What is wrong with California?

[creekster]

Is this one of your exceptions to the big breasts rule?

Hard to say; he lost count long ago.

[Uncle Ted]

Bay area protesters are upset that tech companies (with all their tech employees) are driving up housing prices...

In SF and Oakland, activists block tech buses to protest displacement

Between 70 and 100 protesters gathered at 24th and Valencia streets this morning (Fri/20) for yet another blockade of a private tech shuttle, this time to protest evictions in the city of San Francisco.


The activists, who were from Eviction Free San Francisco, Our Mission No Eviction, Causa Justa / Just Cause and others, stood in front of a white shuttle bus holding banners and signs. Some peeked through cardboard signs fashioned in the shape of place markers on Google maps, with “Evicted” written across the front.


The shuttle was bound for “Main Campus Ridgeview,” a hint that it was operated by Apple. While there was no contact between the bus passengers and the protesters, a few sitting inside the bus could be seen capturing the scene outside with their iPhones.


With chants of, “What do we want? No Eviction!” And, “Get off the bus! Join us!” The group of tenant advocates marched from the 24th Street BART station to the intersection, where Erin McElroy, who was an unwitting participant in union organizer Max Alper’s street theater performance during the Dec. 9 Google bus blockade, led the street rally on a megaphone.


“What we are against is eviction,” she said. “What we are against is the Ellis Act. We want the ruling class – which is becoming the tech class – to listen to our voices.”

Patricia Kerman, who is facing an Ellis Act eviction from her apartment of 27 years at 20th and Folsom streets in the Mission, was among the speakers who shared personal stories during the blockade, which lasted around twenty minutes or so. She told the Bay Guardian that she is a senior on disability, with a “very low fixed income,” and has had no luck finding alternative housing since she received an eviction notice. “He doesn’t understand that a roof over my head is more important than money in my pocket,” she said, referring to her landlord.


Paula Tejada, who is also facing eviction, said having rent control made it possible for her to get into a financial position to open her small business, Chile Lindo, a Mission District empanada shop near 16th and Capp streets. “I am once again proud of the Mission that stands for what is right,” she said of that morning’s action. “Not everyone is taking this lying down.” She added, “if you want homogeneous, go live in the suburbs.”
[...]

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/12...t-displacement

Texas is willing to help these poor people by moving more tech jobs to our state.

[Uncle Ted]

A Tech Tycoon Wants to Split California Into Six States Because Democracy

Sure, Tim Draper's plan to slice up the Golden State is ridiculous. The wealthy venture capitalist has drafted a ballot initiative to split California into six separate states, he told Tech Crunch, with Silicon Valley emerging as the richest and most powerful of all. The mockery is already pouring in.


Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of California 1.0. Of course a deep undercurrent of self-aggrandizing narcissism runs through the proposal—only one other state-to-be gets an actual name, ("Jefferson," which is already the moniker of an ongoing secessionist movement) and the rest are lazily affixed with topographical descriptors: West, South, Central, and North California. Of course the plan is overrun with libertarian-tinged ideology and language—an explicit goal is to "lessen the role of Sacramento over every aspect of our lives." Starting to sound familiar?

Yes, in shaping his doctrine, Draper has conjured the perfect blend of Seasteading's offshore tech nirvana lawlessness, boilerplate Tea Party antiestablishmentarianism, and good ol' secessionist chutzpah.


But here's the thing: Underneath all that Silicon Valley techno-centrism, he's got a point. Though he's probably proposing it for all the wrong reasons, Draper's terrible plan is premised on a totally salient criticism—it's absurd that California only sends two senators to Washington when it is by far the country's most populous state.


Though it's not mentioned outright in the ballot proposal text, he tells Tech Crunch that the number one reason he wants to slice up California is that "It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington."


It's hard to argue with that. Small and sparsely populated states get an absurd advantage when it comes to representation in one of the nation's two legislative chambers. You might have heard it put this way before: a Wyoming voter gets 68 times more representation in the Senate than a Californian. California is home to 38 million people. Wyoming has some 575,000 residents. Yet both states send two senators to Washington, whose votes each count equally. Which isn't ideal if you're aiming for a democracy.


Draper says his plan would smooth that out, and help California voters get the voice they deserve.
[...]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the...ally-worthless

California should just become its own country.

[Topper]

Bay area protesters are upset that tech companies (with all their tech employees) are driving up housing prices...

Nevada is also happy. He'll even upstate New York would take them. Downstate is already another country, an appendage of Europe with all its worst attributes.


http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/12...t-displacement

Texas is willing to help these poor people by moving more tech jobs to our state.

Nevada is also happy.

[LA Ute]

This guy hasn't a prayer of winning but this is a great ad:

[Uncle Ted]

http://svbj.tumblr.com/post/75132767...ilicon-valleys

[LA Ute]

Biggest thing wrong with CA right now is that we can't seem to get a drop of rain.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energ...space-20140204

[Joe Public]

http://svbj.tumblr.com/post/75132767...ilicon-valleys

Those are sky-high numbers, but there are lots of high-paying jobs there, too. I used to watch the numbers that show what percentage of the local population, based on 30% or 35% of income, can afford the median-priced home. Back in 2004 or so in Los Angeles, that number was around 15% if I remember correctly. I would be interested to see what that number is for Silicon Valley nowadays.

[Uncle Ted]

Those are sky-high numbers, but there are lots of high-paying jobs there, too. I used to watch the numbers that show what percentage of the local population, based on 30% or 35% of income, can afford the median-priced home. Back in 2004 or so in Los Angeles, that number was around 15% if I remember correctly. I would be interested to see what that number is for Silicon Valley nowadays.

From the link above… It doesn't give a percentage but talks about those high-paying jobs:

[…]
In Silicon Valley, even pay packages with a 50 percent premium over other markets may not entice professionals who can buy more elsewhere.


“It still doesn’t make up for, ‘Hey, I had twice the home and half the cost,’” Guardino said.


Those tradeoffs go for renters, too. Young workers in fields like engineering start with a salary around $100,000 in Silicon Valley, allowing them to afford a nice room in an expensive shared rental. But workers’ tolerance for that lifestyle doesn’t last.


“They don’t mind dorm life in a rental house or apartment for a few years,” Guardino said. “We train them for two or three years, and they either leave for the competition or say ‘Hey, company X in the Valley, please transfer us to our Oregon facility.’”
[…]

[Uncle Ted]

Engineers Allege Hiring Collusion in Silicon Valley

Tech companies love new ideas, unless they belong to someone else. Then any breakthroughs must be neutralized or bought. Silicon Valley executives know all too well that a competitor’s unchecked innovation can quickly topple the mightiest tech titan.


Just how far Silicon Valley will go to remove such risks is at the heart of a class-action lawsuit that accuses industry executives of agreeing between 2005 and 2009 not to poach one another’s employees. Headed to trial in San Jose this spring, the case involves 64,000 programmers and seeks billions of dollars in damages. Its mastermind, court papers say, was the executive who was the most successful, most innovative and most concerned about competition of all — Steve Jobs.


The suit shows how more than two years after his death, Mr. Jobs still casts a long shadow. It also offers a portrait of Silicon Valley engineers that differs sharply from their current caricature as well-paid villains who are driving up the price of real estate in San Francisco and making the city unbearable for others.

Instead, the court documents portray the engineers as “victims of a conspiracy” who were cheated by their bosses, said Joseph R. Saveri, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.


“These are the engineers building the hardware and software that are the lifeblood of the technology industry,” Mr. Saveri said. “But they were prevented from being able to freely negotiate what their skills are worth.”


The actions described in the suit were first uncovered in an investigation by the Justice Department, which concluded with an antitrust complaint against a half-dozen companies. In a simultaneous settlement, the companies agreed to drop the no-poaching practice. The settlement did not preclude the programmers from pursuing their own case against the companies, and the class-action lawsuit quotes emails and other communications from some of Silicon Valley’s biggest names.


Mr. Jobs was particularly worried about Google, which was hiring rapidly and expanding into areas where Apple had an interest. In 2005, for instance, Google’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, tried to hire from Apple’s browser team. “If you hire a single one of these people that means war,” Mr. Jobs warned in an email, according to court papers.


Mr. Brin backed off, and Google and Mr. Jobs soon came to an informal agreement not to solicit each other’s employees. Apple made similar deals with other companies. So did Google.

By 2007, when a Google recruiter slipped up and contacted an Apple engineer, Mr. Jobs immediately complained. To appease the Apple chief, Google fired the recruiter within an hour. Mr. Jobs’s control extended even to former Apple engineers. When Google wanted to hire some, the suit says, Mr. Jobs vetoed the idea.


Google declined to comment for this article. Apple did not respond to requests for comment.


Alan Hyde, a Rutgers professor who wrote “Working in Silicon Valley: Economic and Legal Analysis of a High-Velocity Labor Market,” said the no-poaching accusations go contrary to what has made the valley so successful: job-hopping.
[…]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/te...lley.html?_r=0


The lawyer types might like the docket: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=1860459

I wonder if PAC is getting in on this billion dollar action.

[PaloAltoCougar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/te...lley.html?_r=0


The lawyer types might like the docket: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=1860459

I wonder if PAC is getting in on this billion dollar action.

Not me, as I haven't done litigation since the early days of my career. I'm curious how one would compute the damages if wrongdoing is found (I'm certain there will be a variety of ways presented).

[Uncle Ted]

Not me, as I haven't done litigation since the early days of my career. I'm curious how one would compute the damages if wrongdoing is found (I'm certain there will be a variety of ways presented).

These greedy companies need to make it rain for those 64,000 engineers. Yes, determining the how much is a good question. I think about five years worth of salary for each and every engineer should be about enough. If the companies complain then make it 10 years worth. I need to find out where to sign up to make this 64,001.

In the case of the head hunter that was fired for poaching, it seems like it would be fairly easy:

By 2007, when a Google recruiter slipped up and contacted an Apple engineer, Mr. Jobs immediately complained. To appease the Apple chief, Google fired the recruiter within an hour.

Back pay to the day they were fired. That is pretty straight forward.

[Flystripper]

In the case of the head hunter that was fired for poaching, it seems like it would be fairly easy:


Back pay to the day they were fired. That is pretty straight forward.

That damage theory won't fly. The poacher has a duty to mitigate. The damages are only the lost wages after mitigation and reimbursement of costs to mitigate. (With interest of course- sometimes the interest is statutory)

[PaloAltoCougar]

These greedy companies need to make it rain for those 64,000 engineers. Yes, determining the how much is a good question. I think about five years worth of salary for each and every engineer should be about enough. If the companies complain then make it 10 years worth. I need to find out where to sign up to make this 64,001.

In the case of the head hunter that was fired for poaching, it seems like it would be fairly easy:


Back pay to the day they were fired. That is pretty straight forward.

I thought the action was just on behalf of the engineers, not the recruiters. And since this appears to relate to lost job opportunities for engineers (not to any firings), I assume the damages would be the difference in wages between their current employment and the job they might have had if other potential employers hadn't agreed not to poach them. Since engineers in Silicon Valley are already making a boatload of money, it will be interesting to see how much more they can prove they would have received. I would think they'd have to provide evidence they actually sought a job from one of the defendants and were denied employment because of the collusion. It will be interesting to see if a jury of fast food workers want to increase the cost of their iPhones because a $150K+/year engineer didn't get a higher paying job.

[Flystripper]

I thought the action was just on behalf of the engineers, not the recruiters. And since this appears to relate to lost job opportunities for engineers (not to any firings), I assume the damages would be the difference in wages between their current employment and the job they might have had if other potential employers hadn't agreed not to poach them. Since engineers in Silicon Valley are already making a boatload of money, it will be interesting to see how much more they can prove they would have received. I would think they'd have to provide evidence they actually sought a job from one of the defendants and were denied employment because of the collusion. It will be interesting to see if a jury of fast food workers want to increase the cost of their iPhones because a $150K+/year engineer didn't get a higher paying job.

This is correct. The actual damages will not be as much as one might think but punitive damages are a possibility I suppose.