| >I don't know how to describe the ludicrousness of describing not cold calling someone as "psychological violence". Cold calling is not necessary, a worker has networks of his own. Given a situation where the worker is trying to improve his condition by getting fairer compensation for his work, and is forced to renounce by a localised cartel of employers exploiting his conditions (i.e. that he can't leave the area), I'd say that's psychological violence alright... but I guess we'll never agree on the exact degree of intensity of such force. >At least with startups in the valley, they most certainly don't [own original capital]. We are talking about Apple, Intel, Google etc; they are not startups anymore. Startups are not the ones who colluded, they already cannot pay market wages in most cases. It's the companies who could and should pay full wages, the ones who tried to scrimp on salaries. I agree that the fundamental asymmetry in labor relationship is mitigated by factors such as business size and investor's own history, but it's still there (how often do we get stories on HN about startup workers being screwed out of rewards for successful business outcomes), and anyway these factors simply do not apply to Google, Apple et al. >Assuming there is demand from other employers That's a big assumption. It might be true for Silicon Valley as of 2014, but in most years and in most areas that's simply not the case. > Refusing to consider the fundamental imbalance of labor relationships is disingenuous at best.
>> Refusing to consider the full impact of distortions on labor relationships is disingenuous at best. I agree, it's a complex matter, but you cannot take as fundamental principles for economic doctrine some localised, exceptional and very limited situation: you take the common scenario and build principles from it, then you tweak it for outliers. "Engineers in Silicon Valley" is the outlier, not the common scenario, and people trying to use that as the basis for "new" theories are, in most cases, just rehashing old excuses for exploiting the workforce. |
You are making these company's arguments for them. Although the notion that these individuals would need to know someone to find gainful employment at a competitor is wrong.
> and is forced to renounce by a localised cartel of employers exploiting his conditions (i.e. that he can't leave the area), I'd say that's psychological violence alright... but I guess we'll never agree on the exact degree of intensity of such force.
Rather, I think we should agree that you have created a straw man that while it may very well be an accurate depiction of some circumstances, does not apply to the story you are commenting on.
> It's the companies who could and should pay full wages, the ones who tried to scrimp on salaries.
Google is known to compensate their employees at the upper end of the market. Once you factor in benefits and equity, all of these companies compensate well above median salary for their low level employees as well as the ones targeted by these policies. What you are saying does not reflect reality.
I think a very good case could be made that these policies may constitute unfair labour practices, but if you think about how much the bottom line of these companies would be impacted if the targeted employees had their wages and compensation even doubled, you might begin to appreciate that you are barking up the wrong tree here.
> That's a big assumption.
That's really not a really big assumption when the entire practice was based on there being demand from other employers.
> "Engineers in Silicon Valley" is the outlier, not the common scenario, and people trying to use that as the basis for "new" theories are, in most cases, just rehashing old excuses for exploiting the workforce.
One could paraphrase that as, "it makes sense to apply a common principle to a specific situation, asserting as postulates foundational characteristics of that common principle even when the specific situation directly contradicts those characteristics."
On that basis I could assert that since you and I are arguing on the web that we are both introverted and socially isolated juvenile white males expressing internalized aggression, regardless of the sounds of my spouse and child asking for help with homework...