vacation
time. I'm in my late 30's with kids, and my wife is a doctor. There really
isn't a realistic pay raise that is worth losing weeks with my family every
year.

I wonder how many other people in prime earnings ages with families are
running into this resistance from HR departments - it feels like a successful
anti-competitive strategy to tamp down on turnover and wages.

------
kev009
The tech industry is unwell, in our case despite abundant cashflow it's based
in the completely irrational.

Your salary would be a full 10-20% higher with average turnover numbers if it
weren't wasted on modern tech recruiting practices. And your company would
quickly have less than average turnover number to boot. You'd get organic
interest, and would properly pay attention to employee and manager referral.

Hiring practices are almost entirely cargo cult, and much more value for
companies is being destroyed in all these terrible HR practices that have been
latched on to. To me it appears like empire building and a complete lack of
understanding in how and who works.

------
gwbas1c
I remember working for a startup a few years back. When I joined it was kind
of "scrappy," and I really couldn't negotiate for market rate. It didn't
matter, though. I loved the job, and really wanted the early-stage startup
experience.

A year later we were in a nicer office, and definitely not "scrappy." We
interviewed a lot of candidates, and when we made an offer, it was always
rejected. Why? We were too far below market rate. At the time, I still loved
the job. (It was also a very short commute by bike.)

Another year later (two years after I started,) we were acquired by a large,
and very profitable company. People started demanding market rate or leaving.

The point is this: People work to get paid. Crumbs work for a short period of
time, but at a certain point, people's lives move on. That's when employees
jump ship because they need the extra $20-50,000 / year. Many people will
choose better working conditions over the highest salary possible, but the
difference should be very, very minor. No one's making a lifestyle change
because your office is cooler than the one down the street.

------
Forge36
I wonder to what degree company size and current employee wage plays a role in
this (in the U.S. the pressure to not share salary with coworkers tried a
wrench in this theory). Given a shortage, raising starting wages would
encourage people to change jobs, however employees (recently hired or
existing) before the increase would also want that new increased rate.
Combined with companies hiring thousands (think Walmart) a wage increase
becomes multiple millions per year (that's a lot harder to sell to a board)

------
jdhn
"That money won’t disappear, of course—it will go into the pockets of workers,
and then find its way back into the coffers of corporate America via higher
sales."

Do people really go out and spend money immediately if they get raises?
Personally, if I get a raise, I may treat myself to something nice, but then I
immediately go back to my old spending habits so I have more money to save.

~~~
Talyen42
The average person spends almost exactly as much as they make as income rises.
It's a hedonic treadmill
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill)

~~~
HenryBemis
For anyone who hasn’t already, I would strongly suggest that you read/listen
the “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”. It speaks of the “Rat Race”, where once you increase
your income by a fraction, you almost immediately and subconsciously adjust
your needs to absorb that increase.

I think this is one of the books that everyone over the age of 15-17 should
read as it gives a crash-course on the fine art of making money.

This book, together with the minimalists’ work influenced me to change my work
style and other habits and now I feel more focused, clutter free, and with
significantly more €$£¥ in my pocket.

~~~
pnut
I'm not saying there isn't usable advice in that book, which I have read, but
in full disclosure, the book's author, Robert Kiyosaki, fictionalised most of
the anecdotes contained within it.

Additionally, he operates a real estate "investing" school that advocates and
instructs semi-legal, morally questionable predatory practices.

It is openly modelled after Trump University, Trump being Kiyosaki's business
mentor and aspirational avatar. They have authored at least one book together.

~~~
taneq
> Additionally, he operates a real estate "investing" school that advocates
> and instructs semi-legal, morally questionable predatory practices.

Yeah, it's 90% trivial platitudes about "buy low, sell high" and "invest your
money wisely", and then a few pages about how he actually made his money (if
that part is true, anyway): Haunt foreclosure auctions to flip the houses.
Skeezy.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
So he says to buy low and sell high, and he made his money by buying real
estate cheap and then selling it higher? I have absolutely no background on
the guy, but that doesn't sound "skeezy" or even inconsistent; what am I
missing?

~~~
JamesBarney
No he made his money selling books explaining to people how to become rich. To
my knowledge he wasn't wealthy before his book.

------
dnomad
Low wages are not a problem per se.

In the situation of low wages what is _supposed_ to happen is the best workers
either (a) move to competitors or (b) just strike out on their own and start
their own business. If businesses are colluding on low wages (and it's very
clear they are) then eventually we should see people starting new businesses.

This dynamic by the way is absolutely clear in East Asia and China, in
particular. Wages are rising fast and the best workers aren't afraid to bounce
away for higher salary or, if it comes down to it, to buckle down and strike
out on their own.

But this dynamic has been completely lost in the US. Even as the economy
"improves" we are seeing labor market fluidity has collapsed the US [1]. This
has been going on since the 80s. Entrepeneurship and new firm formation have
been declining for the last 40 years [2]. The end result: lots of people stuck
in jobs they don't like and businesses, knowing full well that their workers
are stuck and won't go, offer essentially zero wage increases.

[1]
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016015pap.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/business/economy/startup-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/business/economy/startup-
business.html)

------
at-fates-hands
So then, the basic premise here is:

Employers: "We can't find good devs/workers!"

Devs/Workers: "Well, you don't pay enough!"

My advice to employers is what a lot of companies started doing when there was
a gold rush of developers and people were scarce. Find a few average devs or
newbies with little or no coding experience, train them into your "system" and
then work to promote them up into senior positions and give them a reason to
stick around.

My advice to devs is get a role at a company, get into the habit of being able
to code on a daily basis, grow your skills, then jump ship, or angle your
skills for an increase in pay. The important part is coding every day and
getting better at your craft. Sometimes getting paid less and acquiring skills
is more important for the long run than simply turning offers down because you
think it's not a good salary or hourly rate.

~~~
commandlinefan
> then jump ship

But be careful... I did this back in the late 90's; I changed jobs four times
in four years, getting a 25-30% pay increase each time. Then one day I tried
to do it again, and they told me up front, "we're not interested in hiring you
because you change jobs too often". Although I eventually did find something
and have kept each job I've had since for at least 3 years, I'm pretty sure my
"shady job hopping past" cost me a job opportunity just a few years ago.

~~~
logfromblammo
Job-hopping is no sin when you can get a 25% pay increase whenever you do it,
and companies will only give their retained employees 2.5% raises (while
cutting their benefits by 5%).

Job-hopping is no sin when you are an "at will" employee with no contract.
Some companies think nothing of firing 10% of their employees every year, and
replacing them with fresh faces. Is that not the same thing from the other
side of the table?

The company who rejects you for job-hopping is explicitly rejecting your self-
agency and your right to continually re-evaluate your business relationships,
in exactly the same way that companies do when they fire bad employees. You
fire bad employers. It is no different. The relationship is work for pay. If
they want you to stay, they have to ensure that relationship stays mutually
beneficial every week that you work for them.

No, don't be careful. If there is no contract specifying otherwise, you owe
your employer nothing next week, and they will owe you your pay for this week.
That is all. Corporate loyalty is dead, and the corporate employers killed it.
It is not our fault that the harvest they are now reaping is bitter in their
mouths. If you are offered higher pay somewhere else, start there next Monday,
and tell your current employer on Friday that you won't be back next week.

We have all done it in this industry. 25% more is too good to pass up, and
they know it.

Let them be the ones to start offering contracts with severances and notice
periods and guaranteed raises and bonuses. That company who won't hire job-
hoppers will find that word gets around, and qualified people will simply stop
sending their resumes and entertaining interview requests.

------
fifnir
Academia:

Oh you have a degree, a masters, a PHD, knowledge in super-niche molecular
technology techniques, speak 3 languages and can code in a couple more...

Best I can do is 1200 per month

~~~
jopsen
Move north, maybe?

~~~
fifnir
In the north you get paid more but I think your buying power is pretty much
the same. From a quick google, a postdoc can expect something like 2500per
month in sweeden, but how much do you need to spend on rent and food etc
there?

In any case, I did move some 7 years ago, but the whole thing is depressing,
you know?

I can give my work to some capitalist megaCorp and get paid nicely, or to the
public and get paid shit...

------
jsoc815
Yes, many employers have deflationary expectations in an inflationary
environment. The most difficult part about disabusing them of this notion is
that there are still _too many current and potential employees_ who are all
too willing to encourage this.

That's why I implore people to 1) know the value of their labor; 2) do the
math concerning their (long-term) cost of living. Lots of folks seem to think
that they can take a pay hit here or there _just to get a foot in the door_ or
tide themselves over, not understanding that they generally setting the bar
for their future pay 1) because many (at least US) employers will ask for
salary history; and 2) even if they don't, the information is probably
available via a data broker.

------
wonderwonder
Why would they pay more, if they just hold out long enough, someone will take
the job. If enough companies do this, a new wage rate is established.

We are in a strange time with globalism, companies are in a race to the bottom
in regards to employee pay. Employees are losing negotiating leverage as their
employer can simply turn to emerging markets to hire talent for half the
price. Granted that talent may not be as good but they also save on benefits.

There is also a critical level where if enough companies are paying low wages,
the employees cant just threaten to go somewhere else and make more, there is
no where else. So they have to eat and take the lower salary job, setting a
new lower median wage for the market place. Meanwhile the cost of basic goods
continues to rise.

Communism is nonsense, but Marxism has a very important point in that the
primary driver of world power is not countries but classes, those that hold
the means of production and money against everyone else.

------
mnm1
You have to be dumb to believe the employers and their lobbying industry that
there is a shortage. By definition, there cannot be a shortage. This is basic
economics 101. Workers exist and they want to work. If business owners won't
pay them, that's not a shortage of workers, that's a shortage of competent
business owners. In other words, these business owners are not competent
enough to run their own business. I hope all of them go out of business
because of that. What a bunch of inept, greedy scumbags. Instead they go on
the internet and other places and cry about shortages like babies. These
people have no human decency at all. They will do anything for their greed. I
wish the masses weren't so dumb to fall for this kind of stupidity. This
particular article is rather refreshing as it cuts through some of the
bullshit. Here's some ideas for these incompetent business owners of how to
get and retain employees:

* higher salaries * work from home * 25 - 35 days vacation to start, increasing every year * guaranteed 2-8% raise to compensate for inflation every year * bonuses * Fridays off in the summer

I could go on and on and on but it's stubbornness that makes these business
owners so greedy, not the lack of good ideas in how to hire. I hope the market
turns against them and they go bankrupt.

------
commandlinefan
I'm not sure the premise of the title - that employers will do almost anything
(or anything at all) to find or retain workers - is accurate. Setting aside
pay - will they offer livable working conditions, or will they cram everybody
elbow to elbow in a noisy airplane hangar with no dividers like cattle? I
don't see that any employers, anywhere, are doing anything to find good
employees, paying more being just one of the things they're not doing.

------
tweedledee
Labor ‘shortages’ are simply an excuse to import cheap labor. There exist
talent that will take a discount on pay for the fringe benefit of immigrating.
This in effect is a community subsidy to the company. This is one reason why
lobbying is a hugely profitable enterprise. Eventually the community becomes
too taxed and social problems occur and we get populist uprisings. I consider
this both an unfortunate and an entirely predictable outcome.

------
sp332
That makes it even more distressing for workers who can't find a job.
Apparently employers won't hire disabled employees even if they will work for
less money.
[https://twitter.com/ForgetAmnesia/status/1016770557709307904](https://twitter.com/ForgetAmnesia/status/1016770557709307904)

------
habaryu
At the end of the article, there's a link to a Cardiff Garcia's post showing
how the workers shortage headlines are repeated over and over.
[https://threader.app/thread/1014944737978175488](https://threader.app/thread/1014944737978175488)

It'd be funny to change some of them and show the problem as being caused by
the companies. Instead of "Great job openings, no candidates" it could be
"Great skilled workforce, no employers".
[https://money.cnn.com/2009/11/03/news/economy/jobs_sit_open/...](https://money.cnn.com/2009/11/03/news/economy/jobs_sit_open/index.htm?postver)

------
hamilyon2
Well, I guess, this may be good. If a lot of dollars seek few resources, and
resources pool does not increase much, you get unbounded price increase.

Which is not good. Developer have to do something productive for economy.
Their wages should be bound to value they produce. If they are consistently
paid more then they are producing, whole sector is heading into collapse.

In healthy job market, job ads are going to attract employee with salary based
on value that employee is going to produce. Failure to attract her does not
mean someone is irrational or wages are low. It just means there is a lot of
low-value work for developers in this world. Someone will notice that and
maybe innovate those jobs away or something.

~~~
bluGill
Replace Developer with maid in your post and read it again.

I don't have a maid, instead I clean my own house, and drive my own car. My
understanding is in India people with half my income would have maids to do
those tasks. However in my country the value a maid produces isn't as much as
their value and so I don't pay one. I know what a maid would cost (some
advertise in my local newspaper), and they are not worth it.

Same with developers. If the wages go too high some things we could automate
will no longer be automated.

------
exabrial
Quit rewarding these companies but staying at your job. No one gets the golden
rolex anymore and there's no pension. The advice of 'find a good company and
stick with it' no longer applies.

------
Markoff
yeah i work currently as contractor around 30 hours per month from home for
Chinese company without any commuting anytime i want to cover expenses of my
family

on the other hand i could work 160-170 hours per month for local EU employer
and get like double salary (a bit more with bigger retirement savings and paid
vacation)

somehow i am not rushing to get stable job and get employed locally to work
five times more plus wasted time on commuting (so make it six times more hours
wasted on work) to earn double salary

~~~
scarecrowbob
Same-ish, but I'm in rural Texas.

I work 30 hours a week for a US firm, working remote and finishing up raising
my kid. I could probably multiply my income by 1.5, but I'd have to work 15
hours a week more and come into an office.

I've had several interviews with people but no one seems to understand how
much they would actually have to pay me to come into an office because they
are used to discounting the time spent commuting as if weren't time they
should pay for; they think I am crazy for calculating that as time for which I
should be compensated.

~~~
Markoff
similar, though i said 30 hours per month, not per week

also i have two small children, nobody will pay me for priceless time away
from them now they are both under 3, i feel sad for people seeing their
children in evenings or just weekends

~~~
scarecrowbob
Yeah, I caught that... I haven't figured out how to get the hours down to
that, but I am working on it. Mostly I just end up doing stuff like visiting
my parents while I'm at "work".

I have a 17 year old and basically have ended up remote working just to be
around him and his sister. For me, that's definitely a thing that I feel like
was a great deal for both our lives. Also, now I'm just turning 40 and he's
graduating high school, I've started traveling and working that that's also
quite fulfilling.

I feel sad for those folks to- it's not a judgment thing, I just know how much
I got from being around my kids and how much I personally would have lost out
on.

------
le-mark
The phrase "the harvest" is used at least two times in this piece in a similar
way:

 _But it didn’t take long for CEOs to divine the wisdom of a viewpoint that
hit them where they lived, in their wallets. The harvest has been decades of
increasing income and wealth inequality._

I find it to be very odd, the author is Pulitzer winner, so there's that I
guess.

------
santiagobasulto
[https://i.imgflip.com/2dswyy.jpg](https://i.imgflip.com/2dswyy.jpg)

------
ggg9990
This makes sense. It’s very hard to 1) pay new hires more than existing
employees, or 2) ever reduce anyone’s salary. So raising salaries to hire
people means raising everyone’s salary in the company, permanently. Not a good
idea if your employment needs may be the temporary result of a bull economy.

------
amai
Maybe software developers should create a union or something like that? Maybe
the fact that unions have been destroyed since the 1970s has something to do
with the wages not increasing that much anymore?

------
RickJWagner
It's always best to be the company owner.

If you're in a position that allows it, save what you can and invest it in the
market. Buffet, Dalio, etc. etc. have been preaching this for decades.

------
Bromskloss
Is it argued that the trade-off between getting good people and keeping costs
down is poorly made? (Due to GDPR compliance, I can't read the article.)

------
known
So job hopping for better salary is not unethical;

------
tmaly
Wages are not the only issue here. If you look at inflation, the price of food
and energy has increased massively since 1999. I know economists like to
exclude these figures in their computation of inflation, but they sure do put
a dent in the regular workers wallet. I can remember paying 99 cents a gallon
for fuel in the late 90's. Now its $3.49 a gallon. I can think back even
farther to the 1980s when you could get a meal for $3 at a fast food chain.
Now your shelling out $8 - $10 for the same meal.

------
peteretep
CapEx vs OpEx shocker.

------
Rjevski
Shit-free & GDPR-compliant version:
[http://archive.is/aT8G1](http://archive.is/aT8G1)

------
saw-lau
When accessing from The UK:

 _Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue
to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with
our award-winning journalism._

~~~
ge0rg
You might want to indicate that this is a quote from the web site, not a
statement of yours. I'd suggest to edit it and to add asterisks around the
text to make it render in italics.

~~~
saw-lau
Thanks for the advice!

------
madengr
I’d like to earn more, but I also want the market to keep on going up for my
retirement investments. At mid career, my 401k performance over the next 20
years is now market driven, rather than by contributions over the next 20.

So at this point, I’d rather have better investment returns than a higher
salary.

~~~
nimish
If you read the article you would know that labor wage increases are laughably
low compared to share buybacks.

Raising salaries 10% would barely even touch cash returns to shareholders

~~~
madengr
You conveniently ignored the 8% drop in AA stock. Doesn’t matter if that was
due to dividend reduction or spooking investors, it’s still a big drop.

~~~
nimish
And Wal-mart shares rose by 8% in the year after they announced wage
increases.

The broader issue is that shareholders have deluded themselves into thinking
that they are the end-all-be-all of a company when in fact their contribution
is limited.

