5 ms·
I doubt we will ever be able to "measure" the effect. We can only guess and debate it with hypothetical scenarios -- "what if all these CEOs had had to compete
by cs702 13y ago
I doubt we will ever be able to "measure" the effect. We can only guess and debate it with hypothetical scenarios -- "what if all these CEOs had had to compete for talented employees, instead of fixing the market for them?"
Regardless of the effect, it is a shame to see that these leading CEOs, who for years have vociferously complained about media & telecom oligopolies for preventing competition, were for years simultaneously using their oligopoly to prevent competition for employees.
Apparently, they're all for free markets, except when it affects their bottom line!
- AndrewKemendo 13y agoApparently, they're all for free markets, except when it affects their bottom line! Seems to be a trend in every discipline, why should Big Tech be any different? See: Big TELCO, Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Ag etc...
- mooreds 13y agoErr, I think it is more a human trend, than a "big" trend. Most everyone I know loves the benefits of competition, except when they are competing, then they aren't as big a fan. (Yes, yes, there are the people who love competition even when they are competing, but I find that they are fairly uncommon.)
- wildgift 13y agoCapitalism hates competition. I think Adam Smith said that.
- hashmap 13y agoWhat are you talking about? A "free market" encourages exactly this behavior! If it weren't illegal it would go on indefinitely.
- adventured 13y agoA free market neither encourages nor discourages this type of behavior. What it does, is not regulate whether a company can poach other talent by paying higher wages, or whether a company can collude with other companies to pay the same wages and stagnate. If a company believes it has the upper hand against a competitor - and some company always acquires the upper hand sooner than later - then it would be in its best interests to poach, pay higher wages for superior talent, and bleed the competition to death.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- alanh 13y agoI think the parent meant that this collusion artificially denied what would otherwise be a fair market for the employees. Of course, you are entirely correct that this sort of thing is allowed if no regulation is placed on the corporations.
- raganwald 13y agofree market != fair market
- gldalmaso 13y agoI think what the parent means is that these companies are all for free markets only to turn to informal regulation amongst themselves, making them de facto hypocrites.
- pg 13y agoThis comment thread is like a micro version of the origins of the hard sciences.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoUnfortunately, salary information is generally kept confidential. Nature is much more forthright with its facts. There is some information on, say, glassdoor.com, but it's anecdotal. Is there a reliable and high-res salary datasource?
- wavefunction 13y agoExperian? Supposedly salary information is now being shared with the big credit bureaus, or so I've been informed by HR folks who can apparently know now what you made at your previous jobs.
- aswanson 13y agoThat is ridiculously intrusive. How in the world is that legal?
- cs702 13y ago:-) Yes, but unintentionally! What I meant to convey with that first sentence is that any effort at measuring the effect is bound to be highly politicized and subjected to endless debate, so it's best to focus first on the documented actions of these CEOs, which are objective facts. The most relevant questions right now, I think, are not about the magnitude of the effect, but about the actions themselves: who, what, when, why, and to whom?
- mrbrowning 13y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding you, but empirical data on human behavior is notoriously more difficult to both collect and control for than data on more basic processes. I think it's glib to suggest that the effect here should be easily measurable. I also don't think the actual effect is relevant in the first case: no reasonable ethical accounting would gauge the immorality of the act in proportion to its final impact on wages.