[okfine]

I didn't say they were paying "good" wages, but that they are paying market wages. The argument that Canadian software salaries aren't a market, but rather a stubborn choice by companies not to do the right thing, is curiously magical.

The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things. To change it would require some change in the fundamentals, such as if the government made it harder for people to leave.

[jonathanyc]

> The question is, what would change the situation? Not some change of heart by companies to finally do the right thing, or come to their senses about what their self-interest really is. Those aren't real things.

This is a horrible false dichotomy. It takes time for companies to decide on and implement changes. Do you think that companies magically always make optimal decisions at all times? You claim that other people are anthropomorphizing companies, but that’s precisely what you’re doing here, on top of a healthy dose of failure to make the is-ought distinction.

I‘m also not sure why you are misinterpreting “good wages.” I’m not talking about “deserved wages” or anything like that. Again, read TFA.

Lastly, your suggestion that the Canadian government make it harder for people to leave is horrific, inhumane, and quite frankly the most regressive possible “solution” to this problem. I’m astounded that anyone would even suggest it.

[okfine]

I didn't any say of those things! From my perspective, you've put my words through a really intense filter and then gotten angry at your filter.

For example, I didn't suggest that the government should do such a thing. It's a hideous idea, besides being an obvious legal and political impossibility. What I said was that if they did, it might affect the software salary market in Canada, in contrast to other things people commonly bring up, which seem oddly imaginary.

[burfog]

It may be politically impossible, but it isn't legally impossible.

Laws, including constitutions, can be changed. This works for both sides of the border. Killing NAFTA is an easy start. Canada can have a wall to keep people in without even building it: simply lobby US politicians to have one built.

[okfine]

I meant impossible under the Charter of Rights, which could change, but isn't going to. You're right that that's for political and not legal reasons, so "politically and legally impossible" is in a way redundant. In another way it isn't, though, since constitutions do constrain politicians.

[jonathanyc]

I get what you’re saying about feeling that other people are putting your words through a filter, but if you are concerned about that you seriously need to look at how you are reading other people’s comments. You wrote a whole comment based on making fun of my use of the word “good” as “magical,” which is the least charitable interpretation of an admittedly ambiguous word and not at all what I meant. It’s also clear from context (again from the article) that I didn’t mean “good” in a moral sense but good as in “these are good wages if you want employees.”

Conversely I don’t see where I’ve attributed to you anything you haven’t said.

To conclude by returning to something of substance, calling the market “oddly imaginary” and companies trying to make rational decisions as “not a real thing” is incredibly naive. You seem to think that the only thing that can affect the “fundamentals” of the situation is government intervention. I’m far from a libertarian, and even to me that does not at all resemble this situation. This is a simple case of companies in an area paying too low wages, employees leaving, and companies having to catch up.

You seem to be misinterpreting everyone else’s arguments as anthropomorphizing companies, which is not at all what people are doing when they are talking about a market. I think this derived from your fundamental understanding of how a market economy might work in the real world.

Companies and workers both take time to adjust to changing situations, and more importantly, situations can change, and the government shouldn’t always intervene to bring things back to the way they were. Otherwise we would still be a nation of farmers.

I’m not sure what else to say, and I seriously don’t want to sound mean or trite (like “just read a book!”), but I really think you should try and learn a little about economics. I think this is where your misunderstanding about anthropomorphization stems from. I tried to find a good introductory article, but I haven’t had much luck; here is one: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-market.asp

[JoeAltmaier]

Or even this: https://www.xkcd.com/1984/