Five years is not a very long time for a company, but for an individual? Especially in an industry that exhibits ageism and by some accounts is "done with you" when you turn 40? Given that, five years is more than 25% of the time in which you are hot on the market. So, no, I don't really think someone who has been shafted for five years is being "impatient". Just how long do you expect them to wait?
Where that 40 thing comes from? Maybe it was true 20 years ago when 40 years old meant no extensive experience with modern computing, but by now it's plain stupid to refuse to hire experienced developers in their 40s. Sergey Brin is 40, Larry Page is 40 - are they really "too old" now? I think this ageism thing is going to die very soon, if it already didn't.
>>> Just how long do you expect them to wait?
That depends on what you're waiting for. I was talking about economic processes, they don't happen overnight. If you want to improve your personal situation, you don't have to wait for that.
My observation of discussions on HN about age discrimination. (I'm not a software engineer, so I have no personal touch with that job market)
If you want to improve your personal situation, you don't have to wait for that.
When the top employers are actively colluding against you, maybe yes, you do. You have no power against a company worth $400B, unless you band together with your peers. Perhaps in some kind of legal action...?
You don't have to work in a company that is worth $400B. Of course, this company may pay the best, far over what other companies do - but then your complaints about your wage being artificially suppressed sound a lot like pure greed.
The problem isn't when one company pays better than everybody else. The problem is when the top ten different companies, all of which you would like to work for and all of which pay the best, agree with eachother that none of them will pay you what you are worth.
Now, I think you already understand that, and your counter was "well then someone will hop in and pay you what you are worth and they will suffer for colluding". But clearly that hasn't happened.
Seriously, the fact that the word "collude" can even be used here is a bad sign. If you pay attention to business history, that word is never good.
It doesn't matter if it's one company or 10 companies out of 1000. The claim is most companies - overwhelming majority, as it appears - can't pay you this money. Still you think you're worth more than any other company except 10 can afford to pay, and despite being paid obviously in the highest in the industry, you think you're worth much more. That's OK, overwhelming majority of people think they are way above average in everything they do. But you don't stop there - you think that any effort for the companies to pay you less than your imagined self-worth is illegal, despite the fact that you voluntarily agreed to be paid as much and nobody else but these tiny minority of companies would even consider to pay you this much - you still think they owe you more and need to be coerced to pay you more. I'm sorry, I don't see how this can elicit any sympathy from me.
>>> But clearly that hasn't happened.
How you know that? The salaries in the industry are one of the highest of any, and compared to the effort needed to enter the industry (compare to, say, lawyers or doctors and how much you have to spend in time and money to become one) is even higher, probably one of the best among all (legal) industries, especially if you take out salaries that are achieved by political gamesmanship and not by market forces.
>>> Seriously, the fact that the word "collude" can even be used here is a bad sign. If you pay attention to business history, that word is never good.
If you argue on the grounds "I used this word, and this word sounds bad, ergo the thing I've named with this word is bad by the fact of the word sounding bad" - you lost the argument. Unless you think words are magic and the mere fact of calling it "collusion" automatically and magically taints it.
So basically you only argument why it is bad is "because it's illegal". There are lots of things that are or were illegal just because it serves some particular special interest or just because some lawmakers are doing really stupid things (I could spend half an hour here naming them but I'm sure a list not shorter than mine just popped into your head). So the most you can claim that special interest you're aligned with has upper hand in this particular case. Somehow, again, it doesn't add to my sympathy - there are already too many people that are extracting money primarily by lawmaking and lobbying, joining them is not exactly the best thing for the industry. So far no cogent argument of why these people need special protection of their interests has been presented, and the only argument presented - "we can win in court" - smells pretty bad in my opinion.
>>> it's seeking damages for the companies allegedly doing something illegal to pay them less.
Same thing. They couldn't extract money (in addition to huge money they did extract) by voluntary negotiation, so they extract it by coercion. When it is being done is a technical detail.
