That is now how a market economy works! I mean, you can't usually sell for less than cost or pay more than productivity over the long term, but sometimes you do (loss leaders, R&D investments), and you can definitely do the reverse.
Well, you're right. I'm not in disagreement with the way in which dispassionate markets are understood to behave. I'm in disagreement that such a dispassionate job market is any sort of ideal that ought to be embraced by the average joe -- and that we've largely accepted it as if it were (or at least as if it were "good enough").
Let's say I go to a potluck and bring store-bought cookies as my contribution. My friends say "come on, wallacoloo, we all worked our butts off preparing good food for you: we deserve better from you." I reply, "well then, find a new friend who's willing to make better food for you and show them to me. Once you show me that such a man exists, I'll contribute to you as much as he would."
It's an absurd scenario. It's insulting. That's not any type of relationship we should aim for. But suddenly, once you introduce enough indirection (money, specialization, larger-sized groups), I'm supposed to think that making every such interaction into an adversarial one is somehow proper.
Your employer-employee relationship is commercial, so it's reasonable of the CEO to think of your salary as market-driven, just as it is reasonable of you to leave when the market rate rises above what you're paid. It's business, you shouldn't take it personally.
OTOH, the potluck is among friends. You're expected to have your friends' best interests in mind and to enjoy being around them, so it's not surprising that they'd be offended if they spent hours cooking and you just ran to the store and bought a cheap salad or some cookies.
I don't want that distinction. I am a person. Why should I want to pretend otherwise?
What you're saying is similar to the "work/life balance" trope. My work is a part of my life, just as are friends, food, physical health, and the environment around me. I don't want to drive these things apart. I love it when the food part of my life overlaps with the friends part (social eating). I love it when the environmental part overlaps with the personal health part (outdoor exercise). Yet people speak of work as if it uniquely ought to be an exception. As if work is a thing you do only in order to allow you to do other things. HN is home to enough enthusiasts and tinkerers and people who actually enjoy creating things. Why drive this wedge between my desire to create and my personhood?
And leaders know it. That's why the cultivate the potluck mindset when they want to work you to the bone. Everything demands 110% all the time when it's for the sake of your buddies. Of course you'll work Saturday, Sunday, after dinner until midnight. What, are your TV shows more important than your fellows' needs for your labor? You wouldn't want to let your friends down.
A little indirection, a little surplus, a little breathing room, is sometimes what makes life worth living. And if I'm feeling more or less ambitious, I can pick a different point on the effort:reward curve. I value that optionality. I don't want to be socially pressured into making the same contribution as everyone else all the time, and I definitely don't want to be pressured into working at my own redline all the time. Sometimes you just microwave some Ramen.
He screamed at a homeless child who lost his parents at war
O'rly? Uber did it all over the world. AirBnB did it for a long time. Back in time, Microsoft did it by letting people copy its software and go unpunished.
That's one of the reasons companies seek investment: to undermine competition by dumping prices and getting market share.
Likewise I've met plenty of engineers that are not profitably replaceable.
Almost every SWE is replaceable, but many it makes no sense to replace and that usually correlates with their tenure working on a particular system.
I myself have several years of knowledge I've accumulated working in a specific problem space at the company. It would take a new hire minimum 2-3 years if not more to accumulate the specialized knowledge I have. So if I were to leave tomorrow over pay, they would have to hire a replacement at the market rate (salary and a 4 year equity grant). That replacement would be far less productive than me for minimum 2 years, so they pay out 4 years of equity now to see equal productivity 2 years from now and if they continue the same pay strategy, that new hire will leave after 4 years of equity has vested. They basically get 2 years of productivity 2 years from now for the price of 4 years of equity today. It's just stupid to play chicken with salary when there are considerable opportunities costs for doing so and you're essentially paying double for half.
It's not just me either. I see it with folks across the board at the company. The only ones I consider relatively fungible are those that team hop every 1 to 1.5 years.