6 ms·

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 as

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.

WalterBright 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        > 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.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > Except you have the wrong idea about stability, because the law itself is the cartel, and very stable Cartels on non-poaching are not enforced by the law. > it's about which side coordinates better That's what supply and demand is.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        I'm not thinking of things like non-poaching but things like tuning the level of social benefits in order to control the supply of labor. If the workers get too powerful, they starve them one way or another. Back in the early 20th century the socialist radicals had ideas about making one giant union of all the workers. If they could coordinate every industry they could negotiate for everything! The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (aka Taft-Hartley) made all such ideas quite simply illegal. If unions get too powerful, unions will be hobbled. If the market fails to deliver exploitable labor, the market will be fixed. That's the context in which negotiation occurs.
    - diob 5y ago
      Literally https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753
heavyset_go 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  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.
  - qmmmur 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      Reductive? Listen to yourself.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    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.

WalterBright 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        > 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.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > Except you have the wrong idea about stability, because the law itself is the cartel, and very stable Cartels on non-poaching are not enforced by the law. > it's about which side coordinates better That's what supply and demand is.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        I'm not thinking of things like non-poaching but things like tuning the level of social benefits in order to control the supply of labor. If the workers get too powerful, they starve them one way or another. Back in the early 20th century the socialist radicals had ideas about making one giant union of all the workers. If they could coordinate every industry they could negotiate for everything! The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (aka Taft-Hartley) made all such ideas quite simply illegal. If unions get too powerful, unions will be hobbled. If the market fails to deliver exploitable labor, the market will be fixed. That's the context in which negotiation occurs.
  - diob 5y ago
    Literally https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753

heavyset_go 5y ago

> 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 5y ago
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.
- qmmmur 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Reductive? Listen to yourself.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  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.