51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it greed if a walmart worker was being stiffed of a dollar an hour its just as bad as a sales guy losing 20% of a five figure bonus.
Walmart workers and stiffed tech workers have more in common than the "masters of the universe" who rule them both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart workers and stiffed tech workers have more in common than the "masters of the universe" who rule them both.
That's a reach. Minimum-wage workers live an order of magnitude differently than either of the others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a reach. Minimum-wage workers live an order of magnitude differently than either of the others.
Yet both are still reliant upon their labor for their livelihood.
A difference is, working for minimum wage leaves you at risk of housing, food, health. Anyone who escapes the trap of too-poor-to-live inhabits a different world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet both are still reliant upon their labor for their livelihood.
...for some definitions of the word 'labor'. A difference is, working for minimum wage leaves you at risk of housing, food, health. Anyone who escapes the trap of too-poor-to-live inhabits a different world.
There are laborers - minimum wagers and programmers alike - and there those who are parasitic on the labor of others - CEOs, landlords, financiers. That's the real American divide.
Not "scraping by" vs "not scraping by".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...for some definitions of the word 'labor'. A difference is, working for minimum wage leaves you at risk of housing, food, health. Anyone who escapes the trap of too-poor-to-live inhabits a different world.
They still have much more in common than either do with tech billionaires or the land owners to whom they both pay half of their income to in rent. There are laborers - minimum wagers and programmers alike - and there those who are parasitic on the labor of others - CEOs, landlords, financiers. That's the real American divide. Not "scraping by" vs "not scraping by".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still have much more in common than either do with tech billionaires or the land owners to whom they both pay half of their income to in rent. There are laborers - minimum wagers and programmers alike - and there those who are parasitic on the labor of others - CEOs, landlords, financiers. That's the real American divide. Not "scraping by" vs "not scraping by".
Philosophy aside, after your living is secure all the rest is imaginary points. It has to mean less than risk-of-death or living in poverty. Maybe not to a 20-something idealist; but definitely to a parent.
Especially when you're paying $3,200 a month for the privilege of living in a city where they can earn the good money.
But we're still taught to sympathize with the Steve Jobs and Larry Pages than the McDonalds servers who can also count the number of paychecks away from destitution they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have? Their only excuse is that most businesses do the same thing. Payment processors, freelance agencies, telecoms providers etc, all taking extortionate cuts in relation to the costs incurred providing a service, which comes from our paychecks.
"How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have?" Well then, why don't you come work for me for a few years, and if the software you develop works well enough and I make a lot of money on it, I'll give you 25%. Deal? (PS you'll have to front your own computer, admin staff etc. too)
Many viewed this as a slam-dunk victory, the only question was how much. At 25%, the lawyers were in a situation where by settling, they were virtually guaranteed a huge payday. As a result, many people feel that they didn't pursue this case rigorously enough, because they were extremely risk averse. This happens when the numbers get so big that you're comparing a guaranteed huge payout with the risk of losing a larger huge payout, but when both numbers are so high that the decision maker is far more concerned about a small possibility of losing the payout than the difference between the two numbers. Ie, y > x, but when x and y both cross a certain threshold, they may start to lose meaning when such a large chunk goes to the people in a position to settle. As I recall, the lawyers for the plaintiffs were actually scolded by the judge, who rejected the first settlement and told them to go back and fight harder for their clients, which is unusual.
Many people see this case as a slam dunk for an easy payoff. A better analogy might be that I convinced you to let me sell your house, and then sold it in five minutes for a huge commission, preferring a quick and guaranteed return for myself. I'd harm my reputation in the future, but if the payoff is big enough that I'm one and done, what does it matter to me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still have much more in common than either do with tech billionaires or the land owners to whom they both pay half of their income to in rent. There are laborers - minimum wagers and programmers alike - and there those who are parasitic on the labor of others - CEOs, landlords, financiers. That's the real American divide. Not "scraping by" vs "not scraping by".
Philosophy aside, after your living is secure all the rest is imaginary points. It has to mean less than risk-of-death or living in poverty. Maybe not to a 20-something idealist; but definitely to a parent.
This cartel had 4 members. With all the Silicon Valley tech companies, it's a little hard to see how this would be successful at holding down compensation. In any case, cartels have a historical reputation of being unworkable without laws being passed to force conformance. The problem for the cartel members is they have large incentives to cheat on the agreement. Probably the most famous cartel is OPEC. "Jeff Colgan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Don't be evil" is just a slogan. Same as any other company's slogan. There isn't any integrity to begin with unless there's a market incentive for it, and there isn't.
I like to think they were just being sarcastic.
This does not excuse they for being assholes but I can see how it happened.