2 ms·
The opposite. When they had to stop constraining wages, they were forced to give raises to their employees. That is the definition of success: from 2005 to mo
by x0x0 11y ago
The opposite. When they had to stop constraining wages, they were forced to give raises to their employees. That is the definition of success: from 2005 to most of 2010, they successfully underpaid.
- WalterBright 11y agoNot successfully, because other companies paid more and were draining away Google's talent. I would also suspect that Google paid less not because of the cartel, but because of the stock options. Once the stock stopped rising dramatically, engineers would not have settled for less salary. Microsoft went through a similar transition. Creating a cartel is one thing, but making it work is quite another.
- x0x0 11y agoOn termination of cartel agreement, they had to immediately boost wages. A cartel doesn't have to be 100% effective to be, nonetheless, effective. And they had just re-priced options in early 2009.
- WalterBright 11y agoThe article doesn't mention the cartel as being a factor, it mentions aggressive poaching by other companies.