The economic consequences of non-compete agreements are interesting, to say the least.
I'm curious to see what happens to average salaries for programmers over the next few years if this investigation results in more competition. I'd also like to see if programmers care enough to bounce back and forth even more for salary bumps, but that's harder to measure.
Salaries may increase but more likely it will become like wall street for the most valued employees--that is, a bonus & stock options culture. So, for example, your base is 90k with 30k in options that vest in 3 years and a 15k year end bonus. So if you're thinking about making the jump to MegaCorp Inc. they're going to need to offer you a significantly better deal to cover your lost earnings.
Doesn't this happen already? Moreover, I don't think it will ever get as unbalanced as wallstreet compensation was at the height of the financial boom simply because we aren't as "close to the money" as traders are. E.g. A trader has a P&L so it's very easy to calculate how much value he brings to the firm. For an engineers working in industries other than finance the calculation isn't as straightforward and requires more art (read: politics) than simple calculations.
Note that this could in part be an attempt to circumvent the unenforceability of non-competes in California.
I keep banging on this drum, but it bears repeating: Silicon Valley/the Bay area is unique in the world, and compared to other would be competitors, in the US at least, is unique when it comes to public policy on non-competes.
If the evidence is so damning, why settle? Why does the government seem so quick to settle when a company does something wrong, but lays down the hammer on citizens who do something wrong[1]?
I don't have a problem with the government settling. Are they supposed to spend money fighting a lawsuit for years just to squeeze some more money out of them? Then what? Some employees that had nothing to do with it get laid off to keep up the bottom line?
I think the point here is to stop the behavior and give out just enough punishment to keep them from doing it again, but not excessive so as to damage the business. In this case, the problem is the companies were colluding to deprive people of jobs and to lower salaries. The desired outcome is to ensure a fair hiring and salary negotiation process. A settlement achieves that with minimal cost to the government and minimum collateral damage to the tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with it.
Businesses and individuals are completely different and there should be different standards for dealing out punishments.
That said, the case you mentioned seems absurd and unfair. The best answer I can give is that the government-- when it comes to the justice system-- is not a single entity. Justice is not dealt out uniformly. There are many, many different people with different views prosecuting cases. Some are more lenient than others, within the legislated guidelines. Different regions have different prevailing standards for justice. Even in the same town you have ball breaker judges and ones with a reputation for letting people off easy. If the law provides guidelines you can be sure that people will be spread out all across the spectrum of what is allowed. Getting 12 years for selling pot sucks. I'd be pretty pissed if I were in her shoes. If I were a judge I wouldn't think of giving out that kind of sentence. I would go so far as to say I think the judge who did is wrong, even if he did give a sentence allowed by law. But I'm also not the kind of dumbass who would sell pot. If you do stupid, obviously illegal things you put yourself at the mercy of a person who might just throw your ass in a hole for the next decade.
I don't know the U.K. at this level of detail but didn't you go "all in" on socialism after WII? As far as the government set minimum wages, aren't you already talking about something other than a free market?
Anyway, if the minimum wage is set by the government at a level above the value of someone's labor, you (the company) are going to:
Do without (movie ushers in the US).
Automate.
Move the work offshore.
Hire as few as you can for as little as you can when you can't do without, which these retail jobs might be an example of.
I'm not at the moment discussing the merits of a minimum wage, just pointing out that is has well established consequences.
14 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 48.7 ms ] threadI'm curious to see what happens to average salaries for programmers over the next few years if this investigation results in more competition. I'd also like to see if programmers care enough to bounce back and forth even more for salary bumps, but that's harder to measure.
I keep banging on this drum, but it bears repeating: Silicon Valley/the Bay area is unique in the world, and compared to other would be competitors, in the US at least, is unique when it comes to public policy on non-competes.
[1] http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/08/young-woman-sentenced-to-...
PS: yes, I know it was reduced later; but still it's at 8 years.
I think the point here is to stop the behavior and give out just enough punishment to keep them from doing it again, but not excessive so as to damage the business. In this case, the problem is the companies were colluding to deprive people of jobs and to lower salaries. The desired outcome is to ensure a fair hiring and salary negotiation process. A settlement achieves that with minimal cost to the government and minimum collateral damage to the tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with it.
Businesses and individuals are completely different and there should be different standards for dealing out punishments.
That said, the case you mentioned seems absurd and unfair. The best answer I can give is that the government-- when it comes to the justice system-- is not a single entity. Justice is not dealt out uniformly. There are many, many different people with different views prosecuting cases. Some are more lenient than others, within the legislated guidelines. Different regions have different prevailing standards for justice. Even in the same town you have ball breaker judges and ones with a reputation for letting people off easy. If the law provides guidelines you can be sure that people will be spread out all across the spectrum of what is allowed. Getting 12 years for selling pot sucks. I'd be pretty pissed if I were in her shoes. If I were a judge I wouldn't think of giving out that kind of sentence. I would go so far as to say I think the judge who did is wrong, even if he did give a sentence allowed by law. But I'm also not the kind of dumbass who would sell pot. If you do stupid, obviously illegal things you put yourself at the mercy of a person who might just throw your ass in a hole for the next decade.
There are a number of jobs in the UK that seem to be always paid at exactly minimum wage, mostly retail etc.
I've always wondered why the "free market" does not dictate that these wages should rise slowly over time.
Anyway, if the minimum wage is set by the government at a level above the value of someone's labor, you (the company) are going to:
Do without (movie ushers in the US).
Automate.
Move the work offshore.
Hire as few as you can for as little as you can when you can't do without, which these retail jobs might be an example of.
I'm not at the moment discussing the merits of a minimum wage, just pointing out that is has well established consequences.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-usa-holder-mort...