I'm not sure why this is being down voted... because it disagrees with your view?

I don't agree with the statement but it does represent a possible solution - all companies involved in this should have their employees go on strike!

People think this idea is ridiculous because they've been told it is over and over and over again. Are unions really evil or are they ever more necessary to balance out the insane profits companies are making?

Just some questions worth thinking about before you arbitrarily down-vote someone...

It's being downvoted because it represents intellectually dishonest argument (missing the obvious problem with monopolies/cartels) while using "free-market" (the term with positive connotations for most people) to justify it. It doesn't help that this argument is main talking point of neo-liberal propaganda which make a lot of people's blood boil so it's difficult to resist emotional downvote.

Thanks, just to clarify I'm against unions as they come with a large political power which I think is undeserved.

My statement merely aims to say that I don't think there is anything currently wrong. These companies make billions. They could easily afford to pay larger salaries. Why should they if people will work for less? Why isn't everyone's salary like Eric Schmidt?

To expand a bit on the thought of unions in the Software industry...

Step 0 would be to convince software engineers that other software engineers who don't perform up to the same level as them should be protected for the good of the working-class engineer, instead of kicked to the curb to make room for a more productive engineer.

A bit of a hard sell, as engineers tend to see themselves as co-owners of the solutions they create and hate to see their work fail to launch because they're saddled with bad coworkers.

paraphrasing a quote I can't remember or find by searching "you can avoid worrying about consequences but you can't avoid the affect of consequences." To your point, people can think whatever they want about how much they think they're worth - but it's the free market, with aggregated supply and demand that actually values the worth.

This is by definition not the free market. You need to go back to remedial free market school. I suggest one course of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (pay attention to Book 2, Chapter 2 especially) to start.

If the issue doesn't clear up within the week, please seek further guidance from a licensed professional.

Employees have to think of themselves as an asset with their employer aiming to minimize costs. Salaries are a negotiation with risk involved. It is a free market, with many competing companies aiming to reduce costs. Does a free market mean all companies can't communicate? The companies are still free to hire whoever they want. People are still free to work for whoever they want.

Thanks for the book suggestion, please feel free to quote more books without debating my comments.

> with many competing companies

obviously these companies were not competiting hiring engineers...

> People are still free to work for whoever they want.

whatever.

> obviously these companies were not competiting hiring engineers... ... They are competing for engineers! Why would they make these agreements? To benefit the company. Benefit/cost analysis.