Somewhat flippant title but I thought this was an excellent insight into the mindset of Silicon Valley: See also: Elon Musk building "subways, but like, all futuristic", Uber's "it's a bus, but...
Somewhat flippant title but I thought this was an excellent insight into the mindset of Silicon Valley:
Schmidt’s tweet speaks to a huge blind spot that nearly every technology billionaire seems to have. They see societal problems as things that need to be fixed by some newfangled overlay–and not symptomatic of an erosion of systems already in place.
A lot of Silicon Valley innovation is just ideas that skirt existing labor laws and regulations and that's where they find some extra profits in an otherwise already existing market. PayPal is...
A lot of Silicon Valley innovation is just ideas that skirt existing labor laws and regulations and that's where they find some extra profits in an otherwise already existing market. PayPal is probably the biggest example of that. I don't blame these guys too much for taking this shortcut over legit innovation because it's way easier, but it's kind of crazy how the tech media and a lot of fans eat it up as revolutionary rather than what it is.
Quick correction; the Hyperloop isn't subways but all futuristic. You may be thinking of "loop", which is what the Boring Company was set up to facilitate. It very much is "subways but...
Quick correction; the Hyperloop isn't subways but all futuristic. You may be thinking of "loop", which is what the Boring Company was set up to facilitate. It very much is "subways but futuristic".
Hyperloops are the idea that Musk proposed, but isn't actually building. It consists of an above ground, below atmospheric pressure tube in which a maglev sled is placed. It is actually a somewhat novel idea and a few companies have had promising initial tests with full scale models.
The loop seems a little more useless, and is basically just a less efficient subway.
I haven't followed it super closely, but my impression is that the plan was for the two to merge eventually. The prototypes of Hyperloop are getting built above-ground to simplify...
I haven't followed it super closely, but my impression is that the plan was for the two to merge eventually. The prototypes of Hyperloop are getting built above-ground to simplify maintenance/testing/debugging. Meanwhile the Boring Company is figuring out all the kinks in building tunnels that are roughly Hyperloop-sized, and for now those tunnels will run at full air pressure and with non-maglev tracks. The Boring Company vehicles will also be autonomous, and the software behind that is obviously also a key part of Hyperloop being successful long-term.
I'm very optimistic about the technology - partial-vacuum tubes and maglev trains would obviously be a huge advancement. What I'm much more skeptical about is the role those companies would play in the long-term future of the technology.
If you look at railroads, there's some parameters that define the standard gauge of tracks (technically, there's a handful of gauges, but it's one standard gauge and several less-common gauges, all of which are standardized). There are a ton of construction companies that can build rail lines, and a ton of manufacturers for rolling stock that can fit on those rail lines.
I have trouble picturing a future where Hyperloop is as successful as it obviously has the potential to be...and it becomes an open engineering standard with worldwide competition the same way current rail systems are. It seems much more likely that the future Hyperloop/Boring Company, if successful, would end up being a monopoly. They dig the tunnels, provide the cars, and the end result is that we all end up paying rent to Elon Musk (or Elon Musk's head in a jar, depending on how long this takes) for a basic function of society - moving people and goods from point A to point B.
I don't believe that's the case. I think that loop and hyperloop were always intended to be different technologies with different use cases. There's not much of a need to travel at ~600mph within...
I don't believe that's the case. I think that loop and hyperloop were always intended to be different technologies with different use cases. There's not much of a need to travel at ~600mph within a city. If 100mph gets you all the way across the city in 10 minutes, is it really worth billions upon billions more dollars to get there in 2?
Because the hyperloop is intended for long distance travel, they've always been intended to be above ground. Digging a tunnel from San Francisco to LA will always be outrageously expensive, no matter how cheap the boring company manages to make TBMs. It's also not really necessary. There aren't tons of tightly packed buildings necessitating underground tunnels.
The nice thing about the hyperloop is that the "idea" is, at least, open source. Musk put the initial design for the system out there as a public domain document, and there are dozens of companies running with their own take on it. As far as "loop" goes though, I wholeheartedly agree. The Boring company wants to design, engineer, build, and operate the loop systems in exchange for fares. That's frankly unacceptable. It's extremely easy to see how, if the system is successful, they could use their entrenched status to extort and abuse entire cities. Musk's companies in general have a poor record for consumer friendliness and proprietary, non standards complaint behavior. I don't see the boring company being any different. Thankfully, the hyperloop idea isn't in danger of that type of exploitation. At least not from Musk or his companies.
Unfortunately, the media is constantly conflating the hyperloop with the loop, which doesn't make the situation any easier to understand for people who haven't been following it. That's partially Musk's fault for naming the things so similarly though.
I'm not sure if the idea is "novel". I remember seeing some documentary as a kid which described how in the future there could be an undersea train in a vacuum tunnel. I think it's not a new idea...
I'm not sure if the idea is "novel". I remember seeing some documentary as a kid which described how in the future there could be an undersea train in a vacuum tunnel. I think it's not a new idea at all.
With vacuum tunnels and electro magnets we can build gravity trains that travel between any two points on Earth in less than an hour using almost no energy, an idea first proposed in the 1800's...
With vacuum tunnels and electro magnets we can build gravity trains that travel between any two points on Earth in less than an hour using almost no energy, an idea first proposed in the 1800's and popularised in the 1960's.
Well, probably not, because of Earth's liquid core and mantle, but maybe we'll see such trains on the Moon some day.
Vacuum tunnels aren't novel, partially evacuated tunnels with electric fans and maglev sleds are. The idea being that full vacuums are extremely hard to maintain. Partial vacuums are much more...
Vacuum tunnels aren't novel, partially evacuated tunnels with electric fans and maglev sleds are. The idea being that full vacuums are extremely hard to maintain. Partial vacuums are much more cost effective while providing most of the same benefits when coupled with a fan.
I'm astounded that Mr Schmidt doesn't realise that he has the power to achieve his goal with the stroke of a pen or the click of a keyboard: he can increase the pay of his own "low and moderate...
I'm astounded that Mr Schmidt doesn't realise that he has the power to achieve his goal with the stroke of a pen or the click of a keyboard: he can increase the pay of his own "low and moderate income workers" by as much as he wants, whenever he wants. He has over 88,000 employees whose pay he can increase immediately. They might not all count as "low and moderate income workers", but I bet a lot of them do. If he thinks they're worth $10,000 more per year, he can pay them that amount starting right now. That's a bit step towards his target of 100,000 employees, which he can achieve today.
If anyone here has a Twitter account (of course you all do), feel free to pass this idea along to him!
Reminds me of the article about janitors at Kodak and Apple comparing the working environment and benefits between then and now. That 88,000 employee figure certainly doesn't include all of...
Reminds me of the article about janitors at Kodak and Apple comparing the working environment and benefits between then and now.
That 88,000 employee figure certainly doesn't include all of Google's janitors, cafeteria staff, security personnel, technicians who work on auxilliary datacenter needs like air conditioning and backup power supplies, and so on. Schmidt could easily give those workers a pay bump, too, by putting requirements on the contracting companies they work with.
Or by employing those workers directly on its own books where Google/Alphabet can directly control what they get paid, instead of trying to cut costs by outsourcing the work to contractors.
Schmidt could easily give those workers a pay bump, too, by putting requirements on the contracting companies they work with.
Or by employing those workers directly on its own books where Google/Alphabet can directly control what they get paid, instead of trying to cut costs by outsourcing the work to contractors.
Probably not without going to court. Most of those contracts include non-compete clauses where the company isn't allowed to directly hire the contractors for a set amount of time.
Probably not without going to court. Most of those contracts include non-compete clauses where the company isn't allowed to directly hire the contractors for a set amount of time.
There are even non-compete agreements used for fast food workers. It seems to be in decline, but only because of pressure from the WA state Attorney General:...
There are even non-compete agreements used for fast food workers. It seems to be in decline, but only because of pressure from the WA state Attorney General:
I agree. Contracting companies are leeches used to get around worker regulations in almost all cases. I was a contractor for a long time, and even though I was getting paid very well and have...
I agree. Contracting companies are leeches used to get around worker regulations in almost all cases. I was a contractor for a long time, and even though I was getting paid very well and have almost nothing to complain about in the grand scheme of things, I wasn't getting health insurance, paid vacations, sick days, or anything like that. I also found out the company I actually worked for day to day was paying almost double what I was getting paid to the contracting agency for me to work for them.
They made roughly the same amount as my close to six figure salary for essentially doing absolutely nothing. The only time I heard from them is when some sniveling middle manager called me to complain about my time sheets being late, which they of course only cared about because it meant they got paid late too.
When it came time that my (actual) company had enough, they had to pay around 60k up front to the contracting agency for the ability to hire me directly without being sued. They're a racket designed to siphon money from people and organizations.
Fine. How about this: Instead of engaging contracting companies to do its cleaning, it could employ workers directly to do its cleaning - whether those workers used to work for the contractors or...
Fine. How about this:
Or by employing the equivalent of those workers on its own books...
Instead of engaging contracting companies to do its cleaning, it could employ workers directly to do its cleaning - whether those workers used to work for the contractors or whether they're new people doing the work.
Eric Schmidt is wildly disconnected from reality. He once suggested that you should just move if you don't like the idea of your house being on Google Maps Street View.
Eric Schmidt is wildly disconnected from reality. He once suggested that you should just move if you don't like the idea of your house being on Google Maps Street View.
Sorry, but that's simply not how the business world works. Were Alphabet/Google a private company and Eric Schmidt the sole proprietor, then sure... he could do what you suggest. But they aren't...
Sorry, but that's simply not how the business world works. Were Alphabet/Google a private company and Eric Schmidt the sole proprietor, then sure... he could do what you suggest. But they aren't and he isn't... it's a publicly traded company and Eric Schmidt is only the Director, which is a position he can easily be removed from should the rest of the board or the shareholders feel unhappy with his performance. And as Director, I very much doubt he has unilateral authority to raise wages like that even if he wanted to.
Not only that but given it's a public company, a drastic move like raising all 88k employees wages by $10k/yr would also likely completely tank their stock value, of which probably makes up a moderate portion of employees benefits through stock options.
Of course that's not how it works. Everytime someone criticizes how greedy capitalism screws over the little guy, some temporarily embarassed millionaire from the peanut gallery rushes to the...
Exemplary
Sorry, but that's simply not how the business world works.
Of course that's not how it works. Everytime someone criticizes how greedy capitalism screws over the little guy, some temporarily embarassed millionaire from the peanut gallery rushes to the defense of the ultra rich, saying they can't change that because that's how it works. As if that's a defense. As if that makes it OK.
How about you actually read my entire comment before trying to put words in to my mouth? At no point was I defending google or Schmidt. I was simply explaining why what Algernon said is very...
How about you actually read my entire comment before trying to put words in to my mouth? At no point was I defending google or Schmidt. I was simply explaining why what Algernon said is very likely incorrect. That doesn't make it right, that doesn't justify poor wages, but nor does it mean it cannot happen by other means! Google employees unionizing and/or public pressure for them to raise wages can actually accomplish the goal. But saying "[Mr Schmidt] has the power to achieve his goal with the stroke of a pen" is naive, because that is not how a publicly traded company works!
My point is that "it doesn't work that way" is not some sort of divine commandment that poor little Eric Schmidt is helpless to act against. If he really wanted to pay his employees more, nobody...
that is not how a publicly traded company works
My point is that "it doesn't work that way" is not some sort of divine commandment that poor little Eric Schmidt is helpless to act against. If he really wanted to pay his employees more, nobody on the board would dare act against him - Google is worth a bazillion dollars and the sheer negative publicity would not be worth the rounding error increase in expenses.
No, Eric Schmidt won't pay more because he doesn't want to, not because he can't. He wants these poor people to stop bothering him and get some money, just not out of his own pocket.
From my perspective, your "point" was very clearly to try and make me seem like some asshole "temporarily embarassed millionaire" for simply pointing out the facts. An accusation that I resent....
From my perspective, your "point" was very clearly to try and make me seem like some asshole "temporarily embarassed millionaire" for simply pointing out the facts. An accusation that I resent. And IMO the very least you could do is apologize for that.
While my comment was in reply to you, the criticism wasn't directed at you. It was meant to be a dig at everyone who are "just pointing out the facts" without offering any solution to the...
While my comment was in reply to you, the criticism wasn't directed at you. It was meant to be a dig at everyone who are "just pointing out the facts" without offering any solution to the underlying problem. More often than not, such comments have the effect - intentional or otherwise - of shutting down discussion because of their defeatist attitude.
Still, I do apologize for the hostile nature of my comment and that you ended being on the receiving end of it.
Fair enough... apology accepted. And while I see where you're coming from, I don't think attacking people who are simply trying to be pragmatic is the best approach. Just because someone likes to...
Exemplary
Fair enough... apology accepted. And while I see where you're coming from, I don't think attacking people who are simply trying to be pragmatic is the best approach. Just because someone likes to be realistic doesn't mean they are your enemy. I strongly support unions. I think the stock market is an inherently amoral and corrupting force. But I also despise appeals to emotion that mislead people into thinking the only thing stopping change is some cartoonishly evil billionaires running a few companies. The system itself is flawed and you won't change that by baselessly attacking people like Eric Schmidt who don't hold the power to change that. Nor will making unrealistic suggestions accomplish anything either.
Eric Schmidt may only be the director, with no ability to act on his own, but that doesn't absolve him entirely. I know he can't literally change his employees' pay with the stroke of a pen...
Eric Schmidt may only be the director, with no ability to act on his own, but that doesn't absolve him entirely. I know he can't literally change his employees' pay with the stroke of a pen (please pardon my flair for the dramatic), but his word carries a lot of weight within the company he directs, and he can certainly influence what happens there. If he wants low-paid employees to be paid more, he can start by advocating for his own employees to get pay rises. "Charity begins at home", "Physician, heal thyself", "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?", and all those other cliches.
Sure, I agree... but that is not what you said in your comment.
Sure, I agree... but that is not what you said in your comment.
I'm astounded that Mr Schmidt doesn't realise that he has the power to achieve his goal with the stroke of a pen or the click of a keyboard: he can increase the pay of his own "low and moderate income workers" by as much as he wants, whenever he wants.
I'm not sure that me writing that a director can change his employees' pay "with the stroke of a pen" counts as dishonesty of any kind. It might be a tad exaggerated, but the basic point should be...
I'm not sure that me writing that a director can change his employees' pay "with the stroke of a pen" counts as dishonesty of any kind. It might be a tad exaggerated, but the basic point should be clear to most people: a company director has the power to change things within their own company. I'm not trying to deceive or mislead people about my opinions or intentions.
I apologise for misleading you, though. I should clarify that, despite my "note to self", I do not intend to start writing 100% literally. I like using metaphors and being dramatic at times. This is not intended to be dishonest, but to add some personality and flair to my writing. My "note to self" is a non-literal way of conveying my disappointment at being held to a literal interpretation of a phrase that was not intended to be read literally.
It even helps clarity! Saying something like "he should use his position to pursue a shift to benefit corporation status" is closer to what would be feasible than "stroke of his pen", but has the...
It might be a tad exaggerated, but the basic point should be clear to most people[.]
It even helps clarity! Saying something like "he should use his position to pursue a shift to benefit corporation status" is closer to what would be feasible than "stroke of his pen", but has the unfortunate side effect of sounding like gibberish if someone doesn't already know what you're talking about.
"Stroke of the pen" may be an exaggeration, but given that there are frameworks in place which allow for more socially-responsible corporations, the statement accurately conveys that Google's failure to adopt those frameworks reflects a choice on the part of their leaders and major shareholders. In comparison, "they can't pay workers more because the system doesn't allow public companies to do that" is equally if not more inaccurate, and seems ... defeatist.
His tweet is beyond clueless. He's basically reverse engineering justification for any one person controlling as much wealth as he does rather than advocating for labor rights through...
His tweet is beyond clueless. He's basically reverse engineering justification for any one person controlling as much wealth as he does rather than advocating for labor rights through well-established methods requiring concessions from people like him. That money has to come from somewhere - how bout we start with the billionaire founders/shareholders of society-altering/controlling tech companies? I hope someone launches a startup that is basically just a tech union for Google.
Honestly, shit like this is why a broad and generalist approach to education is so important. If you just laser focus on STEM and the trades, you get people that, while narrowly brilliant, are...
Honestly, shit like this is why a broad and generalist approach to education is so important. If you just laser focus on STEM and the trades, you get people that, while narrowly brilliant, are also fundamentally ignorant about our society as a whole and how it functions.
I can't recall hearing of JFF before. Their web site doesn't even say what it's an acronym for. Sounds like they have the same goals as a union, but use different approaches to reach them than a...
I can't recall hearing of JFF before. Their web site doesn't even say what it's an acronym for. Sounds like they have the same goals as a union, but use different approaches to reach them than a union would, and is for the most part funded by big companies that probably don't want their employees to unionise.
Warning: Crazy conspiracy theory incoming.
Schmidt is a pretty smart guy right, surely he must be aware that unions exist and are the most effective way to improve worker conditions. But as an executive chairman he can't actually promote unions, as that would turn the board and shareholders of his own company against him. So what he does instead is post a completely moronic tweet, that he knows anyone with half a brain will see right through, that will get sarcastically reported on by media across the nation, suddenly getting millions of US citizens talking about unions, massively increasing awareness of them.
Somewhat flippant title but I thought this was an excellent insight into the mindset of Silicon Valley:
See also: Elon Musk building "subways, but like, all futuristic", Uber's "it's a bus, but without poor people", and so on.
A lot of Silicon Valley innovation is just ideas that skirt existing labor laws and regulations and that's where they find some extra profits in an otherwise already existing market. PayPal is probably the biggest example of that. I don't blame these guys too much for taking this shortcut over legit innovation because it's way easier, but it's kind of crazy how the tech media and a lot of fans eat it up as revolutionary rather than what it is.
Quick correction; the Hyperloop isn't subways but all futuristic. You may be thinking of "loop", which is what the Boring Company was set up to facilitate. It very much is "subways but futuristic".
Hyperloops are the idea that Musk proposed, but isn't actually building. It consists of an above ground, below atmospheric pressure tube in which a maglev sled is placed. It is actually a somewhat novel idea and a few companies have had promising initial tests with full scale models.
The loop seems a little more useless, and is basically just a less efficient subway.
I haven't followed it super closely, but my impression is that the plan was for the two to merge eventually. The prototypes of Hyperloop are getting built above-ground to simplify maintenance/testing/debugging. Meanwhile the Boring Company is figuring out all the kinks in building tunnels that are roughly Hyperloop-sized, and for now those tunnels will run at full air pressure and with non-maglev tracks. The Boring Company vehicles will also be autonomous, and the software behind that is obviously also a key part of Hyperloop being successful long-term.
I'm very optimistic about the technology - partial-vacuum tubes and maglev trains would obviously be a huge advancement. What I'm much more skeptical about is the role those companies would play in the long-term future of the technology.
If you look at railroads, there's some parameters that define the standard gauge of tracks (technically, there's a handful of gauges, but it's one standard gauge and several less-common gauges, all of which are standardized). There are a ton of construction companies that can build rail lines, and a ton of manufacturers for rolling stock that can fit on those rail lines.
I have trouble picturing a future where Hyperloop is as successful as it obviously has the potential to be...and it becomes an open engineering standard with worldwide competition the same way current rail systems are. It seems much more likely that the future Hyperloop/Boring Company, if successful, would end up being a monopoly. They dig the tunnels, provide the cars, and the end result is that we all end up paying rent to Elon Musk (or Elon Musk's head in a jar, depending on how long this takes) for a basic function of society - moving people and goods from point A to point B.
I don't believe that's the case. I think that loop and hyperloop were always intended to be different technologies with different use cases. There's not much of a need to travel at ~600mph within a city. If 100mph gets you all the way across the city in 10 minutes, is it really worth billions upon billions more dollars to get there in 2?
Because the hyperloop is intended for long distance travel, they've always been intended to be above ground. Digging a tunnel from San Francisco to LA will always be outrageously expensive, no matter how cheap the boring company manages to make TBMs. It's also not really necessary. There aren't tons of tightly packed buildings necessitating underground tunnels.
The nice thing about the hyperloop is that the "idea" is, at least, open source. Musk put the initial design for the system out there as a public domain document, and there are dozens of companies running with their own take on it. As far as "loop" goes though, I wholeheartedly agree. The Boring company wants to design, engineer, build, and operate the loop systems in exchange for fares. That's frankly unacceptable. It's extremely easy to see how, if the system is successful, they could use their entrenched status to extort and abuse entire cities. Musk's companies in general have a poor record for consumer friendliness and proprietary, non standards complaint behavior. I don't see the boring company being any different. Thankfully, the hyperloop idea isn't in danger of that type of exploitation. At least not from Musk or his companies.
Unfortunately, the media is constantly conflating the hyperloop with the loop, which doesn't make the situation any easier to understand for people who haven't been following it. That's partially Musk's fault for naming the things so similarly though.
I'm not sure if the idea is "novel". I remember seeing some documentary as a kid which described how in the future there could be an undersea train in a vacuum tunnel. I think it's not a new idea at all.
With vacuum tunnels and electro magnets we can build gravity trains that travel between any two points on Earth in less than an hour using almost no energy, an idea first proposed in the 1800's and popularised in the 1960's.
Well, probably not, because of Earth's liquid core and mantle, but maybe we'll see such trains on the Moon some day.
Vacuum tunnels aren't novel, partially evacuated tunnels with electric fans and maglev sleds are. The idea being that full vacuums are extremely hard to maintain. Partial vacuums are much more cost effective while providing most of the same benefits when coupled with a fan.
I'm astounded that Mr Schmidt doesn't realise that he has the power to achieve his goal with the stroke of a pen or the click of a keyboard: he can increase the pay of his own "low and moderate income workers" by as much as he wants, whenever he wants. He has over 88,000 employees whose pay he can increase immediately. They might not all count as "low and moderate income workers", but I bet a lot of them do. If he thinks they're worth $10,000 more per year, he can pay them that amount starting right now. That's a bit step towards his target of 100,000 employees, which he can achieve today.
If anyone here has a Twitter account (of course you all do), feel free to pass this idea along to him!
Reminds me of the article about janitors at Kodak and Apple comparing the working environment and benefits between then and now.
That 88,000 employee figure certainly doesn't include all of Google's janitors, cafeteria staff, security personnel, technicians who work on auxilliary datacenter needs like air conditioning and backup power supplies, and so on. Schmidt could easily give those workers a pay bump, too, by putting requirements on the contracting companies they work with.
Or by employing those workers directly on its own books where Google/Alphabet can directly control what they get paid, instead of trying to cut costs by outsourcing the work to contractors.
Probably not without going to court. Most of those contracts include non-compete clauses where the company isn't allowed to directly hire the contractors for a set amount of time.
There are even non-compete agreements used for fast food workers. It seems to be in decline, but only because of pressure from the WA state Attorney General:
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/07/12/29079108/seven-fast-food-restaurants-agree-to-stop-practice-that-screws-workers
I agree. Contracting companies are leeches used to get around worker regulations in almost all cases. I was a contractor for a long time, and even though I was getting paid very well and have almost nothing to complain about in the grand scheme of things, I wasn't getting health insurance, paid vacations, sick days, or anything like that. I also found out the company I actually worked for day to day was paying almost double what I was getting paid to the contracting agency for me to work for them.
They made roughly the same amount as my close to six figure salary for essentially doing absolutely nothing. The only time I heard from them is when some sniveling middle manager called me to complain about my time sheets being late, which they of course only cared about because it meant they got paid late too.
When it came time that my (actual) company had enough, they had to pay around 60k up front to the contracting agency for the ability to hire me directly without being sued. They're a racket designed to siphon money from people and organizations.
Fine. How about this:
Instead of engaging contracting companies to do its cleaning, it could employ workers directly to do its cleaning - whether those workers used to work for the contractors or whether they're new people doing the work.
Eric Schmidt is wildly disconnected from reality. He once suggested that you should just move if you don't like the idea of your house being on Google Maps Street View.
Sorry, but that's simply not how the business world works. Were Alphabet/Google a private company and Eric Schmidt the sole proprietor, then sure... he could do what you suggest. But they aren't and he isn't... it's a publicly traded company and Eric Schmidt is only the Director, which is a position he can easily be removed from should the rest of the board or the shareholders feel unhappy with his performance. And as Director, I very much doubt he has unilateral authority to raise wages like that even if he wanted to.
Not only that but given it's a public company, a drastic move like raising all 88k employees wages by $10k/yr would also likely completely tank their stock value, of which probably makes up a moderate portion of employees benefits through stock options.
Of course that's not how it works. Everytime someone criticizes how greedy capitalism screws over the little guy, some temporarily embarassed millionaire from the peanut gallery rushes to the defense of the ultra rich, saying they can't change that because that's how it works. As if that's a defense. As if that makes it OK.
How about you actually read my entire comment before trying to put words in to my mouth? At no point was I defending google or Schmidt. I was simply explaining why what Algernon said is very likely incorrect. That doesn't make it right, that doesn't justify poor wages, but nor does it mean it cannot happen by other means! Google employees unionizing and/or public pressure for them to raise wages can actually accomplish the goal. But saying "[Mr Schmidt] has the power to achieve his goal with the stroke of a pen" is naive, because that is not how a publicly traded company works!
My point is that "it doesn't work that way" is not some sort of divine commandment that poor little Eric Schmidt is helpless to act against. If he really wanted to pay his employees more, nobody on the board would dare act against him - Google is worth a bazillion dollars and the sheer negative publicity would not be worth the rounding error increase in expenses.
No, Eric Schmidt won't pay more because he doesn't want to, not because he can't. He wants these poor people to stop bothering him and get some money, just not out of his own pocket.
From my perspective, your "point" was very clearly to try and make me seem like some asshole "temporarily embarassed millionaire" for simply pointing out the facts. An accusation that I resent. And IMO the very least you could do is apologize for that.
While my comment was in reply to you, the criticism wasn't directed at you. It was meant to be a dig at everyone who are "just pointing out the facts" without offering any solution to the underlying problem. More often than not, such comments have the effect - intentional or otherwise - of shutting down discussion because of their defeatist attitude.
Still, I do apologize for the hostile nature of my comment and that you ended being on the receiving end of it.
Fair enough... apology accepted. And while I see where you're coming from, I don't think attacking people who are simply trying to be pragmatic is the best approach. Just because someone likes to be realistic doesn't mean they are your enemy. I strongly support unions. I think the stock market is an inherently amoral and corrupting force. But I also despise appeals to emotion that mislead people into thinking the only thing stopping change is some cartoonishly evil billionaires running a few companies. The system itself is flawed and you won't change that by baselessly attacking people like Eric Schmidt who don't hold the power to change that. Nor will making unrealistic suggestions accomplish anything either.
This is why I love the Tildes :)
Increasing everyone's wages by 10k would be slightly more than a rounding error.
Eric Schmidt may only be the director, with no ability to act on his own, but that doesn't absolve him entirely. I know he can't literally change his employees' pay with the stroke of a pen (please pardon my flair for the dramatic), but his word carries a lot of weight within the company he directs, and he can certainly influence what happens there. If he wants low-paid employees to be paid more, he can start by advocating for his own employees to get pay rises. "Charity begins at home", "Physician, heal thyself", "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?", and all those other cliches.
Sure, I agree... but that is not what you said in your comment.
Note to self: Tildes is not the place to be dramatic, literary, or metaphorical. Always use literal statements only.
Remember to cite your sources, particularly for statements of personal opinion ;)
Do you love chicken sandwiches but hate buns? Well you're gonna love the Double Down from KFC!
I'm not sure that me writing that a director can change his employees' pay "with the stroke of a pen" counts as dishonesty of any kind. It might be a tad exaggerated, but the basic point should be clear to most people: a company director has the power to change things within their own company. I'm not trying to deceive or mislead people about my opinions or intentions.
I apologise for misleading you, though. I should clarify that, despite my "note to self", I do not intend to start writing 100% literally. I like using metaphors and being dramatic at times. This is not intended to be dishonest, but to add some personality and flair to my writing. My "note to self" is a non-literal way of conveying my disappointment at being held to a literal interpretation of a phrase that was not intended to be read literally.
It even helps clarity! Saying something like "he should use his position to pursue a shift to benefit corporation status" is closer to what would be feasible than "stroke of his pen", but has the unfortunate side effect of sounding like gibberish if someone doesn't already know what you're talking about.
"Stroke of the pen" may be an exaggeration, but given that there are frameworks in place which allow for more socially-responsible corporations, the statement accurately conveys that Google's failure to adopt those frameworks reflects a choice on the part of their leaders and major shareholders. In comparison, "they can't pay workers more because the system doesn't allow public companies to do that" is equally if not more inaccurate, and seems ... defeatist.
His tweet is beyond clueless. He's basically reverse engineering justification for any one person controlling as much wealth as he does rather than advocating for labor rights through well-established methods requiring concessions from people like him. That money has to come from somewhere - how bout we start with the billionaire founders/shareholders of society-altering/controlling tech companies? I hope someone launches a startup that is basically just a tech union for Google.
Honestly, shit like this is why a broad and generalist approach to education is so important. If you just laser focus on STEM and the trades, you get people that, while narrowly brilliant, are also fundamentally ignorant about our society as a whole and how it functions.
I can't recall hearing of JFF before. Their web site doesn't even say what it's an acronym for. Sounds like they have the same goals as a union, but use different approaches to reach them than a union would, and is for the most part funded by big companies that probably don't want their employees to unionise.
Warning: Crazy conspiracy theory incoming.
Schmidt is a pretty smart guy right, surely he must be aware that unions exist and are the most effective way to improve worker conditions. But as an executive chairman he can't actually promote unions, as that would turn the board and shareholders of his own company against him. So what he does instead is post a completely moronic tweet, that he knows anyone with half a brain will see right through, that will get sarcastically reported on by media across the nation, suddenly getting millions of US citizens talking about unions, massively increasing awareness of them.