6 ms·

So now you want companies to seek government approval before they can hire a certain number of people from a company? What if Google wanted to hire me and 3 bu

So now you want companies to seek government approval before they can hire a certain number of people from a company? What if Google wanted to hire me and 3 buddies from our startup but didn’t want to hire the secretary or more realistically they only needed the backend developers. But didn’t care about hiring the web developer? Who exactly does that benefit? Not the employees. Maybe the investors? Do you really want the government to restrict who can be hired from a company or better yet, whether employees can accept better offers from another company? That’s only the other side of the coin of restricting employee movement based on non competes.

Dylan16807 1y ago
> seek government approval before There's a neighboring comment that used almost the exact same wording that I already replied to. In short: No. > What if Google wanted to hire me and 3 buddies from our startup but didn’t want to hire the secretary or more realistically they only needed the backend developers. But didn’t care about hiring the web developer? Is your startup like 10 people? Worth much less than a billion dollars? Then it's not big enough to be a problem.
- raw_anon_1111 1y ago
  So what laws do you suggest that the government pass that both stop Google from offering me a highly skilled and sought after AI professional (not really, we are speaking hypothetically) or my team and don’t suppress my ability to make as much money as the market will give me?
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    They can give just you a job at any time. But if it's the entire team, and that team is the backbone of a company, and acquiring that company would be blocked by the government, all three of those things, then your income is already being suppressed by not allowing acquisitions. Sorry about that, but the extra boost you'd get during monopoly forming would only be temporary anyway. In the long term it's better for both employees and customers to avoid too much consolidation. Extending that rule to stop team buyouts will have almost no effect on the status quo. It's allowing the team buyouts that could potentially change the status quo, and it would be a change for the worse.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      So they just give me a job as the leader, then other people want to follow. Is it them illegal for Google to offer other former coworkers a job? Isn’t that kind of like the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”? So exactly how does a Google “monopoly” (which definitely doesn’t exist in AI if anywhere), harm customers? And would I as a potential employee better off or worse off? Am I paying more for search today because of the monopoly? Am I paying more for any of the free stuff that Google has because of advertising (that I block anyway)? In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes?
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        Just offering normal jobs would generally be fine, doing a big group deal that also comes with IP licensing would generally not be fine. I'm not going to try to give you the exact line. > In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? > Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes? That's way too general. You could use that same argument to say acquisitions should never be blocked.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        So the law is now that they can’t license the technology to companies that higher former employees? You don’t see what kind of Kafkaesque mess these proposed laws are creating? Who are we benefiting again?
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        The benefit is the same kind as from blocking a very small fraction of acquisitions. If you don't think the existing rules there are kafkaesque, then the small expansion shouldn't be a huge change. If you do, I'm not the person to argue with. And these rules would very rarely come into effect.

Dylan16807 1y ago

> seek government approval before There's a neighboring comment that used almost the exact same wording that I already replied to. In short: No. > What if Google wanted to hire me and 3 buddies from our startup but didn’t want to hire the secretary or more realistically they only needed the backend developers. But didn’t care about hiring the web developer? Is your startup like 10 people? Worth much less than a billion dollars? Then it's not big enough to be a problem.

raw_anon_1111 1y ago
So what laws do you suggest that the government pass that both stop Google from offering me a highly skilled and sought after AI professional (not really, we are speaking hypothetically) or my team and don’t suppress my ability to make as much money as the market will give me?
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  They can give just you a job at any time. But if it's the entire team, and that team is the backbone of a company, and acquiring that company would be blocked by the government, all three of those things, then your income is already being suppressed by not allowing acquisitions. Sorry about that, but the extra boost you'd get during monopoly forming would only be temporary anyway. In the long term it's better for both employees and customers to avoid too much consolidation. Extending that rule to stop team buyouts will have almost no effect on the status quo. It's allowing the team buyouts that could potentially change the status quo, and it would be a change for the worse.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    So they just give me a job as the leader, then other people want to follow. Is it them illegal for Google to offer other former coworkers a job? Isn’t that kind of like the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”? So exactly how does a Google “monopoly” (which definitely doesn’t exist in AI if anywhere), harm customers? And would I as a potential employee better off or worse off? Am I paying more for search today because of the monopoly? Am I paying more for any of the free stuff that Google has because of advertising (that I block anyway)? In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes?
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      Just offering normal jobs would generally be fine, doing a big group deal that also comes with IP licensing would generally not be fine. I'm not going to try to give you the exact line. > In other words, you do want the government to force employees to stay at a company when they could get a better offer? > Isn’t that what we wanted to prevent with outlawing non competes? That's way too general. You could use that same argument to say acquisitions should never be blocked.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        So the law is now that they can’t license the technology to companies that higher former employees? You don’t see what kind of Kafkaesque mess these proposed laws are creating? Who are we benefiting again?
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        The benefit is the same kind as from blocking a very small fraction of acquisitions. If you don't think the existing rules there are kafkaesque, then the small expansion shouldn't be a huge change. If you do, I'm not the person to argue with. And these rules would very rarely come into effect.