[lsiebert]

Those of us who work in tech operate with a lot of privileges compared to many many other workers.

All of these options technically exist, but make a lot of assumptions that aren't true for my non techie friends who are looking for work. It's not unusual in a lot of industries for companies to not continue to interview someone who doesn't let them decide everything about the process.

[heavyset_go]

> It's not unusual in a lot of industries for companies to not continue to interview someone who doesn't let them decide everything about the process.

To put this into perspective, some companies and agencies do group interviews, where there are a few dozen applicants for a role in a large room that are whittled down and told to go home if they don't fit some criteria. Then whoever is left is hired. There's no room for negotiation, literally or figuratively.

[WalterBright]

Many candidates interview with multiple companies. Then they whittle the list down, and break off negotiations with companies that don't fit some criteria. Then they accept the offer from whoever is left.

[heavyset_go]

I don't know any employee that has company owners show up to their auditorium and then raise their hands, respond or leave in response to the requirements the employee starts listing. I also don't know any employer that will starve, become homeless or be unable to see a doctor if they don't hire someone at the employer's desired salary. A job is necessary to live, while a new hire is a luxury that will help you become wealthier. I wouldn't say those situations are comparable.

[qmmmur]

In your reductive view of the world do you hold the distinction that one is a person seeking meaningful employment while the other is a business seeking to fundamentally change xploit someone's labour?

[civilized]

Reductive? Listen to yourself.

[WalterBright]

If more people simply said "no", that wouldn't work for companies. Even so, I doubt that employers can afford to be that picky. If they could, everyone would be getting minimum wage. Everyone getting above minimum wage obviously has leverage.

[diob]

Just say "no"? And do what? Lot's of folks are supporting others, or need to support themselves.

"Sorry my sweet daughter, no cancer treatment this week, I said no to that job."

I have 0 clue why you think picky === minimum wage. It just means suppressed wages, which is highly documented. Even the big tech companies had agreements not to "poach".

[WalterBright]

I've encountered companies with such agreements. They still do it, they just don't make it obvious.

Cartels like that are unstable, because each party has a massive incentive to cheat on it, and the advantage accrues to you.

[DarylZero]

That's why they organize into political groups and manipulate wages on the nation-state policy level.

Owner vs. worker power struggle is always all about who can better coordinate collective action. Owners have an inherent and mostly dominating coordination advantage.

[WalterBright]

In a free market, cartels are unstable. Cartels try to deal with this by making compliance required by law.

> Owner vs. worker power struggle

Oh phooey. Negotiation is inherent to a free market. It's not a power struggle. It's supply and demand.

[DarylZero]

> Cartels try to deal with this by making compliance required by law.

That's what I'm saying.

Except you have the wrong idea about stability, because the law itself is the cartel, and very stable.

> It's not a power struggle. It's supply and demand.

It's not supply and demand because it's about which side coordinates better!

Supply and demand, the labor market, and markets generally, exist within parameters determined by political collective action. The big owners generally get their way but there is some democratic pushback.

[diob]

Literally https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753