Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#141

Post by jessaustin »

asdfologist wrote: post #135
dreamdu5t wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's artificial about wages or prices determined through agreement (the market)? What constitutes an agreement's artificiality?

Consider the extreme scenario where all companies collude, sending wages to near zero. Would you still call this "agreement"?

I don't agree with GP's argument, but presumably in such a hypothetical new entrants to the market could get the best engineers by paying slightly more than the collusion wage. This phenomenon would tend to raise wages, but we shouldn't imagine that it would raise them back to a "fair" level.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#142

Post by dreamdu5t »

lmakeppleave wrote: post #134
dreamdu5t wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? I think this should be obvious, but burning a factory down is fundamentally different from hiring agreements, in that it is destruction of someone elses property. A hiring agreement does not involve the destruction or restriction of property, but laws against such agreements do. > To collude to deny others the right of free association an…

Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach? What about on child labor? Minimum Wage? What about colluding on prices? Aren't these all the same infringement? The truth is sometimes society has to take away the rights of the few for the sake of the many. While I agree we tend to do it too often, you will be hard pressed to find many who agree with you…

> Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach?

Why isn't it? Those agreements don't restrict or infringe on the freedom of others to form different agreements, or avoid forming them.

> What about colluding on prices?

Same exact situation. Price agreements don't restrict the freedom of other parties to set prices contrary to that agreement.

> Aren't these all the same infringement?

Without getting into specifics... Yes.

> The truth is sometimes society has to take away the rights of the few for the sake of the many.

I truly commend you for your honesty about what these laws are.

> The fact is rules like this almost certainly make our economy more productive as a whole.

I don't see where that's been demonstrated here. They certainly aren't productive for the firms who are punished for, or prevented from, forming such agreements. I would argue that the fact that firms do form such agreements when free to do so, means that they are productive for the economy as a whole by definition.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#143

Post by balls187 »

balls187 wrote: post #73
bkeroack wrote: post #69

The otherwise amazing book by Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen-Horowitz fame) called The Hard Thing About Hard Things has a chapter that basically lays out and encourages this type of illegal behavior (called "Is It Okay to Hire People from Your Friend's Company?"). It literally recommends that companies maintain a "do not hire" (aka "do not poach") list of other organizations from which HR is forbidden from recruiting. I…

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

I am really quite surprised at the number of downvotes to this has received.

From +3 to now -4.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#144

Post by chrismcb »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #130
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when two people freely work together peacefully to break the law, it's called conspiracy. What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? To collude to deny others the right of free association and free employment is just as wrong. The CEOs of major corporations that dominate an industry can have a disproportionate impact on an industry, so this is especially wrong.

> What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? I think this should be obvious, but burning a factory down is fundamentally different from hiring agreements, in that it is destruction of someone elses property. A hiring agreement does not involve the destruction or restriction of property, but laws against such agreements do. > To collude to deny others the right of free association an…

It is not a free exchange when multiple employers have an agreement to keep salaries low.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#145

Post by chrismcb »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #142
lmakeppleave wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach? What about on child labor? Minimum Wage? What about colluding on prices? Aren't these all the same infringement? The truth is sometimes society has to take away the rights of the few for the sake of the many. While I agree we tend to do it too often, you will be hard pressed to find many who agree with you…

> Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach? Why isn't it? Those agreements don't restrict or infringe on the freedom of others to form different agreements, or avoid forming them. > What about colluding on prices? Same exact situation. Price agreements don't restrict the freedom of other parties to set prices contrary to that agreement. > Aren't th…

How is this productive for the economy as a whole. This was done to keep salaries low, so a handful of people could make more money. How does that benefit the economy as a whole?

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#146

Post by dreamdu5t »

asdfologist wrote: post #135
dreamdu5t wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's artificial about wages or prices determined through agreement (the market)? What constitutes an agreement's artificiality?

Consider the extreme scenario where all companies collude, sending wages to near zero. Would you still call this "agreement"?

Sure, let's consider it.

Let's say all companies form an agreement to not hire from any other company. They're now in a situation where either they must terminate the agreement in order to hire, or bid against other companies for labor that is not currently working for any of the firms. Companies bidding over labor drives wages upwards... not downwards.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#147

Post by defen »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #122
JDShu wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always, wikipedia is a good start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_law_theory

I'm familiar with anti-trust theory. The idea of collusion reducing competition is fallacious because market competition is not a quantity, but a process by which goods and services are exchanged. Price fixing and hiring agreements do not involve force, fraud, or misrepresentation- yet the regulation or prohibition thereof directly violates the property rights of the market participants. I've read the Wikipedia entry…

The problem with libertarianism is that it starts with a tiny set of axioms, and then attempts to derive how the world should be. Any deviations from that are then taken as evidence that the world is wrong, unjust, etc. In reality, humans are hierarchical social creatures with complex dynamics, and you kind of have to play by the rules that other people set for you. In this case, a group of people broke the rules and some other people think they should be punished, and I think most of the people here have no problem with that.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#148

Post by dreamdu5t »

chrismcb wrote: post #145
dreamdu5t wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach? Why isn't it? Those agreements don't restrict or infringe on the freedom of others to form different agreements, or avoid forming them. > What about colluding on prices? Same exact situation. Price agreements don't restrict the freedom of other parties to set prices contrary to that agreement. > Aren't th…

How is this productive for the economy as a whole. This was done to keep salaries low, so a handful of people could make more money. How does that benefit the economy as a whole?

> How does that benefit the economy as a whole?

By allowing those firms to make more money. They are the economy too. The economy does not exist for one persons or class of persons benefit.

> This was done to keep salaries low, so a handful of people could make more money.

People cooperated to reduce their expenses without restricting the right of anyone else to cooperate. Just because people make money doesn't make it wrong. Conversely, a handful of people (the defendants) colluded to make more money by keeping salaries high, except they did it by restricting the rights of everyone else.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#149

Post by dreamdu5t »

defen wrote: post #147
dreamdu5t wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm familiar with anti-trust theory. The idea of collusion reducing competition is fallacious because market competition is not a quantity, but a process by which goods and services are exchanged. Price fixing and hiring agreements do not involve force, fraud, or misrepresentation- yet the regulation or prohibition thereof directly violates the property rights of the market participants. I've read the Wikipedia entry…

The problem with libertarianism is that it starts with a tiny set of axioms, and then attempts to derive how the world should be. Any deviations from that are then taken as evidence that the world is wrong, unjust, etc. In reality, humans are hierarchical social creatures with complex dynamics, and you kind of have to play by the rules that other people set for you. In this case, a group of people broke the rules and…

> In this case, a group of people broke the rules and some other people think they should be punished, and I think most of the people here have no problem with that.

The percentage of people who agree with what I've asserted here has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. And attacking my argument for being libertarian is argumentum ad hominem. Shooting the messenger does not address the message.

Re: Judge rejects $324.5M settlement over Apple, Google hiring

#150

Post by dreamdu5t »

chrismcb wrote: post #144
dreamdu5t wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is wrong with two people freely working together to burn a factory down? I think this should be obvious, but burning a factory down is fundamentally different from hiring agreements, in that it is destruction of someone elses property. A hiring agreement does not involve the destruction or restriction of property, but laws against such agreements do. > To collude to deny others the right of free association an…

It is not a free exchange when multiple employers have an agreement to keep salaries low.

How so?
Post reply on HN