> This is precisely the attitude that keeps us here. Crabs in a bucket.
I'm doing the opposite of advocating for a crab bucket. What I'd like is for every capable individual to pursue their own self-interest to their highest ability, while still being able to preserve their individual liberty of contract.
Unions are built on seniority systems and care little for quality or merit. Many go so far as deny non-unionized coworkers the right to individually represent themselves (see Janus v. AFSCME). The union does not value individual skill. In general, it values the will of the collective, and, in particular, it's most vocal and demanding representatives.
I would have no issue with people choosing to be part of a union as an organization of like-minded compatriots willing to subject themselves and only themselves to said union's terms. After all, whether to one's advantage of detriment, every person has freedom of association. Such an arrangement is similar to a startup.
However, unions in the US rely on the imposition of the government's police power. They're essentially state-backed special interest groups. That they are political institutions in their own right should have anyone who values his liberties concerned at the very least.
> So do lottery tickets - your odds are about the same too
The chances of winning 1 million dollars in a semi-weekly game of Powerball are 1 in 11,688,054. All things being equal, that's roughly 14 people for every employed person in the US. Meaning that in a given year ~5,824 Powerball winners (not including the Jackpot) can be expected to be millionaires before taxes. Compare that with the millions of tech workers with six figure salaries + RSUs.
> "I have enough options so I do not feel any sense of responsibility to support my coworkers against a structurally imbalanced system"
Firstly, I never made any personal claims about my own life. Whether I do or don't have options has no bearing on the fact the others do. This can be observed from the record low unemployment rate. And even where there are layoffs, the 3-month severance packages pay more than most American's annual incomes.
Secondly, I don't know of any system that isn't structurally at some level. Economics is the science of satisfying unlimited wants with limited resources. Employment, in the same vein, are subject to supply and demand, not balance or equilibrium. The only way to achieve the latter is to limit individual rights and deny them from wanting more than is supplied.
Thirdly, tech is where that Steinbeck quote breaks. Unlike the farmers and fruit-pickers in Grapes of Wrath, tech employees actually have a very good chance of becoming millionaires so long as they aren't spendthrifts. At a starting pay of ~3x the median income of the country, even before RSUs, I'd hesitate to call anyone in that position "poor" or "temporarily embarrassed" in a financial sense.