371–380 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monopoly profits are based on dominant market power, not asymmetry of information.
You can only get dominant market power with an asymmetry of information (about how to produce whatever thing it is that gets you dominant market power). This is why we have IP laws...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monopoly profits are based on dominant market power, not asymmetry of information.
Where is the "dominant market power" coming from? Asymmetry of information is what got you to the top. You know more than your competition, more on a productive process, on consumer behavior, on business partners, on leveraging financial avenues, on political "contributions", on questionable use of insider information, etc. And Information is what keeps you at the top: knowing who to "lobby" to create convenient regu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the "dominant market power" coming from? Asymmetry of information is what got you to the top. You know more than your competition, more on a productive process, on consumer behavior, on business partners, on leveraging financial avenues, on political "contributions", on questionable use of insider information, etc. And Information is what keeps you at the top: knowing who to "lobby" to create convenient regu…
The at&t monopoly came about via government power, and the only fighting it did was to keep the government enforcing and maintaining the monopoly.
That is what I wrote, yes. AT&T knew who to "lobby". That is information asymmetry.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. There is no fixed salary for a job. That's the whole point. It's a negotiation, where candidates with unique skills can negotiate higher compensation that reflects their unique skill-sets and contributions. What you want is to impose a one-size-fits-all rule on the market. That's going to produce misallocation and ineffi…
Every snowflake is special and unique too, but nobody cares when they are shovelling their driveways. Stop spreading incredulous fantasies, companies that hire 3000 JS-React mashing "agile' dev have salary ranges, HR has them, and you can find out about them once you are hired. They just don't want to publish them upfront.
Maybe if we are talking top leadership positions this argument has credence, but for most of us they aren't bending over backwards and putting together unique compensation packages.
As a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this). Another pattern is li…
> Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. This feels like a losing strategy as other employers will be posting tighter ranges which will get more applications. Especially if the lower bounds is too low. Hopefully this sorts itself out.
Many people looking for jobs don't have the means to be choosy, and many companies aren't looking for the best of the best, they just need people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it very difficult to believe that an employer that would be happy to fill a certain position at $80k would also be willing to fill that same position at $180k.
Did you happen to see the part where I explained that a company could hire someone at a relatively junior, mid-level or senior opening- in an extremely competitive market for software developers? Like, let's say you're X Startup, you desperately need a Golang developer, not having another good Golang developer on your team is costing you Y amounts of money per month, and you just can't find one in your preferred expe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The at&t monopoly came about via government power, and the only fighting it did was to keep the government enforcing and maintaining the monopoly.
> The at&t monopoly came about via government power,... That is what I wrote, yes. AT&T knew who to "lobby". That is information asymmetry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.
I live in Scotland, and the process here is the seller has to undertake a survey with someone who is accredited. In practice this means that the same 3-4 firms end up doing most of the surveys. It's not just some ranodmer saying "yeah, looks good mate". > In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price. You know what's even better than _on…
I wouldn’t trust an inspector chosen at random, much less an inspector chosen by the seller.
To be clear, I don’t care who is paying - as long as I pick the inspector.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals I'm convinced a primary motivation for hiring in mega-tech companies is to keep people from making startups to dethrone them. You can't legally compete with Google, etc if you've signed a non-compete.
Non-competes are unenforceable in a lot of places. And even if they weren't, the time scales for a startup to evolve into a serious market mover is longer than most non-compete contracts last anyway. A founder of a now-popular startup worked for Google eight years ago, so what? Let's say Google remembers and decides to pursue action. They'd spend another 3-4 years suing a person who has a mountain of plausible deniab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.
Does anybody know if there is a secondary market for home inspection reports? I know that the two times I was involved with a home purchase in the U.S., I needed to hire a home inspector. But the interested party in front of me also had to hire a home inspector. Would it not make sense for the interested parties to split the cost for one home inspector rather than reproducing the work? After all, copying information…