> 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.
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.
>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.
> Take the annual revenues of google and divide it by the number of their engineering employees, then come back to me.
May I ask how many years of real world experience running a business you have under your belt? Do you really believe that none of the non-engineering google employees contribute to the profit? Do you really believe all Google employees contribute equally? All the Google Plus employees create negative value; Paying them $200K guarantees someone gets LESS than they could have been paid -- and that assumes google actually gives in and pays everyone the maximum they can, which is unlikely cause they have cheaper talent pools to draw on. They pay less in London than they do in Mountain View.
> If you asked me in the early 2000s whether TV would be around in 10 years I would've said definitely.
It is 2015, and TV is still around and profiting nicely. Or, are you living in 2030?
> 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?
Ah, but that one company will just shutter their R&D. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
> The power is with the 99%, and it's a thin line stopping us from acting on it.
Yes, but as a software engineer you are part of the 1%, not the 99% (literally - the "1%" Occupy talks about are actually the 0.01%). If the real 99% applied the same rule, you effectively get communism. <s>And that worked very well as an incentive for talented people</s>
> You from canada or something?
I left the US and I live in Israel these days. Where Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel and various other companies you have heard of have their largest most prolific campuses outside the US. They do this because the talent pool is large, and is cheaper than the US. The unions already exist; joining them is as simple as declaring "I want to join" and paying a small percentage of your salary (1%-2%, I think) as union fees; There are, in fact, multiple competing unions. And yet, over 90% of software engineers are not union members - and those that are make much lower salaries (correlation, not causation of course - but it definitely isn't random).
>It is 2015, and TV is still around and profiting nicely. Or, are you living in 2030
Not where I live it's not.
>May I ask how many years of real world experience running a business you have under your belt? Do you really believe that none of the non-engineering google employees contribute to the profit? Do you really believe all Google employees contribute equally? All the Google Plus employees create negative value; Paying them $200K guarantees someone gets LESS than they could have been paid -- and that assumes google actually gives in and pays everyone the maximum they can, which is unlikely cause they have cheaper talent pools to draw on. They pay less in London than they do in Mountain View.
All ventures are a gamble. But all the losing gambles need to be made in order to find the successful one. Therefore the profits need to be split evenly. Additionally google engineers can move between projects.
>Yes, but as a software engineer you are part of the 1%, not the 99% (literally - the "1%" Occupy talks about are actually the 0.01%). If the real 99% applied the same rule, you effectively get communism. <s>And that worked very well as an incentive for talented people</s>
90k average sw salary in america is at the 95%-tile. Please note that the 1% control half of the worlds' wealth. Also, who says we need communism? I'm still talking about capitalism just with a greater balance of power.
> The unions already exist; joining them is as simple as declaring "I want to join" and paying a small percentage of your salary (1%-2%, I think) as union fees; There are, in fact, multiple competing unions. And yet, over 90% of software engineers are not union members
If there was a union that negotiated 200k. Over 90% of those engineers would join. You guys just aren't desperate enough to form one.
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.