[9rx]

> This is a really concerning perspective: people were paid what they were worth.

The parent comment doesn't discount that, only pointing out that "what they were worth" was inflated due to a speculative environment. Wherein lies your concern?

[lotsofpulp]

That prices change from one point in time to another is a trivial fact.

“Inflated due to a speculative environment” is not an accurate way to frame labor prices that held for many years. At that point, the prices were simply high due to high demand relative to supply (compared to other types of labor).

[9rx]

> At that point, the prices were simply high due to high demand relative to supply

That goes without saying. The investigation here is into demand. Which was said to be overinflated due to speculation. As noted, many of the companies hiring the developers did not have viable businesses.

[SirensOfTitan]

I think calling it inflated is to play to a narrative that labor was overvalued broadly in tech.

Salaries across industries in the US have remained flat since the 1970s. Calling the one sector that can provide access a middle class lifestyle inflated s to play into a narrative capital is eager to tell, even if OP didn't intend that.

[9rx]

> Salaries across industries in the US have remained flat since the 1970s

What do you mean? The real (meaning adjusted for inflation) hourly wage in the US has increased by around 20% since 1970.

What has changed since the 1970s is that wages are no longer coupled to productivity. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of? But that should be an obvious truism for anyone in tech. We create the very things that cause that to be the case!

[keybored]

> We create the very things that cause that to be the case!

What happened in the 1970’s was the NeoLiberal shift and wasn’t caused by software.

[win311fwg]

That NeoLiberal shift did not take place in a vacuum. It was a product of the world around it. It absolutely was caused by tech.

If we — those with the power to build the productivity creators — took a stand and said "we refuse to create tech for the interests of the few" it would have never happened. But, instead, we welcomed it and are responsible for it.

[keybored]

The corollary of “if we took a stand” is that Capital took a stand and collectively undid a lot of the gains of the post-WWII social democratic order.

So no. It wasn’t caused by tech beyond the uninteresting factors like modern society being complex and, of course, that tech developments influence things (pretty much all things).

[win311fwg]

The productivity gains we've seen above the capacity of human productivity would have been impossible without tech. It absolutely was caused by tech.

The benefactor of those gains was also entirely decided by those who created the tech. We could have given use of that tech to everyone. In some cases we actually did (e.g. open source), but in most cases we gained (at least partial) ownership of the capital so it was in our best personal economic interest to keep it for ourselves and our close friends.