And I don't see how what you've said is related to what I said, which was a critique of the idea that this move is artificially depressing wages when allegedly it's an attempt to stop poaching of key talent at artificially high non market rates.
And I don't see how what you've said is related to what I said, which was a critique of the idea that this move is artificially depressing wages when allegedly it's an attempt to stop poaching of key talent at artificially high non market rates.
I would not necessarily agree. There are CEOs who make around that amount, why shouldn't an engineer make that much if they're equally important to the organization?
From what I could gather from Google, TSMC engineers make far less than I do as a FAANG engineer, and TSMC posted a ~$14 billion profit last year. If these employees are so important to Taiwan's future, why can't they at least pay them FAANG-level salaries? It's not that they don't have the money.
The company made billions in profits. That could be due to a number of reasons. IP, relationships, network effects, scale economies, regulatory capture, brand equity, etc.
Let the market decide that.
>The company made billions in profits. That could be due to a number of reasons. IP, relationships, network effects, etc.
That's not the point. The point is they're using the government to make it harder for their engineers to find other work, rather than just pay them higher wages so they'll stay on their own accord.
It's very hard to overcome economics. If they don't pay their engineers at TSMC something approaching alternatives, they will start to leave. It doesn't matter whether the company made billions of dollars because of a few people - the company will struggle if they start losing their engineering talent. So that kind of sets their value.
What I'm arguing is that they'll need to pay better wages, otherwise people will leave, regardless of this law about advertising jobs.