[notacoward]

> Which part do you assert is untrue,

Neither of your strawmen. I am not making my own assertion at all. I am challenging your assertion that maintaining a high standard of living requires moving to the Center Of The Universe for all or nearly all developers. You seem to base this assertion on a premise that the difference in salaries outweighs the difference in cost of living, but have provided no evidence to support that. I know it's not true for me, but at least I don't assume that my experience is universal.

> Everybody wants remote work at SV salaries. That doesn't mean everybody can get it.

True. You have to be pretty good at what you do.

> We are talking about better or worse developers, or what is your argument?

Again, it's not my argument. It's yours, and it's ridiculous. It's only about good vs. bad developers if one assumes that a good developer lives in Silicon Valley and a bad developer is one who lives anywhere else. If one accepts that there are good and bad developers everywhere, or that some people measure value differently than you do, then it makes absolutely no sense.

> If big companies were paying higher salaries to the same developers then how would that create any advantage for them?

Have you heard abou this little thing called network effects? The theory is that, by bringing good developers together, synergy creates value that doesn't exist with them separate. It's an idea I could argue from either side, but the important thing is that it doesn't require physical proximity to work. It can be well worth paying a premium to bring good developers into logical or virtual proximity with one another, and the big rich companies are taking advantage of that.

> Rich tech companies don't have a monopoly on capital. If all it took is to pay developers a lot of money then it would be Wall St rather than tech companies doing the paying and collecting the yields.

It doesn't require a monopoly. All it requires is a significant asymmetry. Also, Wall Street very much has been playing this game too, with effects and remedies that would be just as worthy of debate if we could get past the facile attempts to deny the reality of it happening.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Neither of your strawmen. I am not making my own assertion at all. I am challenging your assertion that maintaining a high standard of living requires moving to the Center Of The Universe for all or nearly all developers.

You seem to be challenging your own straw man.

> You seem to base this assertion on a premise that the difference in salaries outweighs the difference in cost of living, but have provided no evidence to support that.

The evidence is all of the developers who choose to live and work in SV despite the high cost of living.

> I know it's not true for me, but at least I don't assume that my experience is universal.

That is the straw man -- I never claimed it was universal. It's true of the people who live there, or why do they?

> True. You have to be pretty good at what you do.

That doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Plenty of call center workers are allowed (or required) to work from home, because it saves the company from having to pay for office space for them, but that doesn't make them particularly highly skilled or highly paid.

> Again, it's not my argument. It's yours, and it's ridiculous.

Here's you from before:

> Rich companies can and do pay higher salaries regardless of the worker's location. That creates a feedback loop, distorting both labor and capital markets, turning temporary advantages into permanent ones and stifling competition.

If the higher salaries aren't paying for better work then how do the companies get any advantage out of it?

> Have you heard abou this little thing called network effects? The theory is that, by bringing good developers together, synergy creates value that doesn't exist with them separate.

That isn't what "network effects" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

"Big" isn't an advantage here. It means bureaucracy and politics and Mythical Man Month problems. These companies succeed despite these things, not because of them.

> It can be well worth paying a premium to bring good developers into logical or virtual proximity with one another, and the big rich companies are taking advantage of that.

What do you suppose is stopping the same people from coming together on their own and just keeping the money their work generates?

> It doesn't require a monopoly. All it requires is a significant asymmetry.

Asymmetric capital? How is Apple's billion dollars better than any random capitalist's billion dollars?

> Also, Wall Street very much has been playing this game too, with effects and remedies that would be just as worthy of debate if we could get past the facile attempts to deny the reality of it happening.

What game? "Money makes money" has been the basis of Wall St since day zero. The method by which this doesn't lead to permanent massive consolidation of power is that new entities come into existence and displace old ones, but are owned by new people. The problem is the thwarting of that process by requiring the permission of incumbents to make new things.

[notacoward]

> The evidence is all of the developers who choose to live and work in SV despite the high cost of living.

...ignoring all those who do not make that choice. Nice cherry-picking.

> Plenty of call center workers are allowed (or required) to work from home

Changing the subject again. We were talking specifically about people who were making Silicon Valley salaries, not call center workers. You need leverage to do that. The fact that you don't even know anyone with that kind of leverage tells me that you don't even know what you're talking about, and your constant employment of sleazy rhetorical tactics tells me that you're not even trying to learn.

> That isn't what "network effects" means.

OK, so it's not exactly network effects, but it's still synergy. Two good people together can often do things that neither could do alone. You got the point, so stop being obnoxious about terms.

> "Big" isn't an advantage here. It means bureaucracy and politics and Mythical Man Month problems.

Such a jaundiced view at such a young age. At least I assume you're young, based on not being senior enough to negotiate - or know anyone else who negotiates - better working conditions. Better than assuming you're old but barely competent. In any case yes, bigger companies can have their problems. So can smaller ones. They can each have their advantages. For example, at a startup there will inevitably be some specialized areas of knowledge where coverage is thin. That can be great for creating opportunities to learn, but not for solving an immediate problem in minimal time. At a larger company, especially a larger rich company which is what we're talking about, there might well be a world-class expert on staff for even the most obscure specialty. There might be specialized hardware (or teams to develop it), partner relationships, etc. Big companies can be mismanaged and small companies can be mismanaged. That's why nine out of ten startups fail. Counting only the hits for one side and only the misses for the other is not how rational people approach a problem, or how honest people discuss one.

> What do you suppose is stopping the same people from coming together on their own and just keeping the money their work generates?

There could be many reasons, from simple risk aversion to lack of skill (or interest) in the non-technical aspects of running a business to the need for leads and contacts. You do realize that most people don't work for startups, right? There's a whole world outside that bubble.

> How is Apple's billion dollars better than any random capitalist's billion dollars?

Wrong question. What matters is how Apple's budget for technical hires compares to others' budgets for hiring in those same specialties. That's where the competition occurs. The VC money, fragmented across many companies pulling in many directions and each having to carry their own business infrastructure, would have to be much more than a single focused company's investment in that area of overlap. One of the big five can spend a million dollars each for a dozen hires in a particular area. A startup would be hard pressed to justify that to their investors, precisely because those investors would rather have that money to make other bets entirely. It's a bit of a collective action problem, which I would have thought anyone spouting so much pseudo-economics would know about.

[notacoward]

Also, even if VC-funded startups could compete with the Big Five, not every small company is a VC-funded startup. Forcing entrepreneurs to ally with one group of rentiers and arbitrageurs or be crushed by another group of the same is not a good way to build a long-term healthy innovation economy.