Did anyone try to challenge pay benchmarking in court?
Want to create an illegal taxi company? Just make it an app. Want to discriminate based on race? Hide it behind facial recognition and predictive policing. Collude for wage suppression? Create a wages database and "suggested wage" for HR. Want to copy other people's art but need to file off the serial numbers? Dali has your back. Copy other people's code without a license? AI is on it.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/detroit-police-c...
this stuff has been simmering before AI got branded.
it's definitely AI washing.
Or gate employment on requiring college/high level academic degrees.
This most likely means that they have a surfeit of applicants and want to cull the herd, or that they aren’t serious about hiring (or at least about hiring someone who is actually qualified).
Very few jobs actually require the knowledge gained during an undergraduate degree, much less what is learned during a master's.
You can even view the climate catastrophe etc and environmental contamination issues and other things as a manifestation of this. Our industrial scale has outpaced our system’s willingness to regulate, and agile corporate structures using this tech advance at a decidedly linear or exponential pace while the government agility trends towards zero.
It is better to have systems that bias towards someone being able to rule, and then we can work on making sure the system decides that someone in a fair way, rather than biasing towards gridlock unless every possible dimensionality of the population (as represented by the various branches and chambers of government) all absolutely 100% concur. Obviously it would be silly to require 100% concurrence, but if you require that five different dimensions of society all agree at 70% threshold then you have effectively required that level of agreement anyway. At some point this leads to social collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
Since the US has a unique geographic position which makes it effectively invulnerable this will take the form of internal rot, stagnation, and gridlock until a sufficient crisis pushes us over.
And really those are both just two sides of the same coin anyway, it is pretty obvious to me that over-biasing to inaction is just as dangerous as over-biasing to action in general, and especially inaction may be particularly dangerous as we move into a century where things are ever faster and the consequences are going to be very very real.
> Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire.
> But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate, To say that for destruction ice Is also great. And would suffice.
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
Separately, I find it sad that CEOs are thinking topline only and not thinking about their bottom line. The CAC for all new renters is not fixed costs, its variable, and increasing CAC vs leaving it close to 0 (and reducing related payroll) would be a viable strategy for a lot of buildings.
CEO just haven't done the hard work/math
Not an attack, but isn’t that almost the same logic they’re using?
My very simplistic take on this...
- offering a sampling of current rents in the area for $50/month [not price fixing]
- offering a sampling of current rents in the area for $50/month, and then facilitating collusion between land-lords, and also pressuring landlords to adhere to rent rates [price fixing]
Obviously, there's a lot more nuance there, and I'm not a lawyer, but seems to be the gist of it.
You don't recognize an analogy?
The issue at hand is that the company required at least 80% compliance with their pricing suggestions as a stipulation of using the service. This gave them the ability to influence the market. If you didn't accept their listing recommendation 80% of the time, they kicked you off the platform.
Every once in a while, one law firm will defect and raise salary, and every other law firm will update theirs within a week to the new rate.
after this initial hire, your salary growth (and segue to lucrative partnership) will be based on your performance and how much they want to keep you, again, undermining the notion that you are somehow locked into an oppressive system.
It seems like you want to have some unrelated debate about what group is more oppressed than other groups.
>after this initial hire, your salary growth (and segue to lucrative partnership) will be based on your performance and how much they want to keep you, again, undermining the notion that you are somehow locked into an oppressive system.
as a point of clarification, Biglaw salaries is fixed for associates up to 8th year. Yes they can still be fired, yes they can be made partner. Yes they make more than an Afghani dirt farmer.
I didn’t find anything usable. Could you send a URL for data for a company who wants to understand cash plus equity competitive positioning relative to the top 10 highest-paying large SWE employers?