4 ms·

What about the right to employment for a qualified, top-notch information retrieval candidate? A "right to employment" only exists when nobody with the means t

What about the right to employment for a qualified, top-notch information retrieval candidate? A "right to employment" only exists when nobody with the means to employ someone has any right to their own property.

ardit33 17y ago
dude you sound like those people 30 years ago protecting discrimination against certain races/classes: "It is my property, i don't want to rent it to Black/Asian/whatever race you don't like." Sorry, discrimination is discrimination, and discriminating somebody just b/c they worked on a company x, in a very systematic way (and colluding with other companies on this), seems very anti-competitive. At the end, is the employees that suffer b/c there is less competition for their skills.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Trying to turn "people have a right to control what's theirs" into something you can't say? :)
  - mahmud 17y ago
    Well, I hope everyone reading this downvotes randallsquared and goes through his posting history for a similar treatment. Oh wait, you don't like that? Yeah, it's called conspiracy. You have the right to do whatever you want with your property, but you can not conspire with your friends against a helpless segment of society that's trying to make a living .. or any other segment for that matter.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Well, I hope everyone reading this downvotes randallsquared and goes through his posting history for a similar treatment. :) Oh wait, you don't like that? Yeah, it's called conspiracy. Well, "conspiracy" often implies secretiveness, so I'm not sure you qualify. Don't worry, though, since unlike if our positions were reversed, apparently, I don't want you thrown in jail for advocating mass downmodding.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  I agree with those people, actually. I don't see why it's wrong for people to choose who they associate with. That seems like a pretty basic freedom to me. Discrimination is the ability to tell things apart. If Google has a rule against poaching from their friends and partners, that's fine with me; if they're underpaying all of their employees, what you're really saying is that someone who doesn't participate in the cartel gets their choice of the top technical talent in the valley. If you seriously believed this, you'd be raising money for a startup to exploit it, rather than complaining about it on news.yc.
mahmud 17y ago
Leaving aside the tar pit that is "personal freedom" libertarian rhetoric, let me remind you that groups colluding and conspiring against others, specially individuals, is grounds for a conspiracy charge and RICO trial. For one, you're denying the tax-man income by keeping one more tax payer out of the labor force.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  Well, that explains how it would be punished. But that's like me explaining that what Google and Yahoo did is fine, because if one of them broke the agreement, the other companies would poach from them. You're begging the question.

ardit33 17y ago

dude you sound like those people 30 years ago protecting discrimination against certain races/classes: "It is my property, i don't want to rent it to Black/Asian/whatever race you don't like." Sorry, discrimination is discrimination, and discriminating somebody just b/c they worked on a company x, in a very systematic way (and colluding with other companies on this), seems very anti-competitive. At the end, is the employees that suffer b/c there is less competition for their skills.

randallsquared 17y ago
Trying to turn "people have a right to control what's theirs" into something you can't say? :)
- mahmud 17y ago
  Well, I hope everyone reading this downvotes randallsquared and goes through his posting history for a similar treatment. Oh wait, you don't like that? Yeah, it's called conspiracy. You have the right to do whatever you want with your property, but you can not conspire with your friends against a helpless segment of society that's trying to make a living .. or any other segment for that matter.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Well, I hope everyone reading this downvotes randallsquared and goes through his posting history for a similar treatment. :) Oh wait, you don't like that? Yeah, it's called conspiracy. Well, "conspiracy" often implies secretiveness, so I'm not sure you qualify. Don't worry, though, since unlike if our positions were reversed, apparently, I don't want you thrown in jail for advocating mass downmodding.
byrneseyeview 17y ago
I agree with those people, actually. I don't see why it's wrong for people to choose who they associate with. That seems like a pretty basic freedom to me. Discrimination is the ability to tell things apart. If Google has a rule against poaching from their friends and partners, that's fine with me; if they're underpaying all of their employees, what you're really saying is that someone who doesn't participate in the cartel gets their choice of the top technical talent in the valley. If you seriously believed this, you'd be raising money for a startup to exploit it, rather than complaining about it on news.yc.

mahmud 17y ago

Leaving aside the tar pit that is "personal freedom" libertarian rhetoric, let me remind you that groups colluding and conspiring against others, specially individuals, is grounds for a conspiracy charge and RICO trial. For one, you're denying the tax-man income by keeping one more tax payer out of the labor force.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
Well, that explains how it would be punished. But that's like me explaining that what Google and Yahoo did is fine, because if one of them broke the agreement, the other companies would poach from them. You're begging the question.