Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple and Others Accused of 'No Poaching' Deal
lightbox32 writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, several of the US's largest technology companies, which include Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Intuit and Pixar Animation, are in the final stages of negotiations with the Justice Department to avoid a court battle over whether they colluded to hold down wages by agreeing not to poach each other's employees. 'The Justice Department would have to convince a court not just that such accords existed, but that workers had suffered significant harm as a result. The companies may not want to take a chance in court. If the government wins, it could open the floodgates for private claimants, even a class action by employees. A settlement would allow the Justice Department to halt the practice, without the companies having to admit to any legal violations.'"
The companies were already engaging in the free market solution.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Keeping wages artificially low is hardly "just some companies making a deal". It's anti-competitive and disrupts the marketplace. It's also illegal.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, there are antitrust laws that preclude them from collusion, both in the customer marketplace and in the labor market. I don't necessarily agree with such manipulation of markets, but such collusion is as anti-competitive as was Microsoft's attempted collusion with Netscape (divide the browser between Windows and everything else) and Apple ("knife the baby").
So if you were calling for blood when Microsoft was doing it, you should be calling for blood when Google or Apple does it, at least if you're trying to be consistent.
My blog
The following companies confirmed they were questioned but have been relieved of the Justice Department investigation:
IBM
Microsoft
Yahoo
Genentech
The agency has decided not to pursue charges against companies that had what it believes were legitimate reasons for agreeing not to poach each other's employees, said people familiar with the matter. Instead, it's focusing on cases in which it believes the non-solicit agreement extended well beyond the scope of any collaboration.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Law or not, last I checked Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, and Intuit were all publicly traded companies. Unless they told their shareholders about this deal, it seems like at least they should have a say on this one.
Collusion is illegal. I've even known true Randroids who understood that there have to be enforcement mechanisms.
Next time all telecoms agree behind the scenes to keep the prices up to help each other, tell me what you think. I'm sure you will say they are private companies
none
I've personally been in a circumstance (which I found out about afterwards) where I had my employer threaten a vendor of ours about hiring me. The conversations, which would have doubled my pay, stopped dead and I had no idea why at the time. I only found out after my former VP left that it had taken place.
This stuff happens A LOT, especially in vendor relationships. The problem in our industry is that all the major companies buy stuff from each other. In my specific case, I was pretty upset that my former employer had blocked such a major career step forward when I found out.
You think the shareholders care about that?
All shareholders care about is higher divs (well not APPL share holders, but they "Greed Different"). Why the hell would shareholders stop this if it wasn't illegal and enforced?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So let me get this straight:
"first sale" doctrine is dead so they can force their prices down our throats and we cannot bargain.
Now we cannot bargain for wages either and that's okay too?
Tell me is there any limit to corporate power at all?
>>the techc companies will also agree not to lure away government tech workers with promises of higher salaries in the private sector.
As long as the government agrees not to do the same.
Oh, wait! Damn! Collusion!
Uh, yes there laws to stop them. This is why the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is investigating them. Because what they're accused of is illegal.
How the fuck were you modded insightful? Is Rush Limbaugh a /. mod?
Don't be evil ...
... unless it gets in the way of making a huge profit on the backs of your underpaid employees, assisting with censorship, handing over political dissidents to tyrannical regimes, or releasing a mobile operating system that is open only to the carriers & manufacturers but not the users (who can't install binary apps outside of a java sandbox)!
You know what? You're absolutely right. Industry should have the absolute word on what they do for their hiring practices.
They are private companies. If they want to do these things, they should be able.
If they want to not hire old people... Tough, it's private industry, man!
Or black people. Now, I'm not a racist. Many of my friends are black. But if a private company wants to refuse employment to black people, who am I to tell them "no, you can't make private business decisions about your private business"! God, we live in such a nanny-state these days.
And those disableds, you know, the funny-looking, wheelchair ones. If the boss doesn't want those guys cramping their style, I say, give them the boot.
And if people want to unionize? Tough shit! The boss owns the company, not the unions, not the gub'ment, so they should keep their gritty hands off.
I am really afraid that the openness of private industry is inhibited by preventing hiring decisions. Think of the economic damage caused by letting all these undesirables get hired! Can you imagine? Some of them might actually make a living!
</hyperbole> Damn, the Reagan era and all of the bullshit that followed has really contaminated people. Employees being able to "play the field" and better negotiate their salary is a good thing. For crying out loud, even you free market idiots in the audience should like it, because it allows employee wages to be set by the free market. But some people will go so far to defend the actions of corporate oligarchs that they are willingly blind to such realities...
...since one of my Adobe (former) co-workers just left for a gig at Pixar. Someone else left a while back for Google. And there are several ex-Apple folks on my team at Adobe.
Well, there are antitrust laws that preclude them from collusion, both in the customer marketplace and in the labor market. I don't necessarily agree with such manipulation of markets, but such collusion is as anti-competitive as was Microsoft's attempted collusion with Netscape (divide the browser between Windows and everything else) and Apple ("knife the baby").
Most anti-trust laws like the Sherman Anti-trust act apply to trusts like monopolies and cartels. And they apply to products and services to consumers, not labor unless the product or service was labor (i.e. a temp agency). Before any anti-trust laws can apply, there must be a trust established. I don't think that anyone can argue Apple nor Google has any control of labor. The situation might be different if it was two temp agencies that controlled the temp supply in a region. It may be illegal for other reasons but not for anti-trust.
So if you were calling for blood when Microsoft was doing it, you should be calling for blood when Google or Apple does it, at least if you're trying to be consistent.
*Sigh* Microsoft did not get in trouble for having a monopoly. There are many cases where having a monopoly is perfectly legal. Microsoft got in trouble for using monopoly power to harm competitors and partners. In this case, Apple and Google may have agreed not to actively pursue other employees; however, I did not see that they prevented people from leaving voluntarily. If anything this helps competitors; Apple won't look at Google employees? Nothing stops Microsoft/Yahoo/Oracle/etc from doing so.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
These agreements are standard fair when companies sign contracts to do business. Intel has a contract to design parts for Apple, Apple had a contract to share services with Google, Apple would have a contract with Adobe to share things like PDF support and such, etc. Not poaching employees from another company under contract is a standard business contract. Pretty much any company that hires a "consultant" from another company has such agreements in place because close business relationships often mean the other company's employees are working at your offices, closely with your employees.... if companies couldn't make such agreements, nobody would be able to do business without worrying that the company with the upper hand would poach their best people. Employees of these companies have access to internal things like email addresses and phone lists... companies would NEVER share that stuff without assurances it doesn't end up in the HR office the next day.... it's basic business ethics.
It may be used to keep labor wages down, but the cost to companies is bigger than any "individual" wage being paid. You'll note who's NOT on the list... companies known for "collaborating" then sucker punching their partners out of contracts by swiping the key knowledge employees and renege on contracts. Every company I've worked at has these type of agreements when they use contractors, OEM services, or large purchasing agreements.
Let's say you're a mathematician that specializes in search algorithms. For whatever reason, you want to leave Google - it's beside the point as to why. There aren't too many places where you can work in that specialty. And as everyone who has tried to make a career change even within the same industry (ex: becoming a network admin after years as a C++ programmer), is nearly impossible because of the pigeon holing that corp America does; so the mathematician won't be able to just switch to statistics or whatever.
Either they do away with this rule or I think a law should be created that, if a company has this rule, then they should pay a lifetime and a half of said person's salary, inflation adjusted of course, if they have to leave - for whatever reason.
Unfair to the company? No more "unfair" than this rule is to the employee.
Oh, and whether they're private (they're not) or public is irrelevant.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Why exactly is it called the "Justice Department" ?
Seems like if you are a corporation, you can avoid the whole "justice" bit just by having a few meetings with the "right people" and greasing some palms.
How is this legally different from a typical teaming agreement? The purpose of a teaming agreement is, in part, to keep wages reasonable by discouraging poaching. This is very common and legally enforceable in Virginia. If one our partners offers an employee a sweeter job, their ass is grass once Legal catches wind of it. If another large consulting company comes us to us and offers a large-scale agreement, I don't see a fundamental difference.
Doesn't mean I AGREE with that...
Yep. I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, in that I believe it is the only fundamental system that works. However that doesn't mean it doesn't need some regulation. Reason is that capitalism only works when there is competition. When companies fight people win. This applies not only in terms of product competition, but competition for employees as well. The incentive to keep working conditions good, pay high, and so on is that if you don't, you'll lose good people to other companies.
Well, just like this any other kind of collusion, if they collude to keep pay down, that is anti-competitive and hurts things in the long run.
For that matter, that sort of thing leads back to what originally started unions. Something mining companies were particularly good at was removing any mobility you had. You'd find a mining town and the only stores in town were owned by the mining company. As a miner, you had no choice but to shop there. They charged outrageous prices, which in tandem with low wages meant you had to run credit. You got indebted to the company and couldn't leave.
Now obviously this is far less odious, but it is the same kind of thing just a much lesser degree. They want to artificially depress prices and work to remove mobility from the employees. You get a job at one company, and the others just won't hire you. That then lets them pay less, and care less about quality of work environment.
Remember that the reason to like capitalism isn't for its own sake, but because it gives us a society that is over all the best for people, one where people are better off over all than any other. What that also means is we shouldn't just take a hands off "Anything goes," idea. When something runs counter to that, we need to step in and regulate it. That really is the function of government after all.
It is rarely the case that extremes work well, and capitalism is no exception. It works extremely well, but that doesn't mean you let it run rampant and have an "anything goes" kind of attitude. You regulate and balance it to try and create a system that has the greatest overall benefit.
You forgot people who get cancer and cause spikes in the employer's share of health insurance premiums.
"Hmm, that sore throat of yours has gone on quite a while... YOU'RE FIRED!"
And shouldn't a private company be allowed to require hot subordinates to fuck their boss to get a promotion or raise? Why would we interfere in their HR practices?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's not like they control the market on developers. Unlike the price collusion on LCD panels where there were literally only a handful of manufacturers, this is simply a list of high-profile, high-paying employers. They don't corner the market on jobs.
FWIW they claim keeping wages low wasn't the intent of the agreement :
"The companies have argued to the government that there's nothing anticompetitive about the no-poaching agreements. They say they must be able to offer each other assurances that they won't lure away each others' star employees if they are to collaborate on key innovations that ultimately benefit the consumer."
They have a point. You could spin it as beneficial to employees because it protects the employer from being hurt by competitors hiring away key people (that's economic warfare instead of competing) and it keeps the salaries of "superstars" from inflating to artificial highs (bubbles help no-one.) But it's clearly a grey area.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I work at one of the companies in the investigation and I was recruited by another.
On top of that I've hired many people into the company I work for (which again is one of these) and my recruiter told me exactly what's allowed and what's not.
What isn't allowed:
Actively recruiting people from the other companies. That means no cold-calling, no standing outside their parking lot, no poaching at tech conferences.
What is allowed:
Hiring their people. If they submit their resume, it's fair game. If someone else submits their resume, it's fair game.
And on top of that, as I mentioned above, one of the companies even broke the rules to try to recruit me, so I'm sure the company I'm at does it too to the others.
Anyway, none of this really hurts the employees, if you want to find a new job, no doors are closed to you just put your resume out there.
On another note, not mentioned in this investigation (that I know of), the company I work at has a "freeze-out" on another company. Anyone who left this company to go there is blackballed and is not to be hired back. How long that will last I dunno, but for now they're very serious about it. This actually might hurt employees' career prospects and probably is illegal.
Oh, another another note, it's common in the industry to do salary surveys. Each year, the companies actually collude to share information about how much they are paying their employees in different positions and then they do equivalent rankings. They then report these figures as part of their annual compensation reviews/reports. I have to imagine sharing this information makes it a lot easier to put in place these "no cold calling" agreements.
And what search engine are the kept from working for? It's true that Google has some monopoly power, but I can't see how this is an abuse or even use of it at all.
Keeping wages artificially low is hardly "just some companies making a deal". It's anti-competitive and disrupts the marketplace. It's also illegal.
Yeah, but not the "true" marketplace. This is just some lowlife "individuals" wanting to make more than they deserve (anything that doesn't involve an MBA should be capped at $100k). It shouldn't be too hard for these god-like beings (corporations) to get this to silently go away.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
No one wants their Director-of-100-Million-Dollar-Project walking off one day because the main competitor offered him double to recreate the project.
Then be prepared to make certain that employee has no desire to go work for the main competitor. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?
This has nothing to do to NDAs. If you read the articles and previous posts, you will see a list of bussiness who where relieved of the investigation because there were "legitimate reasons".
In short, if you own a car factory, you can agree with other car factories not to poach to avoid claims of NDA/IP breaches. You cannot agree to that with airplane factories because the only reason is not to pay the employees what they are worth.
It is curious that so many "free market" advocates forget about it when it does not bode well for bussiness. It is more curious that more of those advocates are not the bussiness owners, managers that would profit from these policies, but rather the ones that are getting in the "receiving end.
.
Why can't
If you believe that, then I have some prime real estate and a bridge to sell to you.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You want competitive labor markets, you got competitive labor markets. These workers can try competing against workers in China, India, and other nations with a rapidly improving skill base in information technology and a lot of mouths to feed.
These employees should have got while the getting was good, and kept their mouths shut, because these companies had actually decided to keep them employed rather than shipping their jobs outside US borders. With this "gentleman's agreement" out of the way, what else is there to stop this from happening now?
Really? Illegal? How do the various salary caps for teams get by in sports leagues?
Or are you trying to say that you had to work at one of those companies because they are the only places that you can work and you are incapable of doing something else? For it to be illegal they'd have to control the market. Those companies do not control the IT job market, they don't even control a tiny percentage of it. So it doesn't really matter what deals they make, there are plenty of other companies not making any such agreement which could pay more if they wanted too and you were worth it.
So its okay for the NFL, NBA, and MLB to have salary caps, and they pretty much are monopolies, but its not okay for a tiny percentage of the market to agree not start a wage war with each other ...
The reality of it is this is simply a side effect of the laws of supply and demand. The demand for workers is far lower than the supply, so they simply don't need to poach to get qualified employees.
Sorry, but its not these companies fault that you're in a field with people that are just as qualified as you are that don't have some sort of entitlement issue and are more than happy to work for a reasonable wage.
If their wages were so terrible, people wouldn't be tripping over themselves to work at these companies when there are clearly alternatives available. No one is forced to work at Intel. Every single person at Intel is capable of getting a job elsewhere by just saying the worked at Intel. Hell, they could get fired and have it spread all over the Internet and they'd STILL get hired by SOMEONE just by name dropping, its not like these people don't have options, and in fact have MORE options by working at these companies which are supposedly 'hurting' them.
Maybe ... just MAYBE ... you aren't really worth what you think you're worth.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
No one wants their Director-of-100-Million-Dollar-Project walking off one day because the main competitor offered him double to recreate the project.
No one is saying that would happen and even if it did, there would be lawsuits over the intellectual property and trade secrets.
This is about allowing people to move to another employer using their skills. If you spent years in school studying and then years working in a field learning new skills that are very specific to an industry, according to these folks, you'd be stuck with one employer with no recourse if you had to leave. And if you left, what then? If your experience has been in search engines, where do you go if the other ones won't hire you? As we all know, corp America wants people to fit into their pidgeon holes.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
And perhaps it is reasonable if it is limited to only those employees working on the joint projects where contact is established through the contract. Otherwise, it's simply an anti-competitive move to keep wages down.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
As I understand it, all they agreed to was to not actively contact each other's employees to offer them jobs. In other words, the employees could at any time have asked the other company if they had better jobs, it's just that they would have to become active themselves. Right?
If so, then how is this keeping wages artificially low? It only means that people not actively seeking for a position with more money not getting offers for such a position. In which case I'd say, if they don't seek for it, they cannot complain that they don't get it. After all, there's no inherent right to get job offers you didn't ask for. Otherwise, could the jobless who never contacted a potential employer also complain because no potential employer ever contacted him?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
-edfardos
No, "we" like capitalism because it glorifies being a greedy pig who can afford to overindulge while making fun of all the have-nots created by "our" hoarding. "We" just love it that those anti-materialist, unambitious scumbags have to either get with the program and sell out or become disenfranchised and do without the basics of life! Yep, that there's what "we" call justice, citizen!
***sigh***
The USA I grew up in no longer exists.
Caveat Utilitor
"Don't do evil" was dead long ago. Just look at past Slashdot stories (hint: search for donoevil).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Hurrah! Thank you, noble executives, for colluding to make sure that the people who work their pants off to make you rich will never themselves receive anything like as much compensation as you do! We are truly, truly grateful that our salaries are not inflated like yours are.
Well reasoned.
One minor point: No part of this practice is consistent capitalism.
Capitalism requires free markets. If the allegations are true, these companies worked directly to destroy the free market.
The right to sell one's own labor in the market place is the most fundamental and essential market of all.
Destroying markets to gain monopoly advantage is not part of capitalism.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
In my experience the (often self-annointed) "superstars" are seldom the people working their pants off, YMMV. Big differences in pay are also bad for moral as evidenced by your post. The solution is bringing executive pay down not raising the salaries of another chosen few to ridiculous levels.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Am I the only person that sees the Apple board connection? Eric Schmidt(Google), Paul Otellini(Intel), Steve Jobs (Pixar/Disney), and Scott Cook(Intuit) all sat on Apple's board. I believe they even all server simultaneously. That's everyone but Adobe, who definitely has their ties with Apple too, even if those ties are strained right now.
Seems like more than a coincidence to me.
Each of these companies sets employee wages (at annual performance review time) by referring to a survey of all the other companies' wages. Their target is, strangely enough, the "average" wage. This is itself a kind of collusion to keep wages down, by pointing the finger at each other. Sorry! Can't pay you more than everyone else gets paid. But on the other hand, it makes economic sense. Everyone gets a fair wage, which for a software engineer is far more than you'd be making assembling cars, and companies don't in general pay more than they have to. The wild card, of course, is options. Pick the right rocket, and all of these little issues about salary won't matter so much.
Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
What an incredibly idiotic thing to say! Let me guess, you have or are working toward an MBA?
Caveat Utilitor
What I love are the contortions employers go through to complain that they can't find talented people while doing everything they can to make sure they don't accidentally hire talent. Ranges from interpreting experiences and education as not applicable or relevant to flat out just not believing the resume, though they don't put it that way of course. Things like declaring that Windows Server 2003 experience doesn't count for Windows Server 2008. We've all heard the stories about the requirements for more years of experience than is possible. And who knows, maybe they've made a subjective evaluation that they just don't like this dorky geek they're interviewing and are trying to push his buttons, trying to create the excuse they need to show him the door. The way things should work is that a CS degree ought to be enough for a development position, period. And that no one earns such a degree if they can't develop. Post a "help wanted" ad, and take the next appropriately degreed person who walks in the door. I think it nearly was that easy to get professional work in the 1950's. But now?
And then they poach each other? These employers are like the sort of women who think all single men are single because there's something wrong with them, and spend all their time trying to steal married men away from their wives. It's an understandable kind of mental laziness. Why go to all the trouble of thoroughly checking someone out when it's easier to let others do that and then lure away their picks? However, they have to balance that with several worries. Not all picks are good ones. If he could be lured away once, he could be lured away again. Or that a prospect might be a waste of time because he's faithful and satisfied and can't be lured away.
Non-poaching agreements definitely damage the unemployed. It might seem the other way. If an employer can't poach, the only place to look is the market. But in balance, I think that benefit is outweighed by the lower compensation they can pay, and the effects that has on everyone. Without such anti-competitive measures, some of these employers would more often take a chance on someone who is less likely to be tempted away and who can be hired for less.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
But that's not true. The cotton growers are better of with workers they are paying the same they would have to pay for feeding and housing slaves (or maybe even less), and when they cannot work any more, instead of paying money to buy new slaves, they just employ the next underpaid worker. It's far cheaper for them. Slavery is only lucrative if there's no supply of workers who are willing to do the work despite of extremely low pay and being treated like slaves.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Those salary caps you cited are completely out in the open and agreed upon by the owners and the players' associations. Without those players' unions, the players would be making far, far less money than they do under the current salary caps (and they did make far less, in the old days). If these current allegations are true, it's a completely different set of circumstances - companies secretly agreeing not to poach in order to hold down salaries is what we don't like. If there were unions for these employees and they agreed upon caps that were tied to the revenue of those companies (like the NHL does) that would be different.
This situation is more akin to the old days of baseball, when players could not be signed by a different team, and the owners kept almost all of the money that their teams made. It's all just a fight over who gets what percentage. The owners in this case (Google, Apple execs, etc) are pushing to keep more money for shareholders and give less to the talent. The talent wants more of the profits to be directed to their salaries. That's fine as long as the methods are out in the open. Secret collusion is what's illegal, not salary caps.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Only people with MBAs should make more than $100k? You're joking right? Why is a Masters degree in Business Administration more valuable than a PHd in Computational Linguistics just to grab an example out of midair?
Rather than down mod this rather silly comment, I'll take it seriously. Fascism is a political system in which corporations collude with an autocratic government in exchange for special treatment. (Some people would say that Berlusconi's Italy is not that far off it.) Here, the Government is refusing to let corporations behave in an anti-competitive manner, whether they waste money on lawyers doing it, or agree to be good and keep the lawyers out. That looks to me like democracy. As for companies behaving like that - it's very common. And not always a bad thing. It usually only works if the workers cannot go elsewhere an earn more. That suggests, given the location of these companies, and the sort of people that they employ, that they would not earn more anywhere else. Actually, holding down wages at the top of a profession is sometimes a good thing; it makes for more economic stability given the fluctuations in the business cycle.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This is probably just an agreement not to pinch staff in order to stymie a competitor. Sure you can recruit staff because you want to do something better, and in general this is good for the public, but you can also do it just to stop the competitor doing something better than you. Like grab key staff in a key department, not because you have any particular use to them but because frankly it's worth you paying them just to not go and work at the other guy. This is a tactic that involves everybody losing, but you losing a little less than everyone else. It protects losers and is underhand bad practice, it's not any good for the consumer.
This only really applies to the high-fliers or significant numbers of a department/branch/project/whatever (particularly those on collaborations). The objective is not some kind of conspiracy to hold down wages, and any hope of achieving that would be pretty laughable. I've no sympathy for employees complaining that stopping the above underhand tactics loses them financial opportunities as it is just as unethical to take advantage of it.
Agreements would only extend headhunting/approaching employees, if they apply for jobs under their own volition they're completely fair game.
I'm sure this was sarcasm. While I don't completely rule out someone seriously considering corporations "god-like beings", I consider it extremely unlikely, and even more unlikely that someone like that would post on Slashdot.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I happened to work in a place where both HP and Microsoft employees in close proximity, and I was informed by many employees that there were agreements that the other would not hire the workers of one, until they had been away from their respective company for at least 6 months...
I knew guys on the HP side that wanted to work for Microsoft, but they couldn't afford a 6 month vacation in order to get a job elsewhere...
Read again: I think that was an unpunctuated quotation of the "sentiment" behind the lowlife individuals that pitchpipe was criticizing.
Sigh.
Free Market... that phrase...it doesn't mean what you think it means.
A market where every actor is totally free to make choices on how they buy or sell their product/services is "free". Ergo, a market in which trusts and other consensual agreements and monopoly abuse are allowed is a free market.
Note I'm not saying that's ideal, just that you're using words wrong. Ideally you want a minimally regulated market, not one with no regulation.
But they do reduce it considerably. If you try to kill someone and fail, it doesn't mean you did nothing wrong.
Collusion is not illegal. Certain types of collusion are illegal.
By the way - there's nothing illegal about what they're doing in this case.
>anything that doesn't involve an MBA should be capped at $100k
Right, because MBAs are sooooo valuable to a company. *boggle*
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
So much for that "free market" bullshit.
The government is the great equalizer. It exists to represent the people's interest (at least in theory). Business represents its interests... not yours.
Unfortunately Business knows this, and that is why they've corrupted our government in their favor.
Its nice to see the Gov doing what it is supposed to do. Referee the game and represent the people's interest.
Yes. Only executive pay should bubble.
Your own definition is internally inconsistent.
You seem to stumble on the definition of "every".
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Funny how I never see capitalists whining that people aren't giving them free shit.
Makes me wonder who's the real "greedy pig"?
Maybe not
Shrug. My definition is the correct definition. Free means free.
It's the same false definition people use when claiming the GPL is the most "free" license. It's obviously less free than many other OS licenses, because it puts more restraints on what can be done with it.
Note I'm not saying a market in which there are some restraints can't also be called "free". I'm saying that complaining that a "cowboy, wild west, unregulated" market isn't free is simply false.
I mean, I see why you do it. You think you can co-opt the word "free" and beat capitalists at their own game by being "freer than thou". I guess it's a nice tactic and all, I just don't buy it.
Hey rabble..I mean my constituents, I want a truly free market. One where you are free to buy a price-controlled house for $100k, where gas is price-controlled at no more than $2 a gallon, and where we hike taxes those fat cat corporatists when they collude to distort the free market by refusing to immediately give up the rights to life-saving technologies to other companies. Why should those fat-cat pharmaceutical CEOs rake in all that profit, I want a free market where every discovery is immediately in the public domain!
Yes, I've noted the rabble rouser's favorite phrase is Fat Cat X. Fat Cat Washington Politicians. Fat Cat Corporate CEOs. Fat Cat Lawyers. Fat Cat...
I think this top post should NOT be marked flamebait (so that it drops below the thresholds many of us set to ignore). While I don't agree with it at all, it is a point that many people believe and should be debated, not shouted down just because you don't like it. How about keeping it up and showing why it is bullshit by making valid points for a change?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
As always, it looks like the actually affected employees who had their job mobility significantly reduced, and hence their bargaining power, GET NOTHING out of this. How is this a victory, except on some government lawyer's resume?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
True, but if you throw a peanut at someone, you're not going to get charged with attempted murder either.
If you know for a fact they have a really dreadful allergy, you will.
More to the point, however futile the gesture, if you actually believe it will kill them, you are guilty of attempted murder.
So its okay for the NFL, NBA, and MLB to have salary caps, and they pretty much are monopolies, but its not okay for a tiny percentage of the market to agree not start a wage war with each other ...
It is perhaps worth noting here that the major sports leagues have various dispensations in the standard anti-trust laws, and are, thus, bad examples.
By that standard, Google would have to be attempting to make these people unemployable, or severely restricting their ability to find a new job. I'd argue that they're doing neither. Nor is that the result.
In the good ole days employees only had to worry about being grilled or fried...
I think you should stick to googling for Palin pictures to jerk off with and give up on giving your opinion.
Ahhh the Apple Fanbots strike again, trying to censor posts via moderation. I don't agree with you (Jobs isn't the only cheap CEO), but neither do I think you should have your Karma damaged or post made invisible. All ideas should be welcome .
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Operative word: most. The owners of various professional sports teams got in trouble for exactly this sort of collusion to keep salaries of players low.
My blog
Someone's jealous they can't afford a macbook, imo.
Fair enough.
However, any USA or EU investigation will uncover only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the high tech wage bill has long gone to a place with a warmer and wetter climate. There nearly all companies have strict (and fairly open) non-poaching agreements including non-hiring of employees who want to leave a "competitor" and reporting such employees back to their employer.
I am not joking here by the way, just search linked in for Nokia, Ericsson, etc job ads in India and read the attached discussion. It gives some very interesting perspective on life and work there...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I was trying to point out how we have elevated corporations over individuals to the point of absurdity. It was also commentary on how fucked up what we value sometimes is. It's ridiculous that a CEO can make over 1000 times that of his lowest paid worker. PHds in Computational Linguistics are in general more valuable to society than MBAs, and should be remunerated thusly.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Bullshit. Have a look at a graph of income inequality in the U.S. over the last fifty years. The U.S. is very different now than it was when clang_jangle was growing up. And yes, this is relevant to the originating topic.
jhw
No, they'd just have to believe it will keep salaries at below free market levels. That may or may not be true and they may or may not believe it to be.
I'd say the overall free market has lower wages than they do anyway. I'm not sure if it's really fair to only compare the biggest companies.
Wow, I wonder if that's because the population has grown massively and poor people breed faster than middle class or rich people?
Furthermore, this is false. Across the board you make more (in inflation sdjusted dollars) than you did in 1967 in every quartile. So your standard of living has not gone down.
Complaining about income inequality is like complaining about attractiveness or intelligence inequality - it's pointless tilting at windmills.
"It's the same false definition people use when claiming the GPL is the most "free" license. It's obviously less free than many other OS licenses, because it puts more restraints on what can be done with it."
Why'd you have to bring up that old troll?
BSD grants most freedom to the recipient of the code, GPL grants more freedom to people further down the line, freedoms not given under the other licenses that folks like to argue about.
They're differently free.
Again, you're missing the word "free". I didn't say unregulated markets were good, and I don't believe they are. We need some regulation.
However, don't use the "durr, that's not a free market" language incorrectly when it _is_ a free market.
and the ratio of CEO to the grunts pay has stayed the same oh that must be an alternate universe.
You want evidence of collusion? Consider this:
IBM, Apple, Google, Microsoft, HP....not one of these companies has ever approached me for employment. Coincidence? It's obvious a back-room deal was struck to not put all the others at such a disadvantage if one ever decided to hire me.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
Dear sir,
I appreciate in these divisive times rhetoric is at an all-time high, but let's look at some facts, shall we?
First, these practices took place with government regulation in place. Two: the current actions of the government coddling... errr, negotiating with the companies may adversely affect the ideal libertarian solution: workers suing the companies directly. Three: if the end result is companies not admitting wrongdoing and a government who failed to stop the practice in the first place now promising that not pursuing legal action will halt such practices in the future, I'd rather take my chances on the free market solution.
well its struck me as odd that US sports are run on such socialist lines - imagine Ronaldo (a Soccer superstar).
"soory lad I know you wanted to play for Manchester united, but the draft pick says your going to have to play for cowdenbeath fc and dont worry we've arranged to change your name to Billy as there a bit funny about Fenian bastards like you in that part of Scotland.
Market regulates itself through sometimes initially non-obvious mechanisms. If wages are kept artificially low by a cartel, there's great chance for a better paying new player to kick the table by paying more and sucking some of the other companies employees.
The wages being paid are within those established by the market. There are circumstances that have lead to the reduction of IT salaries, but most of it is unrelated to cartels formed by the industry biggest players. I find it hard to believe that a system administrator or programmer will not have a choice but to go to work for these companies.
And about the visas, outsourcing and foreign workers, aren't they supposed to participate and compete?. Don't they have the right to do the same work you do for less?. It's a matter of efficiency. The foreigner is providing more value for less. And that means the company will be able to improve it's ability to compete.
Now companies agreeing to pay less is no worse than employees forming unions to press for higher salaries. If companies shouldn't be able to do this, certainly unions shouldn't exist. It's unfair leverage.
But governments have been intervening in the natural development of markets to give unfair advantages and privileges forever. First they created the patents and copyright monsters, which are the true culprits of all distortions in the current IT industry, giving the large players too much power.
Well, if you wish the government to go in a regulation spree to compensate for the negative effects of previous regulations, be aware that further regulation and bureaucracy will surely be required to compensate the negative effects of the current one. More government spending, and more economic stagnation.
But don't you know? Exploiting workers is moral! Not only is greed Good, but altruism is immoral!
If they would otherwise weight experience with each other highly in a resume OR if they might be more inclined to offer raises to keep their employees defecting to the others in the agreement, then they are, in fact, depressing the salaries THEY would pay in the free market even if other companies might not pay as much.
If you believe that, then I have some prime real estate and a bridge to sell to you.
These are not companies struggling to pay their staff, more likely what thye were trying to do is prevent the highly disruptive process of key staff being poached in the middle of billion dollar projects, their pay is piddly compared to the damage that stealing key staff does to deliverable timelines. having said that it would also have a side affect of supressing staff wages, but I seriously doubt that was the intent.
I read the same article a while ago...now I don't want to come off like the morality police, but I will state that the writer of that article has morals that are absolutely...horrifying. The moral differences society panics over are microscopic compared to this. These Randroids are not in the same universe as the rest of humanity, morally (and ethically).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Now obviously this is far less odious [than an example of mining companies paying their employees in company certificates], but it is the same kind of thing just a much lesser degree. They want to artificially depress prices and work to remove mobility from the employees. You get a job at one company, and the others just won't hire you. That then lets them pay less, and care less about quality of work environment.
Except if you read the article even the Department of Justice doesn't allege this.
What is actually being alleged is that the companies agreed not to have their recruiters cold-call people working at the other companies. So, for instance, if Joe works at Google and submits a resume to an Apple recruiter then that recruiter will give it the same consideration (possibly even more) than other resumes. But the same recruiter won't take a list of Google employees and start cold calling them.
The government is alleging that even this practice has the effect of depressing wages. Their argument is that an employee working for one company can use the fact that he was called by a recruiter at the other company as leverage in future salary negotiations. That is downright laughable. It would be almost as good as me going in and telling my boss I got a call from some guy last night who promises I can make millions of dollars working from home.
The article also mentions that the Justice Department has to prove at least one employee's wages have actually been depressed. How do you suppose they could possibly do that? Have Joe Google-Employee testify that he could have negotiated for a better salary if only an Apple recruiter had called him? Joe Google-Employee couldn't figure out how to talk with some of his friends at Apple about getting a job there? He couldn't figure out how to submit his resume to recruiters?
As things stand now, this investigation is ludicrous. The government is investigating whether or not some companies did something that they can only be convicted of if it had an effect which can never rationally be proven in a court of law.
Nope. Capitalism is about private ownership. The "Freedom" crap its proponents pretend to be in favour of only exists for a small minority. those who own, and who can afford to own much.
As the old communist joke goes: In Capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. In communism, it's the other way around.
The "people who own" in this version of capitalism aren't even people, they're corporations, owned by pension funds, and those funds are funded by so many individuals there is no practical way to make them work for anything other than the most basic purpose - to generate money.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"Keeping wages artificially low" Is this a discussion about our illegal alien problem? Oh - sorry, this is not a discussion about exploitation of illegal alien invaders, this is a discussion about exploitation of high tech professionals. Of course, it's all the same stuff. Corporations have no loyalty to a people, a nation, or society in general. The only thing they are loyal to, is the Almighty Dollar.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It was sarcasm (apparently I failed).
No, your sarcasm was just fine. The problem is that the wingnut worldview long ago lapped any and all sarcasm.
So is it supposed to be an all-encompassing agreement between all those companies, or is it a series of separate deals? Because I do know some people in MS who have moved there from Google, and it definitely wasn't 6 months between jobs for them... more like a week.
One person is ambitious, starts a software company, hires many people, makes software that saves or improves the quality of life for countless people, and then pays to subsidize the basics of life for the unambitious person who prefers not to work for himself or anybody else. Yah, that's great!
Yeah, you know that argument is bullshit. Not just bullshit, but aggressively wrong.
* A person being ambitious does not mean they will succeed.
* A person not succeeding does not mean that they are unambitious, and may or may not have anything to do with their own merits in the first place.
* That a person doesn't make enough money to live on doesn't mean that they aren't ambitious, or even that they have failed to live up to their ambitions (See also: artists)
* A person being unambitious does not mean that they prefer not to work.
* That a person would prefer not to work does not make them the kind of slimeball who would demand other people pay their way through life; it says nothing about their sense of honor or what decisions they will make.
* Unemployment stipends and other socialist programs are not the only source for funds for slimeballs.
I understand your viewpoint, but entry-level positions are hard to come by. Some (most?) companies just don't have any entry-level positions, period. How is a person coming out of college supposed to get a job when they all require experience in [insert laundry list here]?
More evidence: I've worked at two of those, and it was SIXTEEN YEARS between the time I left the first before I got the job offer at the second. Clearly they're requiring a gap between working at one and working at the other.
Beyond the standard bullshit i disagree with on your post, you bring up something that annoys me in just about all internet conversation... In order to not be racist when talking about members of another race, everyone seems to feel that its necessary to inform everyone that they have a stash of hip black friends standing behind them patting them on the back for being so PC. I'm not racist, but don't think i've had a black friend for years. And I don't feel a loss. It wasn't a conscious decision, it just worked out that way, and i don't feel the need to run out and befriend a bunch of people because my social life is melatonin challenged. Balls.
If you believe that, then I have some prime real estate and a bridge to sell to you.
These are not companies struggling to pay their staff, more likely what thye were trying to do is prevent the highly disruptive process of key staff being poached in the middle of billion dollar projects, their pay is piddly compared to the damage that stealing key staff does to deliverable timelines. having said that it would also have a side affect of supressing staff wages, but I seriously doubt that was the intent.
I agree. Wages are not the issue, or certainly not the most important one. Disruption and loss of confidential information is far more likely to be of a concern. I notice that Microsoft wasn't mentioned in the summary (didn't RTFA yet) but if they weren't, that's interesting, since Microsoft has lost people to Google (a certain "I'm going to fucking kill Google" chair-throwing tirade coming to mind.) Not that I would believe Microsoft incapable of such practices, but they may have figured the liability was too great. Or maybe there are some people they'd like to poach themselves.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Beyond the standard bullshit i disagree with on your post, you bring up something that annoys me in just about all internet conversation... In order to not be racist when talking about members of another race, everyone seems to feel that its necessary to inform everyone that they have a stash of hip black friends standing behind them patting them on the back for being so PC. I'm not racist, but don't think i've had a black friend for years. And I don't feel a loss. It wasn't a conscious decision, it just worked out that way, and i don't feel the need to run out and befriend a bunch of people because my social life is melatonin challenged. Balls.
Well, that's just because some people don't want to be thought of as racist, even when they are. Or maybe I should say, especially when they are. That's because, when you get right down to it, they're hypocrites. Personally, I prefer an honest bigot, because you know where he stands, you can deal with him on that basis. The closet bigots are the ones that irritate me.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Believe me. It's a conscious decision on OUR part, whitey....
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Ahhh the Apple Fanbots strike again, trying to censor posts via moderation. I don't agree with you (Jobs isn't the only cheap CEO), but neither do I think you should have your Karma damaged or post made invisible. All ideas should be welcome .
On the other hand ... he may well be right. I wouldn't put any of this past any of these people, even Brin, Page, and Schmidt. Nothing pisses off a CEO more than to have a key individual lured away by a rival, especially if trade secrets are involved. Well, okay, maybe having somebody snip the ripcord off his golden parachute, or take away his bonuses.
The salaries these guys earn are a pittance compared to the value of their knowledge of their respective companies internal operations. Yeah, they've all signed non-disclosure, non-compete agreements and all that, but still. Would you want the guy responsible for technologies critical to the survival of your corporation working for the enemy?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That's too bad because I've found that having a pet black friend lead me to have a fulfilling and loving life. You should try to get one.
Since Corporations have become bigger and smarter, Govt cannot monitor their day-to-day illegal & immoral activities.
It is better to breakup these corporations into smaller entities to promote competition and solve unemployment crisis.
Otherwise America will be inhabited with people living only on passive income
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Seriously, can I interest you in a bridge?
It's highly disruptive to be laid off the day after you close on a house -- happened to a friend of mine. It's highly disruptive to be laid off with a baby on the way -- happened to me. Workers get no protection from "highly disruptive" -- it's on our heads to have savings and backup plans, just in case. If a project is that valuable to a company, then they will find a way to compensate their employees (e.g., completion bonuses, and yes, I have even been paid one of these) so that they will be harder to peel away from the project.
And if their pay is "piddly" compared to their value (the "damage done to timelines" -- that is their value, right?) then they are underpaid.
"and there are legitimate, legal ways to prevent/limit valuable employees from doing so... another is to require those employees to sign non-compete agreements (which must be properly limited in scope, duration, and geographic area in order to be held valid)..."
Actually a non-compete is far worse than what they're being accused of. Saying "you can not be hired by any of my competitors" lays a broad blanket across everything compared to "You can not be hired by Google".
I think it's completely reasonable what they did. Rather than run around suing employees after breaking a non-compete they instead went to their main competitor and said "we won't steal your employees if you don't steal ours". Seems reasonable, they didn't stop their employees from ever getting another job, just don't work for XYZ.
"another is to pay your employees a fair market wage for their talents and abilities, so that they'll actually want to remain your employee..."
I call BS on that. If you're not getting paid what you're worth and not happy you're going to quit and find another job irregardless of the fact that company XYZ can't hire you. Even if you're just a animator or search engine programmer there's many more companies than just Disney and Pixar using animators or Google and Yahoo that need search experts, in fact I'm sure putting Pixar, Disney, Google or Yahoo on a resume gets you a job almost anywhere.
This isn't Foxconn where employees are literally killing themselves, these are some of the best companies in the world to work for, with amazing perks like Google's onsite medical staff and swimming pools. Everyone already wants to work for them, and now someone's claiming they're not being treated fairly? Give me a break!
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"This is about allowing people to move to another employer using their skills. If you spent years in school studying and then years working in a field learning new skills that are very specific to an industry, according to these folks, you'd be stuck with one employer with no recourse if you had to leave"
no, actually, that's not what this is about at all. RTFA. It's about if you work for company ABC then you can't work for company XYZ and that's it, it's not saying they can't work for any company that uses their skills, just those one or two main competitors.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Most likely among small groups of friendly companies. I am sure MS would be most happy to poach Google's search team.
Er? Many sports leagues have a monopoly. Want to play professional football in the US? There's only one league. In the case of Google and Apple employees, I can't see seriously how you can argue that there is a monopoly on labor. If an Apple engineer wants to leave Apple, he can go to as many places that welcome his/her skillset. Google won't look at him? What about Microsoft? What about HP? What about Dell?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm sure it would, but I don't know any with that back story. One guy I do know about, however, is this one.
"I'm a pretty hard core capitalist, in that I believe it is the only fundamental system that works"
How very closed-minded. So, you believe that it is the only system that works? No other system (even ones that haven't been thought up yet) could ever work? The only system that works is the one that encourages greed, corruption, and selfishness and is the cause for much of the destruction of the environment and even the cause for so many people that go without food simply because they don't have any worthless artificial currency that only limits the amount of resources that can be consumed? The same system that is keeping things that are in an infinite quantity from being distributed freely (software)? Capitalism may be better than some other systems, but it is far from the 'best', and is no be-all end-all system.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"and capitalism is horrible - the only thing worse is every other system."
Even ones that haven't been thought up or tried yet? What a hopeless attitude. Capitalism will hopefully be thrown out eventually to make way for a system that allows for society to flourish without the 'need' for worthless artificial currency, or it will likely cause the death of not just us, but much of the environment as well.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"Funny how I never see capitalists whining that people aren't giving them free shit."
That is quite a stereotypical statement. Well done. I merely feel that money itself is (and especially will be in the future) useless, as it merely artificially limits the amount of resources that can be consumed. A society without money wouldn't necessarily let people leech off of their work for no good reason.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What I really don't understand is why people are in such support of capitalism run-wild, that a mining town that buys and sells everything from coal to soap to workers themselves is such a good thing. If corporations are people, by law, why do we want to give them more rights.
When it gets to the point that a company is taking advantage of the workforce - the the point that Microsoft won't pay you double your salary, though you are qualified and they have it, because your actual employer made a deal with them not to. People will come here and say that is a good thing, and that the rights of the company supersede the rights of the worker.
How is that American? How is that anything close to human rights?
Get your Unix fortune now!
Your basic argument if I may was
Furthermore, this is false. Across the board you make more (in inflation sdjusted dollars) than you did in 1967 in every quartile. So your standard of living has not gone down.
WoW ! so a very poor 2010 american earns more than a poor 1967 american ? in inflation adjusted dollars... lol
Good thing in 50 years technological progress was so amazing then right ?
You do realize you are amazed that there was ANY progress at all in 50 years ?
You do understand this do you ?
You do realize it would have been fucking sad it wasn't the case ?
Aside from all those companies who have been bailed out and keep asking for more money and all the telecom companies who were given huge tax breaks in the 90's for fiber-to-the-curb that never happened and don't want to repay the government, yes, you usually don't see capitalists whining about people not giving them free shit.
Corporate America has a dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it mentality.
Are you taking the piss?! Have you been living under a rock for.. well forever?!
A recent example would be the MPAA and RIAA and their clients.
Capitalists whine for new legislation (or less in some cases - fewer than you would think) that allows them to rip-off the consumers more, and bitch like hell when they don't get it - to the point of bribes and threats.
Wow.
Are you really claiming money limits resources? Are you sure it's not the other way around? Or do you honestly believe that I could grow an infinite amount of wheat and feed the world, but money is somehow limiting how much wheat I can grow? And in a world without money, we could produce an infinite number of cars, computers, houses, and everything, because none of the resources required to produce them would be limited by money, either? How would that work?
That's clearly ridiculous. Resources are limited. Scarcity is a fact. Money, prices, and the market system are just a method of dealing with scarcity.
Money is a medium exchange. It's easier to use than bartering. Can you imagine a software developer having to say, "I'll write some software for you in exchange for some of those apples you're growing?" And you'd have to do it everywhere you wanted to buy something. Interesting idea, but I think I'll stick with money.
As for leeching off society... money is convenient for doing that, too. If I walk into a store and say, "I want to buy a pound of apples, here's $5" the clerk doesn't have to look me up in a database to know I've done my fair share. Presumably I earned the $5 by providing something of value to somebody at some other time, but the store clerk doesn't have to worry about it. All he needs to know is that I have $5.
Maybe not
That's a straw man argument. Getting "bailed out" is the polar opposite of capitalism. And I agree, that shit needs to stop.
Funny thing, though - if you're against the government giving money to companies and interfering with businesses then you're probably pro-capitalist.
Maybe not
"Are you really claiming money limits resources?"
No. I claimed that money *further* limits resources. It puts artificial limits on them that otherwise wouldn't be there.
"Money, prices, and the market system are just a method of dealing with scarcity."
By only allowing those with worthless money (the people that don't have it don't necessarily not help society) to have possessions? By putting artificial limits on the amount of resources that could otherwise have been consumed? Odd.
"Can you imagine a software developer having to say"
No, but in a capitalism I'd imagine that you'd say something along the lines of "You can't have my software unless you pay for it, even though it's in an infinite quantity that will never run out! Pirates are evil thieves who steal my profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where I made more money!" There's no scarcity on software, and yet, strangely, you have to pay for it, while people that don't are called 'thieves', even though they didn't really hurt anyone by copying it. Funny, that.
"money is convenient for doing that, too"
Capitalism is convenient for the elite who want to get richer at the expense of everything else, convenient for corporations who want the government to do their bidding, and convenient for those with the power to help others in need to say "I can't help you, I don't have any money!"
I also wasn't really talking about bartering at all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
No, that's how the free market works.
Capitalism is about making illegal deals with your competitors so they cant be hired by anyone else for more money.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That doesn't make any sense. If money is worthless then how did they use it to get possessions? Sounds worthwhile to me...
Second, if other people (aka society) really find those people helpful, then they (society) wouldn't mind voluntarily giving them money. The guy who fixes my car helps me out, so I give him money. The clerk at 7-11 helps me out, so I give him money. How is being a jobless bum helping me out? How is it helping anyone out?
Can you even explain what you mean or is it just mindless babble?
I guess I don't really know what you're talking about then.
Maybe not
"That doesn't make any sense. If money is worthless then how did they use it to get possessions? Sounds worthwhile to me..."
Ultimately, it is worthless. It is not needed to run a society.
"Second, if other people (aka society) really find those people helpful, then they (society) wouldn't mind voluntarily giving them money."
Not necessarily. Sometimes there is a lack of job and/or a lack of food, while in other parts of the world, there is a surplus of jobs and/or food. Much of this extra food doesn't seem to make its way to people in need, due in no small part to artificial currencies. It's simply more convenient to dispose of it.
"Can you even explain what you mean or is it just mindless babble?"
Shouldn't it have been obvious? My first point was referencing to the fact that giant corporations often exploit the average person in order to get richer (for example, look at the RIAA and MPAA). My second point was referencing the fact that the rich are often able to lobby the government into doing their bidding (such as passing idiotic anti-piracy laws that only help giant corporations, etc). My third point was referencing the fact that often people will neglect to help others because the only way they believe that they can be helped is if they give them money.
"I guess I don't really know what you're talking about then."
I was more so talking about the system proposed by The Venus Project, sorry.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
p1. The census shows that population growth doesn't account for the growth in income inequality. So, if you're wondering about it, you can look it up yourself. I'm not doing your homework.
p2. clang_jangle wasn't complaining about income inequaltiy per se, just that the USA he/she grew up in— which had qualitatively much less income inequality— no longer exists. The USA he/she lives in now has about the same level of income inequality as the one that existed prior to the New Deal reforms of the 1930s.
These are the facts... I'm not telling you what to make of them.
jhw
And average people exploit giant corporations every time they do business together. If they didn't think they were coming out ahead they wouldn't have done business with them.
If society elects a government that sells them out to the rich, who's fault is that, really?
And by getting rid of money you think they'll give something else? What's stopping them from giving something besides money right now?
Good luck with that...
Maybe not
where there were literally only a handful of manufacturers
where there were figuratively only a handful of manufacturers
I'm pretty sure that the patents were held by just a few companies and they weren't licensing to anyone. Complete monitors and TV's were assembled by a wide number of companies, but I was pretty sure that it was still only a handful manufacturing the actual panels.
*whoosh*
See definition of 'literally', it ceases to be a 'figure of speech' - or taken figuratively - if you prefix it with 'literally'.
"And average people exploit giant corporations every time they do business together. If they didn't think they were coming out ahead they wouldn't have done business with them."
Not nearly as much. Average people have little to no power of large corporations.
"If society elects a government that sells them out to the rich, who's fault is that, really?"
Who do they elect, then? All of the politicians are the same. Money is what influences them, and they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that it is an all-important object. I'm sure if the average person was in the same place as a politician, they would be influenced by money, too.
"And by getting rid of money you think they'll give something else? What's stopping them from giving something besides money right now?"
Many things take worthless artificial currency to accomplish. You can't just freely ship thousands of pounds of food to those in need. It costs money. That was what I was trying to say.
"Good luck with that..."
I never said that such a system would be easily achieved. Due to the stupidity of much of the human race, it likely never will. I do, however, think it would be a good system.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
OK, well if you really want to get pedantic, then no - they won't fit in the palm of one's hand. But that's not what I was afraid of being taken figuratively - I was certain that would be.
You're so greedy you don't even realize it. If you don't like a corporation, don't buy their products. How do you think large corporations get so large?
Great. Everybody is an idiot except for you. I can't imagine why you're not getting more support...
Maybe not
"You're so greedy you don't even realize it. If you don't like a corporation, don't buy their products. How do you think large corporations get so large?"
By people buying their products, of course. I realize this. What I'm trying to say is that until most people or everyone stop buying their products, there's not much more that I can do besides not buy their products and get others to do the same. *Until then*, they will remain powerful.
"Great. Everybody is an idiot except for you. I can't imagine why you're not getting more support..."
I meant the large corporations and those whose sole intentions are to make money at the expense of everyone else. I didn't mean that everyone was an idiot.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!