3 ms·

They gave us 10% raises in the name of retention. This also happened right around the time they killed the no-poaching policies. That sounds like the kind of

They gave us 10% raises in the name of retention. This also happened right around the time they killed the no-poaching policies. That sounds like the kind of insurance they needed now that the no-poaching policies were gone. Come on, lawyers, someone prove that this cost us all 10% of our salaries for the duration of the agreements. Then have them do the numbers and cough up that much money they didn't pay us because we magically weren't being wooed by these other companies. I could stand to make quite a bit from this, and a bunch of my friends could, too.

michaelochurch 14y ago
It's more than 10% that it has cost us. There are a lot of ripple effects and multipliers, not only related to pay, but also to working conditions, autonomy, and quality of work. That said, in the long term, the companies that engage in these collusions lose because non-participants have a larger talent pool. Cartels like that are only stable if they can muscle out or absorb non-participants, and it seems unlikely for technology employment. More onerous is the collusion among VCs, both on the discussion of terms, and in their tendency to think as a group about who they like and who they don't.
- emiliobumachar 14y ago
  Doesn't the same reasoning apply to VC's? Are there any huge barriers to entry the VC market that I'm not seeing?
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    It seems to me that most VCs want to become part of the club that already exists, not compete with it. This is probably coming out of the assumption that the most well-known VCs get the best deals. I don't know how accurate that is.
sses 14y ago
I wish this point was raised more in the fawning articles about how great a place Google is to work, and how generous the 10% raise was, e.g. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/google_people_operations_the_secrets_of_the_world_s_most_scientific_human.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/...

michaelochurch 14y ago

It's more than 10% that it has cost us. There are a lot of ripple effects and multipliers, not only related to pay, but also to working conditions, autonomy, and quality of work. That said, in the long term, the companies that engage in these collusions lose because non-participants have a larger talent pool. Cartels like that are only stable if they can muscle out or absorb non-participants, and it seems unlikely for technology employment. More onerous is the collusion among VCs, both on the discussion of terms, and in their tendency to think as a group about who they like and who they don't.

emiliobumachar 14y ago
Doesn't the same reasoning apply to VC's? Are there any huge barriers to entry the VC market that I'm not seeing?
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  It seems to me that most VCs want to become part of the club that already exists, not compete with it. This is probably coming out of the assumption that the most well-known VCs get the best deals. I don't know how accurate that is.

sses 14y ago

I wish this point was raised more in the fawning articles about how great a place Google is to work, and how generous the 10% raise was, e.g. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/google_people_operations_the_secrets_of_the_world_s_most_scientific_human.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/...