4 ms·

>It is also true that some companies will lose money as a results of losing secrets... That's the point though, how do Google's stewards square their pottentia

>It is also true that some companies will lose money as a results of losing secrets... That's the point though, how do Google's stewards square their pottential support for losing secrets, with their fiduciary duty to numerous teacher, firefighter and police officer pension funds? That duty to the investment funds backing heaven only knows how many 401k's? Their duty to countless other pension funds and retirement accounts? "Society will be better off in the future your honor." Is only gonna go so far. This is part of the problem, society might be better off at some undefined and uncertain point in the future. But for investors in Google, they will be better off right now, and in the short term future. So we're always in this position of trying to argue an idealistic future, that never turns out the way you plan it in any case, against an optimal present. I think as techies we have to start presenting arguments for the changes we'd like to see in the world that are a bit more practical. Not only on labor issues like non competes, but also on issues like tech's relationship to labor, tech's relationship to fundamental rights, tech's relationship to children, etc etc etc. At present, a lot of our arguments sound a little tone deaf at best, callous at worst, and out of touch at the mean. I've said before, in my neck of the woods, if I tell people, "Amazon treats their employees like crap." They get it. If I say, "Google can track your location with android phones so don't bring your phone to see your weed man." They get it. I can even say, "Facebook is full of Ruskies trying to influence the election." They'll get it. They'll know what I mean and everything that entails. But if I come at the people in my small town with, "Big Tech is what drives wealth inequity by disrupting traditional labor markets and causing data privacy issues. Which, of course, concert to cause knock on effects in the larger economy." Yeah, that's the kind of post-graduate parrot-speak that makes them look at my mother disapprovingly for raising such a pretentious ass-hat.

lisper 8y ago
> That's the point though, how do Google's stewards square their pottential support for losing secrets, with their fiduciary duty to numerous teacher, firefighter and police officer pension funds? They don't. It makes perfect sense for Google to oppose right-to-compete. However... > "Society will be better off in the future your honor." This aphorism implies that this decision is going to be made by a judge. It isn't. It is being made by the legislature, and the legislature is supposed to reflect the will of the people. So the right outcome here (if everyone is acting rationally and honorably) is to enact right-to-compete despite Google's objections. The situation is no different than (to pick a very extreme example) that it was right to pass the 13th amendment despite the fact that it was vociferously opposed by a lot of people who lost a lot of money as a result.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  I agree with every point you've made in this thread, but bilbo0s has a good point about the optics. The vast majority of the voters do not understand economics, do not think systemically about "the greater good", and wouldn't follow an argument as abstract as "Most companies think their secrets are worth more than their competitors, but the only ones who are correct about that are giants like Google, who have every reason to push for trade-secret and non-compete agreements that restrict your labor freedoms and hamper your ability to get a better wage." There's a bunch of leaps of logic here that I believe and you believe because we understand competitive bargaining and have worked for Google, but which are completely foreign to someone who takes the first job they can get because they need money right now. The fight for the 13th amendment was framed as "Slavery is evil. If you support slavery, you are evil too." That's the kind of moral argumentation that's simple enough that it can get voter support. There was a lot of economic jockeying going on and fights between new vs. entrenched interests going on in the Civil War, but all of that was hidden from the voters and largely written out of the histories. "Google spies on you" is an effective way to convince people to vote against Google's interests; "Google is commoditizing their complements and restricting their ability to make contracts to better their bargaining position" is gibberish to the average voter. It's an unfortunate fact of life that nearly all good decisions are made for the wrong reasons. Sometimes I wish everybody could just understand markets and systems and vote according to their enlightened best interest - but they don't, and much of the fucked-upedness of the world comes from that.
0815test 8y ago
> "Society will be better off in the future your honor." Is only gonna go so far. Investment funds are usually well-diversified anyway - so when society is better off, they are better off too. It's really, really uncommon for someone to hold a sizeable position in a single company or even sector in the medium-to-long run. So, even if you posit that this bill might "hurt Google" (and never mind that Google is in CA where non-compete agreements are heavily limited already - funny coincidence, that one), only comparatively few stakeholders would truly be made worse off.

lisper 8y ago

> That's the point though, how do Google's stewards square their pottential support for losing secrets, with their fiduciary duty to numerous teacher, firefighter and police officer pension funds? They don't. It makes perfect sense for Google to oppose right-to-compete. However... > "Society will be better off in the future your honor." This aphorism implies that this decision is going to be made by a judge. It isn't. It is being made by the legislature, and the legislature is supposed to reflect the will of the people. So the right outcome here (if everyone is acting rationally and honorably) is to enact right-to-compete despite Google's objections. The situation is no different than (to pick a very extreme example) that it was right to pass the 13th amendment despite the fact that it was vociferously opposed by a lot of people who lost a lot of money as a result.

nostrademons 8y ago
I agree with every point you've made in this thread, but bilbo0s has a good point about the optics. The vast majority of the voters do not understand economics, do not think systemically about "the greater good", and wouldn't follow an argument as abstract as "Most companies think their secrets are worth more than their competitors, but the only ones who are correct about that are giants like Google, who have every reason to push for trade-secret and non-compete agreements that restrict your labor freedoms and hamper your ability to get a better wage." There's a bunch of leaps of logic here that I believe and you believe because we understand competitive bargaining and have worked for Google, but which are completely foreign to someone who takes the first job they can get because they need money right now. The fight for the 13th amendment was framed as "Slavery is evil. If you support slavery, you are evil too." That's the kind of moral argumentation that's simple enough that it can get voter support. There was a lot of economic jockeying going on and fights between new vs. entrenched interests going on in the Civil War, but all of that was hidden from the voters and largely written out of the histories. "Google spies on you" is an effective way to convince people to vote against Google's interests; "Google is commoditizing their complements and restricting their ability to make contracts to better their bargaining position" is gibberish to the average voter. It's an unfortunate fact of life that nearly all good decisions are made for the wrong reasons. Sometimes I wish everybody could just understand markets and systems and vote according to their enlightened best interest - but they don't, and much of the fucked-upedness of the world comes from that.

0815test 8y ago

> "Society will be better off in the future your honor." Is only gonna go so far. Investment funds are usually well-diversified anyway - so when society is better off, they are better off too. It's really, really uncommon for someone to hold a sizeable position in a single company or even sector in the medium-to-long run. So, even if you posit that this bill might "hurt Google" (and never mind that Google is in CA where non-compete agreements are heavily limited already - funny coincidence, that one), only comparatively few stakeholders would truly be made worse off.