Considering how many engineers would gladly take a below market wage for an opportunity to work at Apple, I don't think that is necessarily out of line with market forces doing their usual "magic". Even economists would admit that wages are not the sole determinant of where people choose to work.
> Well, then Steve had nothing to worry about, did he? Then why the secret agreement??
Exactly. The motivations behind this practice, the nature of the practice, and the individuals impacted by it are just horribly misunderstood and distorted because the story that big Silicon Valley success stories are making their fortunes by screwing over the "little guy" (whose base salary is at or above the 98th percentile nationally and well above the 99th percentile globally... and that's ignoring bonuses & equity) is just so easy to sell.
I was thinking about this the other day coincidentally. The only big tech company I would want to work for is Apple, and I'd gladly take a few tens of thousands less than my already far larger than my living expenses wage to have the opportunity to. I wonder what that says about me?
Fair! I'm 23, no children, no wife, no particular responsibilities. I suppose that means I can "afford" to take that pay cut and throw myself into something like Apple. The only thing that gives me pause is the reports from those that I know who have worked there is that it's very very demanding, but also very very fulfilling.
Well, if you're going to do it now's the time. I'll have two kids in college next year, and a third in a few more years. That'll probably run about $300K when all is said in done.
So taking a few tens of thousands of dollars cut for ten years is that.
I'm not defending artificially depressed wages. I'm not even defending what these companies purportedly did. I'm just pointing out that the motivation for and consequences of their actions are being horribly misrepresented and/or misunderstood.
As for what planet I'm from... it's the one where the world isn't black and white and employers aren't automatically the guilty of any and all claims they ripped someone off.
>Considering how many engineers would gladly take a below market wage for an opportunity to work at Apple, I don't think that is necessarily out of line with market forces doing their usual "magic".
There's no such thing as magic. This is just as true in economics as in anything else. If wages are down, then either labor supply is up, or someone is cheating.
It might be a way to keep out those who care and optimize for that last $5K / $10K and pick a workplace based on that, as opposed to which project they'll be working on for the next five years. If I were Steve Jobs I'd prefer the naive ascetic hacker type who loves the work, and just to make sure I don't get the other type by accident, I'd keep salaries below market.
It can't be too low as too "worry" the employee or to make him/her uncomfortable living in Silicon Valley
For the "paying less" I see it as backwards. Between working at Apple at X and SomeOtherPlace at X+Y the Y may not be worth it. And based on some places I worked, Y may be totally not worth it.
I seriously doubt it. Trying to figure out what a person values may be important in an interview. But I think it's more likely apple has just decided that optimizing the last 5/10k doesn't matter because people will still want to work for them.
That's because having Apple on your resume is worth your weight in diamonds. Same thing with Pixar & Lucas Arts(Industrial Light & Magic) if your career is in the digital-entertainment production world. These are especially true as you grow closer to the age of 40. Google is some kind of anamoly where they pay high _and_ are a gold-star on your resume; don't know how that works.
Value is not an intrinsic property of a thing, but is determined solely by what someone is willing to pay you for it. I agree that the value of diamonds is an engineered one, but it still doesn't change the fact that people will pay truckloads of money for them.
> Value is not an intrinsic property of a thing, but is determined solely by what someone is willing to pay you for it.
Well, that's the thesis of the article I linked: out there, in the free market, you wouldn't get much if you'd try to sell a diamond and weren't part of the supply chain.
There's a similar situation in finance - Goldman is known to pay slightly below market to entry-level/junior employees, and the gaps swings the other way with senior employees who make above market on average.
>Google is some kind of anamoly where they pay high _and_ are a gold-star on your resume; don't know how that works.
I think Google has an extraordinarily high need for engineers due to their blatant attempt to take over the world by moving out ahead of everyone else in every industry they can reach.
When you're trying to corner markets that don't exist yet while also competing to keep other firms taking a slice out of your cash cow core business, you need a lot of R&D.