[quotemstr]

This comment thread is a microcosm of every unionization discussion in which I've participated.

A: [Proposal for collective organization] B: [Explains logical holes in proposal] A: You're a bad person!

Every single discussion on this topic eventually devolves into people demanding that others support a system that's not in their interest on the basis of specious moral principles that happen to benefit the person making the moralistic argument, for example, "you lack empathy" or "you hate democracy". The truth is, nobody is required to support a system that's not in his interest, and if organizers can't create a system that makes everyone better off, they'll fail to achieve their goals. Shame is no substitute for incentive.

[danaris]

> This comment thread is a microcosm of every unionization discussion in which I've participated.

I agree with this part.

However, "but unions would try to level the playing field so I would not be able to maintain my (obviously well-deserved) elite status" is not a logical argument.

And "you appear not to want to make things more equitable" is not saying "you're a bad person"—and you saying it is says, I think, more about you than it does about ggm's post, which stated things in fairly value-neutral terms. Even his final remark was not a moral judgement of any kind, but rather an economic argument.

Of course nobody's required to support a system that doesn't benefit them. But (to take your position to its illogical extreme) if everybody fought tooth and nail to ensure that they got the very most possible without regard for what anyone else got, I don't think anyone would be very happy with the result.

So yes, this thread is very much a microcosm of every unionization discussion I've seen on the Internet.

A: [proposal for collective organization]

B: [objects that with a union, they wouldn't be able to use their Mad (Negotiating/Programming) Skillz to get hugely better compensation]

A: [attempts to argue that with a union, more people would be better off on average]

B: [You're a socialist!]

[AnthonyMouse]

> However, "but unions would try to level the playing field so I would not be able to maintain my (obviously well-deserved) elite status" is not a logical argument.

You're framing this as some kind of 99th percentile elites vs. everyone else situation, when the real issue is that 65th percentile employees have different interests than 35th percentile employees. Who themselves have different interests than 2nd percentile employees.

And there is a difference between leveling the playing field and leveling the players.

[ummonk]

Did you miss the part where ggm accused him of lacking empathy?

[ggm]

Yes. I did do that. And I stand by it. Collectivism demands empathetic bonding between people at extremes of ability and contribution. The whole 'from each according to their ability' bit is inherent in the 'to each according to their needs' clause.

But I do also really believe an economics story here: fairer wage structure with less super pay for geniuses and shit pay for everyone else makes better sense. More people can spend disposable income so the economy does better overall and the company is more profitable.

I've worked with genius programmers and they're not team players and whilst it's exhilarating, the outcome is mixed.

The boring programmers make staid reliable systems. They sell because they work.

[ummonk]

>Yes. I did do that. And I stand by it. Collectivism demands empathetic bonding between people at extremes of ability and contribution. The whole 'from each according to their ability' bit is inherent in the 'to each according to their needs' clause.

That doesn't mean those who oppose collectivism (particularly the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" style) don't have empathy. There are many here for example who support vigorous free market competition (both in goods and services and in labor) run by supply and demand but also advocate a basic income out of empathy to make sure everyone is ensured a minimum humane standard of living.

>But I do also really believe an economics story here: fairer wage structure with less super pay for geniuses and shit pay for everyone else makes better sense. More people can spend disposable income so the economy does better overall and the company is more profitable.

There are plenty of companies that have a primarily tenure-based system of pay and promotion. At least in tech, those legacy incumbents tend to be far less successful and profitable than the merit-based companies disrupting them. I know which kind of company I'd rather work for.

>I've worked with genius programmers and they're not team players and whilst it's exhilarating, the outcome is mixed.

Systems for career advancement / promotions are never perfect, but rarely do they just hire and promote the smartest geniuses. Generally, being a team player is a very important part of career improvement / advancement.

>The boring programmers make staid reliable systems. They sell because they work.

That's not why IBM software sells.