Hacker News Reader

Comment by TigeriusKirk | Hacker News Reader

>The "solution" of just converting them all to FTEs and effectively giving them massive boosts in total compensation is impractical.

Why is it impractical?

View on HN

Because companies reasonably try to avoid throwing away money?

I mean, I'm not sure exactly why companies higher CWs as opposed to just lower-paid FTEs. Could be a remedial stopgap to deal with issues in the "normal" hiring pipeline, I'd guess? But the answer to why they don't just throw extra money at people who are already willing to work for you is obvious.

Well, if Google can afford to do it (they can) then it's perfectly practical. They just don't want to, and you're right that the reason is obvious.

I can easily afford to pay my mechanic twice the money. Of course just like google, I don't want to.

Exactly. When others do it, it is just an excuse. When I do it, it is necessity.

So when you go to find a Plumber, Auto Mechanic, Roofer, etc you look at the amount of money you can "afford" than pay exactly that?

so If a plumber says he can fix my sink for $150 but I cna "afford" to pay $500 I should pay $500?

Are you also actively working with other people/companies who might hire those same people to put caps on what they might get paid, or indeed to negotiate hiring them at all? Google/apple/etc have enormous sway in some areas re: hiring/referrals/etc, and engaged in 'antipoaching' stuff that prevented free movement of labor (imo).

The plumber/mechanic analogies fall down when you look at the size and actions of google in the marketplace as a whole, not just with the specific interactions of an individual contractor/employee.

During the time of the anti-poaching agreements, Apple and Google had close to an oligopsony on high-end tech labor. There are too many employers of low-skill labor for collusion to accomplish anything.

>Are you also actively working with other people/companies who might hire those same people to put caps on what they might get paid, or indeed to negotiate hiring them at all? Google/apple/etc have enormous sway in some areas re: hiring/referrals/etc, and engaged in 'antipoaching' stuff that prevented free movement of labor (imo).

If I have the ability/resource to do that and if the total cost is less then of course.

"Impractical" and "not throwing away money" are really interesting choices of words when discussing why one of the world's richest companies gives PTO or health insurance.

I think it's a lot less interesting than people want to pretend it is. A company's willingness to throw away money should be largely invariant to its overall financial health.

I like that you're blunt about it, makes it much easier to reason why more regulation around labor is required.

"BigCorp will avoid as much labor costs as possible. To improve labor conditions and compensation, regulation must require it."

"To ensure that people only have good jobs, we must ensure that people who cannot get good jobs are unemployable."

"How can we justify Big Tech being worth trillions collectively without allowing them to treat their workers as interchangeable widgets at the lowest cost possible."

Which sounds better to an electorate? What are the odds your average citizen is ever going to be an ultra high net worth individual or work at a FAANG? I believe the odds are in regulatory favor.

Google has the resources (with gross profit ~$100 billion for 2020), they simply choose to evade labor law in this case.

>we must ensure that people who cannot get good jobs are unemployable

How are "we" doing that precisely?

Except in this case "throw away money" is a euphemism for "paying workers enough that they don't need welfare to support their families."

How many Google contractors/employees are on welfare?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com