Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them

[grumbler]

that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

[Razgovory]

I think it's clear that Grumbler is concerned about bees pollinating programmers kept for honey.

[crazy canuck]

that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

[crazy canuck]

I think it's clear that Grumbler is concerned about bees pollinating programmers kept for honey.

That is only reasonable conclusion one can draw from his responses thus far.

[HVC]

that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

uh oh, you're in trouble, you asked two more questions. He's going to be very cross with you

[crazy canuck]

that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

uh oh, you're in trouble, you asked two more questions. He's going to be very cross with you

[grumbler]

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

I answer one question.  If you didn't ask the right question, too bad for you.  Again, given that you have no even answered my first question, this whining about me not answering your second seems more than a little hypocritical.

I paid you the courtesy of answering your question (even if I used words that you didn't understand, I answered the second question that asked what the big word meant).  You lack the courtesy to answer my first question.  I am willing to let your rudeness cause the end of this exchange.

[Berkut]

I don't think this is really an area that needs intervention.

Video game developers are, almost by definition, highly competent technical specialists. Their working conditions sometimes suck, but the job is attractive because there are external benefits to those who do it that make it worthwhile to them. They have options.

As the article noted, many exercise those options and leave for higher pay and better conditions. This is a problem the market can and is handling without any help. There is nothing keeping these highly skilled people from marketing their skills elsewhere.

[crazy canuck]

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

I answer one question.  If you didn't ask the right question, too bad for you.  Again, given that you have no even answered my first question, this whining about me not answering your second seems more than a little hypocritical.

I paid you the courtesy of answering your question (even if I used words that you didn't understand, I answered the second question that asked what the big word meant).  You lack the courtesy to answer my first question.  I am willing to let your rudeness cause the end of this exchange.

Oh my, do you really believe that or is this just another way for you to get a "win"

[crazy canuck]

I don't think this is really an area that needs intervention.

Video game developers are, almost by definition, highly competent technical specialists. Their working conditions sometimes suck, but the job is attractive because there are external benefits to those who do it that make it worthwhile to them. They have options.

As the article noted, many exercise those options and leave for higher pay and better conditions. This is a problem the market can and is handling without any help. There is nothing keeping these highly skilled people from marketing their skills elsewhere.

I think it is a difficult public policy issue.  On the one hand the tech industry has always argued, as you have, that they employee a special type of employee who does not need regulatory protection.  The argument is also made that such regulation would inhibit innovation, investment and the creation of new startups.

There is some merit to those arguments but we are also faced with the evidence that there are those employees within the industry who do suffer and for whom the "market" is not working.

[Berkut]

I don't think this is really an area that needs intervention.

Video game developers are, almost by definition, highly competent technical specialists. Their working conditions sometimes suck, but the job is attractive because there are external benefits to those who do it that make it worthwhile to them. They have options.

As the article noted, many exercise those options and leave for higher pay and better conditions. This is a problem the market can and is handling without any help. There is nothing keeping these highly skilled people from marketing their skills elsewhere.

I think it is a difficult public policy issue.  On the one hand the tech industry has always argued, as you have, that they employee a special type of employee who does not need regulatory protection.  The argument is also made that such regulation would inhibit innovation, investment and the creation of new startups.

There is some merit to those arguments but we are also faced with the evidence that there are those employees within the industry who do suffer and for whom the "market" is not working.

I don't see any evidence that there are employees for whom the market is not working.

The article states exactly the opposite - that the problem is that employees can and do leave for better deals elsewhere. That is EXACTLY the market working. That is a textbook example of the market working in exactly the manner it is supposed to work when labor has real value and reasonable mobility.

If people stay, it is precisely because they WANT to stay, despite the shitty conditions. There are positive externalities just like there are negative. They simply like making computer games - its fun and exciting and challenging.

To the extent there is any problem here, it is one that is self fixing. Computer game companies need highly skilled technical experts. If they treat them badly, they will leave the industry, or do work for their direct competitors who treat them better. I have seen no evidence at all that there is some negative externality that is keeping these people from making perfectly rational and informed choices about where to ply their highly skilled talents. Hence no need for regulatory intervention, and all the consequences that come along with that.

[crazy canuck]

A market works because some can leave?  With that logic there would be no workplace regulation at all.

The article in the OP clearly states that companies still require their employees to work through a "crunch".

[Razgovory]

Eh, it's a tribal thing.

[Habbaku]

Oh my, do you really believe that or is this just another way for you to get a "win"

You already know the answer to that.

[Berkut]

A market works because some can leave?  With that logic there would be no workplace regulation at all.

A market works when employees have the mobility to effectively market their expertise in a reasonably easy and transparent manner. Yes, that is what defines a working labor market.

I would turn this around - ANY credible economist would say that if this market requires regulation and intercession, then there is no market in existence that would not. This is a textbook case in how you wish all labor markets worked, with highly skilled labor where the companies are vying for that labor in a tight market.

The article in the OP clearly states that companies still require their employees to work through a "crunch".

So? Companies require workers to do all kinds of things they may not want, like show up to work. That is not evidence of a problem. It is not illegal to demand long hours from your employees, nor is the fact that some companies do any evidence at all that the market is not working.

If this is a unreasonable demand for some particular worker, they should leave. And plenty of them do, as the article points out, to the detriment of those companies and the game development genre in general.

That is the mechanism for how labor markets that work, actually work. If you do not accept that, you do not accept that any labor market can actually work via market mechanisms, and in fact require regulation to work at all. I think that is called communism?