Atlas Shrugged

I'm sure a barony was a lot of upkeep and the baron did a lot of work. My example may have been historical incorrect if a baron was unable to demand more money on a whim and completely arbitrarily. How was the fixed proportion determined? What options did the serfs have if they disagreed with the fixed proportion?In what manner can a modern worker keep what he produces? Do I wish to take home a fixed proportion of my source code at the end of the month instead of receiving money for it?Don't all employers that use persons in my field really determine what salary I recieve? If my employer determines that programming is only worth minimum wage but other employers determine that it's worth 20 times more how long to do I stay in my current job? What kind of programmers will my company be able to hire by paying such a rate?PM1K

I dunno. It seems like things like anti-trust legislation and social programs help slow that decending spiral; and of course, anything that progressively redistributes wealth (although that's all capitalism is, regressive wealth redistribution - the only one who can "create" wealth is the US Mint.) But I'm no economist. Good for you, but there's a lot of competition in the server market. There's much less competition in the desktop market.

It's slightly worse than that - under most contracts, your employer is entitled to 100% of not only the code you pound in the office, but any source code you develop at home, too.For any reason or application. If you design the next killer open source OS in your spare time, your employer owns it. Well, that kind of depends on how mobile you are, doesn't it? But if your wife has a job you can't afford to have her leave, and there's no other opportunities in the local market, you're kind of screwed, aren't you?It's a mistake to assume that workers are completely mobile, or that market forces can always iron out pay inequity.

I suppose you're talking OS here because not everone gets a Dell, dude Does MS control the desktop OS market now because of a superior product with outstanding service and reliablility? I'd answer no, what about you? Why they control the market is a worth a good thread in it's own right. Is it low price, high aggression, being first to reach mass market and riding on the price drops, or something else? MS is among the competition in this arena as well and their server OSes are just as fun as their desktop flavors. Shouldn't they eliminate server comp just as they have desktop?PM1K

I'd agree with you. The control the desktop OS market because their massive accumulation of wealth gives them the power to screw anybody else. I think the difference is that the people who buy servers know a lot more than the people who buy desktops; therefore they're more resistant to getting screwed, or to buying something just because its what everybody else has. And they're not generally spending their own money so they can justify paying more for better stuff.

Can you point me toward some consultants that will sign these contracts? That'd be great!Such ownership rights end if the code doesn't relate to a project the programmer is working on for said employer. If the contract states otherwise, sign it not! To pull a line a from Atlas Shrugged, the needs of an employee should not dictate how that employee is paid. If you're not getting a fair wage for your work no one forces you to work there. Regardless of your situation, you always have the option to quit. Quiting could result in financial devastation or personal loss but the option remains.Even if you can't take advantage of mobility or market force they still play a part in what your salary is likely to be.PM1K

How did they accumulate such wealth without first controlling that market?PM1K edited to correct a spelling blooper.This message has been edited by portmaster1000, 02-17-2005 22:38 AM

I would say they did control that market - right from the day Intergalactic Digital Research blew the chance to supply the IBM PC Operating System. Bill Gates grabbed his chance, offered to supply the OS as well as the languages (which was all they were originally going to provide) and the rest is history.As an aside, I find the whole story of the IMB PC project, M$ buying (not writing) QDOS - which became PC DOS 1.0, IDR losing everything over the non-disclosure agreement and all the rest of it fascinating. See this for more on the story.

---

Confused ? You will be...

No, unfortunately, if you're not paid by the hour, then you're probably a "work for hire" worker, which means that your employer owns the fruits of all your labors that fall under your job title. So, if you're hired as a "work for hire" software developer, your employer owns all the software that you develop during the period of your employment. No matter what it is, or where you developed it.At least in states where you have no legal protection against a work-for-hire contract. Unlike you, apparently, I don't consider Hobson's choice a choice. If you're unable or unwilling to percieve that the wealth disparity between employer and employee rarely works to the employee's advantage, and rarely puts them in a position to bargain effectively, I'm not sure you're paying enough attention to the situation. It's just another example of how, in the absence of what we might term socialist policies, capitalism is unsustainable.

Oh, God, I hope not, otherwise my employer owns this site's software!The term "work for hire" isn't one I've encountered in my own corner of the software industry. Most of the salaried employees are what is called "at will" employees, which means there's no contract and they can be fired (layed off) without cause at any time.--Percy

quote:

---

Can't. Work, then banjo practice.

---

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

It's a term that comes up a lot in comics. It was the standard of the industry for about five decades. Crash's description is pretty accurate.

The clawhammer slide is pretty fun, but you gotta watch out for the finger picks.

I wasn't questioning Crash's definition of "work for hire". I'm not familiar with it and have nothing to go on. I was actually addressing just this: I was only saying that my corner of the software industry doesn't use this term, though perhaps contract workers, as opposed to regular full-time employees, might fit under this category - I have no first-hand experience myself with the hiring of contract workers. Anyway, "work for hire" is not an issue I'm familiar with, but given that I haven't seen the term before hints to me that it isn't a significant issue in the software industry. I'm not claiming any actual knowledge about this, but I did find this brief comment at The Question of Work for Hire: "I Paid for It. Why Isn’t It Mine?" | Expert Commentary | IRMI.com : Given the rapidity with which workers are hired and fired in this industry, there is little loyalty between employers and employees in either direction these days, and any attempts by a company to claim ownership of software an employee writes in his free time would, I think, strike most as highly unusual and very newsworthy.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-18-2005 10:03 AM

Perhaps they do. Certainly in the past companies have exerted ownership over private projects developed by their work-for-hire employees in the past; and the courts have upheld this. Beware Employment Contracts - SlashdotThen it's possible I've overstated the frequency of this type of contract; I do hope I have. Of course, I'm no software dev myself; my field is currently "Sandwich Delivery."