7 ms·
Wasn't too surprised to see that Bloomberg neglected to mention a pretty self evident reason why tech workers might want that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High
by pytester 7y ago
Wasn't too surprised to see that Bloomberg neglected to mention a pretty self evident reason why tech workers might want that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
I'm pretty sure that if the anti-trust litigation in 2001 hadn't battered microsoft then tech wages would not be as high today. Competition among employers is good for wages, and the fewer and bigger the employers, the less the competition.
- option 7y agoI am not quite sure that smaller companies can offer higher wages. Also, keep in mind a story of Bell Labs - the innovation power house hugely responsible for tens of Nobel Prize winning inventions such as transistor and solar cells. You need an insanely rich and powerful parent company to fund something like this (only Alphabet is kind pf doing it these days)
- dickeytk 7y agoThere is a difference between big companies and monopolies. Big companies will likely always be the ones offering the highest salaries and they'll always exist. Once they monopolize the labor market though: they'll no longer have a need to offer those wages as high (even if they're the highest within the market).
- deevolution 7y agoHow do you break up alphabet?they will just move their corporation over seas, set up in africa and avoid any monopoly breakers. The government has no power over these companies. They would have to raid the offices and send the ceo to prison before alphabet agrees to break their monopoly.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoYeah that's not how laws work. Sure, they can move overseas, but for the business they conduct in the US they would need to comply with the post-breakup laws (assuming that happened, I don't think it will). And if they don't comply? Fairly simple. Indictments. Raids. Arrests. Asset seizures. Public shaming of employees and executives working for the company. Etc.
- toast0 7y agoRestructuring the company as Alphabet with a set of subsidiaries was a start to setting up lines to divide the company along. The way to divide up Google is into the ad network, the search engine, operating systems, and everything else. Allow them to contract each other on public FRAND terms to start with, but setup annual reviews to consider a bigger hammer. If they play games with moving house to avoid jurisdiction, ban payments to and from them.
- option 7y agoyou do understand that ad network pays for search engine, right? And operating systems isn’t exactly a profit generator either...
- g00gler 7y agoYou can also say the search engine and operating system drive the ad network. Google the search engine could charge an ad network a lot for the right to show sponsored results and provide analytics. Android/Chrome could charge a lot for user data, analytics, have their own mobile ad network and app store. Android could also start charging a licensing fee to vendors Etc etc
- WWLink 7y agoThe same way that most companies end up when they leave California. The engineers don't move away. They start up new companies that end up being competition to their old employer. Half the time, after some years, the big old company buys out the new competition and ends up with offices in the area again. This happens all the time in the space industry lol.
- fmajid 7y agoStructural separation: you can't run a search engine and at the same time services that are the subject of it. For Amazon, you can't run the marketplace and at the same time sell own-brand (AmazonBasics) products. For Apple you can't run the app store and also sell apps. It's in Warren's program, although of course the devil is in the details. Lina Khan is the thought leader on these issues (I am sure there are others, but like Hal Varian and Carl Shapiro, they tend to get coopted by the monopolists).
- zepto 7y agoThis is a completely destructive plan that will enable international competitors who aren’t subject to it to simply take the tech industry away from the US.
- option 7y agoA lot of people just don’t get it. The US is the most powerful country in the word because of its technology and economy. Losing that will pretty much mean that others (likely non-democracies) will rule the world
- zepto 7y ago100% agreed - it’s completely bizarre that people don’t see this.
- cannaceo 7y agoIt's pure insanity. In many parts of the world there is no divide between government and business. That's what these companies are competing against.
- lonelappde 7y agoThere's no reason that foreign companies that don't follow US law must be allowed to operate in US.
- zepto 7y ago
- lovich 7y agoMoving jurisdictions isn't a magic spell that grants protection. As long as a company is deriving value from something in a jurisdiction, then the government of that jurisdiction has power over that value because they can physically control it. Companies have outsized power these days imo, but they still aren't at the point to compete with the United States military and resist the actual violence that be visited on their assets if they do not comply
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- LordFast 7y agoIt's about 50k employers versus 5k employers, not 500 versus 5. The real effective argument/consideration IMO is the question of whether the technology MARKET is more prosperous /because/ of the centralization, and therefore leading to higher demand/wages, or vice versa.
- geofft 7y agoBell Labs was prohibited from commercializing UNIX thanks to an antitrust settlement, which led to it being widely distributed to both academic and commercial users (who could commercialize it themselves). This led to the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX, as well as numerous improvements by both academic and commercial users sharing patches. According to ESR, when the settlement was made irrelevant by the Bell breakup, "AT&T promptly rushed to commercialize Unix System V—a move that nearly killed Unix." http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch02s01.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch02s01.html Funding and profit motive are different things and optimize for different results.
- ianai 7y agoCompanies have been enjoying historically easy access to capital for years now. In fact, that was the prescription and treatment to remedy the GR to good results for corporations. Just look at the recent IPOs. We had one go sour and it highlights how rare those occurrences are.
- pmoriarty 7y ago"You need an insanely rich and powerful parent company to fund something like this" Or the US government, which funds the overwhelming majority of basic research in the world.
- option 7y agoI’d say we need both.
- Brakenshire 7y agoSeems a stretch, what about all the other national research bodies?
- SquishyPanda23 7y agoThere's a sense in which both systems tax ordinary folk to pay for science. In the Bell Labs system, the tax is the monopoly price paid by folks on their phone bill. In the other system the taxes are collected by the government. There's a lot of money to be made migrating such taxes to the private sector where private individuals can take a cut. This is one of the reasons it's often profitable to campaign against things like the public funding of science (e.g. the recent attacks on the NSF).
- claudeganon 7y agoI continued to be surprised by how much they got away with and how little in the way of consequences there seems to have been. After his involvement in the scandal, Lazlo Bock got a book deal for a work celebrating Google’s HR practices. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/google-apple-class-action-poaching-steve-jobs-wage-theft/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/google-apple-cl... https://www.workrules.net/ https://www.workrules.net/
- lonelappde 7y agoEric Schmidt got a book deal and general global elite status despite writing an email acknowledging that what they are doing was illegal and asking to stop writing about what they were doing.
- throwGuardian 7y agoWarren's motivation behind breaking the Googles of the world up is to .... wait for it, ensure that the already overpaid tech workers at Google, get paid "free-market" wages, because if Warren is known for anything these days, it is for fighting for the pay-rights of Google employees
- xkcd-sucks 7y agoAnother point of her platform is that underpaid "contractors" are in fact "employees"
- throwGuardian 7y agoLike the underpaid, overworked campaign staff of Sanders [1] and Warren? [1]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/7/20/20700841/bernie-sanders-minimum-wage-staff-pay https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/7...
- kick 7y agoThe underlying issue is that while the Sanders campaign’s collective bargaining agreement with its staff union sets hourly pay above $15, there are also salaried workers on the team. Your statement is at minimum misleading, according to the article you linked. EDIT: Reading it further, it's a terrible article. Yglesias is a hack. No Sanders fan, but this is yellow journalism.
- throwGuardian 7y agoWhat part of my statement is misleading? Here's the history of Sanders' campaign underpayment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-be...
- 7y ago
- aalleavitch 7y agoWait, hold the phone, are you saying that the relationship between an employer and their employees is actually, by nature, antagonistic? Such that what is good for one is actually bad for the other? Who could possibly have predicted this?
- WalterBright 7y agoThe Seattle Times estimated in the 1990s that Microsoft created 10,000+ millionaire employees in the city. This was before the anti-trust litigation. In fact, most everyone I knew that worked for Microsoft in the 1990s became a millionaire.
- hkai 7y agoIs it the core reason though? Or is it that those employees tend to be against capitalism and large corporations in general?