srinivasan

8 ms·

31.
by srinivasan 11y ago
> if there were a real shortage, wages would be expected to grow. This is because employers would compete over a small number of workers, and they would need to raise wages to attract those workers. This is the crux of the article's
32.
by srinivasan 11y ago
Given the compensation mix in Silicon Valley (benefits, employee stock-based compensation), comparing hourly wages with other occupations is not apples-to-apples. Additionally, STEM vs Computer Science jobs has been discussed before.
33.
by srinivasan 12y ago
It's not just Uber that will kill jobs. This video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU - explains how many others jobs will be eliminated. Re this article, I think the numbers are a bit drastic, but using les
34.
by srinivasan 12y ago
I didn't say anything that could be construed as an apologist argument for the cable industry, or even the wireless industry. You can only accuse me of being a T-mobile apologist - and what they are doing hugely benefits me, considerin
35.
by srinivasan 12y ago
You brought up three issues: (i) Anti-competitiveness in music streaming (ii) Anti-competitiveness in social networks (in developing regions) (iii) Effect of zero-rated services on congestion (i) http://www.t-mobile.com/offe
36.
by srinivasan 12y ago
The authors didn't address the point that all the current use cases for zero rating are on wireless, not on traditional broadband. The Google-Verizon proposal from 2010 had this "wireless exclusion". I was opposed to it in pr