Do you believe this to be the case? If so, do you really mean to say that engineering salaries should not be set by market forces?
However lets take the case of NEw York where you can get program trading jobs for $300K and I have friends who got these kind of jobs. Hedge funds routinely pay $250K plus.
I think this is what would have happened in the valley.
Collusion for these firms was price-based collusion for products, not collusion to suppress the input costs of highly skilled labor. Manufacturers are said to have engaged in establishing minimum or fixed prices for their products.
Consumers will tend to absorb this form of market inefficiency. After the cartel agreements were broken, consumers reaped the benefits in the form of the "intensification of price competition" (lower prices).
It suggests that only in one case was there collusion in R&D, which might be a relevant example.
Additionally, the article cites outside competition from the USA as a factor. Competition from foreign sources on engineer wages such as India is still nascent. US manufacturing during this period was mature and robust.
its important because FB is the biggest social network on the internet. Believe it or not, many people still dont understand or get what "social web" means. Having FB stock publicly traded (company more transparent) and strong earnings would prove to the masses that web and social net is sustainable AND profitable AND here to stay. And it already works! look what happened with Zynga stock after FB IPO papers hit the daylight.
This sort of argument is often made in Economics, and is logically sound. Ceteris Paribus aka everything else being the same.
I agree the article smells of link-bait. I don't understand why Facebook's IPO is different from every other IPO that has happened in the past. Why does the author feel that this IPO will raise wages of developers in the valley?