Yes, absolutely. People in software get paid well enough and have enough other options that freedom of contract is the best policy.
Let people know upfront what they are getting into, and then let them make their own choice about whether it's worthwhile or not.
There might be some argument about whether this kind of 'consenting adults' approach to labour regulation is the right or wrong approach for less well off people. (Many people seem to think that the poor are like kids and need to be protected from themselves by someone who knows better what's good for them..)
But for people in the ever-booming field of software, that's a hard argument to make.
> Many people seem to think that the poor are like kids and need to be protected from themselves by someone who knows better what's good for them
That's not the reason. If you're poor, you are likely desperately looking for a job. This means that if you are offered one with shit working conditions, but that pays better than your current situation (which might be zero!), you HAVE TO take it. Most people have nearly zero bargaining power in their employment, which is why we need regulation especially for them.
And yes, while in a highly-valued field like IT, we usually have enough bargaining power, regulation still helps us. If the baseline was "just don't beat your workers, everything else is legal", we'd have a lot more to negotiate first, before we even got to the things we negotiate these days like benefits, loose schedules, work from home, etc.
And it's not like we can't fall on hard times either. Not everyone that is paid well is rich. They might be the main source of income for a large family or a have sick or old relatives to take care of. Or they might be at the start of their career without any savings. Bargaining power comes from the ability to quit, which comes from the ability to find a new job before your savings run out. No matter your industry, finding a job still takes time, so if you don't have enough savings to cover that time, you're in no better of a position than the poor person from the first paragraph.
> And yes, while in a highly-valued field like IT, we usually have enough bargaining power, regulation still helps us. If the baseline was "just don't beat your workers, everything else is legal", we'd have a lot more to negotiate first, before we even got to the things we negotiate these days like benefits, loose schedules, work from home, etc.
Nah. Compare eg restaurants. Food safety is strictly regulated in many countries, but taste ain't. Still, you can walk into most restaurants and get something reasonably palatable. No need to laboriously negotiate the taste.
Similarly, in place and times when there was no minimum wage, people didn't typically negotiate their compensation from a baseline of zero. The baseline is what's prevalent in the market.
(My adopted home of Singapore doesn't have a minimum wage today. Germany and Hong Kong only got theirs relatively recently. The pre-20th-century US didn't have one either, yet was the target of many migrants.)
> And it's not like we can't fall on hard times either. Not everyone that is paid well is rich. They might be the main source of income for a large family or a have sick or old relatives to take care of.
Let people know upfront what they are getting into, and then let them make their own choice about whether it's worthwhile or not.
There might be some argument about whether this kind of 'consenting adults' approach to labour regulation is the right or wrong approach for less well off people. (Many people seem to think that the poor are like kids and need to be protected from themselves by someone who knows better what's good for them..)
But for people in the ever-booming field of software, that's a hard argument to make.