[cm2187]

High labor cost just because of skill shortage may be gratifying and lucrative for the happy few but is not an efficient allocation of resources for the wider society. Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do.

Replace "developer" with any other profession to convince yourself.

[Y7ZCQtNo39]

Nah, because I'm going to put my self-interest first. Just like Google is. So I should naturally oppose this as a developer. I benefit from a low supply of people with my skill set. Do you think google cares about "efficient allocation of resources for the wide society?" Tech companies embody the complete opposite of that mindset. The tech firms most in this forum work at bring in billions, but only require a few thousand workers. And most of the cash ends up overseas, doing nothing. It's not an efficient allocation of capital at all.

[baursak]

The only people who care about efficient allocation of resources for the society are socialists and academics. Certainly CEOs with multi-million dollar annual compensations don't think they're contributing to allocation inefficiencies by negotiating their compensations. Neither do doctors and AMA, who we all love and respect. Neither do military leaders or politicians, who demand half the country's budget for military expenditures. Etc, etc.

Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do if you're Google stakeholder, or broadly speaking, a capitalist. It's much more questionable if you're in the labor force.

[sounds]

Or, more bluntly:

Google should pay high salaries. The market will supply the skilled workers when the salaries are high enough to attract more workers.

(Google does pay high salaries. If they want more skilled workers, raising their salaries is the most efficient way to get that outcome.)

[s73ver_]

Well, it's more than just pure salary. I'm sure if they changed things so that one did not have to work crazy hours while there, they could get away with paying less.

[orangecat]

You don't have to work crazy hours at Google. At least at the teams I was on; there were occasional reports of lousy conditions in some groups (e.g. Nest), but they were very much the exception.

[TeMPOraL]

They're likely betting that investing in training programs will be even more effective.

[stale2002]

Uhh, I do NOT love the AMA.

The AMA is responsible for maximum doctor quotas that drive up the cost of healthcare.

The AMAs decision to artificially increase the cost of Healthcare literally kills people.

[SapphireSun]

You'd think that, but then you'd remember that if the population isn't making money capitalism doesn't work. People need money to buy things. The big picture is that labor is being defeated everywhere and money is accruing at the top. The whole system will break down if something isn't done.

[stevenwoo]

I remember talking with a friend of mine in the 90's about this and he thought we would have a revolution in this country if things didn't change vis a vis inequality. What's happening so far is the rats at the bottom of the ship are blaming the slightly different rats in the same situation for making the problem worse.

[jasonlotito]

If Google hadn't been involved with a scheme that helped keep the salaries of employees artificially lower (and by extension, affecting the rest of the industry), you might have a point. But as it stands, Google's own actions means it's imperative we question their motives. After all, if Google and others hadn't done what they did with the anti-poaching scheme, would the resulting salaries be higher for all involved?

[alexanderstears]

It's not as if the skill shortage reflects some barriers to entry (like the Doctor's union deciding how many people get to go to medical school). The skill shortage reflects the difficulty of acquiring the skills, the high salaries are critical to ensuring that skilled people develop their technical skills.

I don't know how much a piano teacher costs, but I know it's the right amount because that's the equilibrium.

A more efficient allocation of resources would look like getting rid of 'too big to fail' banks and decreasing the rent that the finance industry extracts.

[8note]

Yes, that's why we have labour unions. The cost should be high because we demand it to be so, not because of a shortage.

[s73ver_]

Neither are these companies getting lots of cheap labor and keeping the difference for themselves and their shareholders.

And, more importantly, why should I care if it's an "efficient allocation of resources" when the alternative is that I no longer get a decent wage?

[notyourday]

Oh how quick we forget that we bitch about $35k/year H1Bs