The business of technology didn't implode simply because in our industry there is still a HUGE disparity between the returns for capital and the returns for labor.
Regardless of how much money is invested in salaries and perks, a developer still profits WAY less than the investors.
This scenario leads to my next argument: the peripherals of our industry didn't develop as much as sports because they don't need to. The margins are still extremely high and it continues to be a crazy profitable business (when done right) despite all money invested in high salaries and great perks.
One of the things I feel is missing from a Marxist analysis of labour vs capital in software, is just how little capital is needed, and how little ongoing labour is needed to maintain the revenue stream. I kind of feel that most of the capital can’t differentiate the talent (the talent distribution is possibly similar to sports, and it’s definitely different than a factory). I am no fan of how Elon Musk has behaved during his time at Twitter, but I think that one result that will show in time, is that the platform is quite capable of generating revenue with considerably less labour.
As a programmer myself, I don’t do too badly but that statement made me cringe. What if we did get paid at the same level as, let’s say for the context of my country, England’s Premiership footballers? It’s a different kind of profession though. I’d love 30,000 a week!! Not sure what I’d do with it though!
Over my career I’ve turned away opportunities to work at Google, Meta and Apple. The last one was a total joke, the contract rates they offered were less than average because “I’d be privileged to have their name on my CV”. Get out of here!
Clearly, competitive practices should only exist in labor markets where there’s too much labor. Also, not enough labor is the government’s fault. 🙄
Reminds me of the *very* successful San Diego startup that was moved to SV by its Bay Area-transplant CEO because of the “lifestyle-focused” SoCal engineers. 😂
The business of technology didn't implode simply because in our industry there is still a HUGE disparity between the returns for capital and the returns for labor.
Regardless of how much money is invested in salaries and perks, a developer still profits WAY less than the investors.
This scenario leads to my next argument: the peripherals of our industry didn't develop as much as sports because they don't need to. The margins are still extremely high and it continues to be a crazy profitable business (when done right) despite all money invested in high salaries and great perks.
One of the things I feel is missing from a Marxist analysis of labour vs capital in software, is just how little capital is needed, and how little ongoing labour is needed to maintain the revenue stream. I kind of feel that most of the capital can’t differentiate the talent (the talent distribution is possibly similar to sports, and it’s definitely different than a factory). I am no fan of how Elon Musk has behaved during his time at Twitter, but I think that one result that will show in time, is that the platform is quite capable of generating revenue with considerably less labour.
As a programmer myself, I don’t do too badly but that statement made me cringe. What if we did get paid at the same level as, let’s say for the context of my country, England’s Premiership footballers? It’s a different kind of profession though. I’d love 30,000 a week!! Not sure what I’d do with it though!
Over my career I’ve turned away opportunities to work at Google, Meta and Apple. The last one was a total joke, the contract rates they offered were less than average because “I’d be privileged to have their name on my CV”. Get out of here!
Clearly, competitive practices should only exist in labor markets where there’s too much labor. Also, not enough labor is the government’s fault. 🙄
Reminds me of the *very* successful San Diego startup that was moved to SV by its Bay Area-transplant CEO because of the “lifestyle-focused” SoCal engineers. 😂