You've Got No Job!

Today, the pundits are a-buzz making sense of the latest lackluster jobs report. Expect much hand-wringing over the impact of the 'polar vortex' and that Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow.

But most of us care more about the state of one particular job: our own. How relevant is this latest bit of data to that? Not very.

So, to better understand the trends in the work environment most likely impact our own paychecks, it will help to look at another bellwether similar to our fuzzy groundhog friend: AOL.

AOL, a once-important pioneer in the transition to the 'digital economy,' is once again showing us where the future of work is headed.

Unfortunately, like the health of AOL's business over the past decade, it's not a pretty picture.

The Expendable Employee

As we've transitioned to an economy in which corporate profitability and thereby, stock prices is THE metric for success, the employer-employee relationship has become much more superficial than in past generations.

No longer do workers expect (or in many cases, aspire) to work for a single company for their entire careers. And with the cost efficiencies offered by automation, outsourcing, temporary workers, and related trends, companies are much more inclined to view their workers as expendable and/or easily replaceable, especially when facing a business downturn.

We've seen this dynamic play out in spades since the arrival of the 2008 credit crisis. Companies immediately shed workers in droves as the economy slowed down. But as things stabilized by 2010 and then the "recovery" of 2012-2013 sent corporate profits soaring, the pace of hiring those displaced workers back has been nothing short of anemic:

(Source)

And of the jobs that have been added over the past five years, the majority have been temporary jobs. Read that as "Low Pay/No Benefits" jobs:

(Source)

It turns out that companies used the 2008-2009 layoff wave as an opportunity to reduce their dependence on human capital (at least U.S.-based). A vigorous debate can (and should) be waged on whether that happened for good reasons or not, but the fact remains that the employment market remains frail over 5 years later.

More cynical critics will note that lower hiring budgets are NOT a result of companies investing more heavily in productivity-boosting capital expenditures. In fact, since 2008, CAPEX has remained depressed by over 20% compared to historic averages. Rather, it seems that companies have been fattening profits by focusing on cutting costs with the main intent of boosting stock prices. Profits of companies within the S&P 500 are at all-time highs right now. It's clear they're being artificially inflated, most likely by means that can't be long sustained. 

Many companies have doubled down on this approach, spending corporate profits on stock buyback programs. This has only served to send shares higher. (As I type this, a headline just announced that Apple bought back $14 billion of its stock over the past two weeks.) Is it any surprise that this is going on when company executives have fantastically-sized compensation packages that are based on increases in.....oh, that's right... the price of their company's stock?

"You've Got No Job!"

Enter AOL, which incidentally bought back $600 million worth of its shares last August, along with a $1.1 billion special dividend to line its investors' pockets.

Since its ill-fated merger with Time Warner 14 years ago, AOL has been a train wreck by most business metrics. It received a dose of much-needed hope when former Google executive Tim Armstrong was hired as CEO in 2009 to turn things around.

I'll leave it other writers to opine on Armstrong's degree of success since then, but not surprisingly, during his tenure, he's made a lot of cuts. AOL has had a steady parade of layoffs over the years (including, six months after Armstrong's hiring, announcing it would cut 1/3 of its workforce).

And it's the relentless drumbeat of its mass firings and more notably, the antiseptic manner in which they've been handled that I think is emblematic of the new era of the disposable worker.

Here's a powerful example. One of Tim Armstrong's first strategic deals after taking the reigns at AOL was to buy a company he had earlier founded, called Patch. There was a boatload of drama around the Patch saga at AOL, but in order to avoid getting too diverted, let it suffice to say that Patch proved a massive distraction for the company. Armstrong was very personally invested in its performance and made many promises to both its employees and Wall Street that ultimately didn't materialize.

Last summer, Armstrong rallied the Patch team, calling on them to "fully commit" to the company's plans for the future, which he promised he was hell-bent on supporting. Then, jarringly, in mid-sentence during this pep talk, he was momentarily distracted by an employee, whom he then fired on the spot in front of an audience of 1,000 (you can listen to this drive-by canning here). This incident was reported at wildfire speed among the tech blogs, sparking a debate about the treatment of employees in the modern workplace and questioning the wisdom of randomly firing people during an event intended to boost morale.

But even more soulless is the latest sad development at Patch. Despite proclaiming his "full" commitment as recently as August, Armstrong sold the controlling stake in Patch last month to investment firm Hale Global. Not surprisingly, soon after this deal was announced, the hatchet soon swung. 

I want you to listen here as hundreds of Patch employees, many of whom stuck with the struggling company for years at Armstrong's urging, learn that they are losing their jobs, effective immediately:

"Thank you again. And best of luck." Oh, and you need to be out of the building by 5pm.

Don't Remain Vulnerable

Was AOL too cruel here? Or is this simply the healthy Darwinian nature of capitalism in action?

I'm going to leave that for others to debate, because that's not the point of this article.

The point is: If you're an employee (which most folks reading this are), recognize that the trend here is not your friend. For a variety of reasons some defensible, some not corporations are increasingly less motivated to train, compensate, develop, and retain workers than in the past.

The question I want you to ask yourself is this: How impacted would my life be if I unexpectedly received a pink slip tomorrow?

For most people, the answer is: Substantially. For too many: Devastating.

Bills, debts, family obligations, etc. keep most people soldiering on in their current jobs. Fears of lost income or the weak hiring market prevent folks from taking career risks. Most just keep their heads down and hope the axe doesn't fall on them. Of course, many of those who just celebrated 99 months collecting unemployment once felt that way, too...

The unhappy truth here is that it's an increasingly vulnerable time to be in the rank-and-file. And by 'rank-and-file,' I mean pretty much anyone not senior enough in their company to have a voice in headcount decisions.

If that definition applies to you, don't give in to denial or despair. Neither will help you. And even if it may not feel like it at the moment, you have much more agency in your career destiny than you likely realize.

There are defined steps you can take and investments you can make that will dramatically reduce your vulnerability to the fickle hand of a company layoff or a bad economy. A lot of the foundational work is described in depth in my 2013 book on career transition, Finding Your Way to Your Authentic Career, and much more can (and will) be written on the subject at PeakProsperity.com. The following are *not* quick fixes; they take a lot of inner work, dedication, perseverance, and time to complete. But these steps are indeed achievable and will make your chances for career success and security a heck of a lot higher than if you don't do them. The basics include:

  • Identify the work you're best suited for based on your natural aptitudes, interests, and work experience For many, this is the hardest step. Our educational system is notoriously bad at helping people actually figure out what kind of career path is right for them. The good news is that there is a defined process that, if followed conscientiously, makes your chances of identifying a "best fit" field highly probable even if you've been in the workforce for decades. It's what the first half of my book focuses on.
  • Make a career transition if you're currently in a 'bad-fit" field If you're not on a career track that plays to your strengths, you need to move out of it. If you're in a bad-fit position, it's hard to outperform (or even perform at the average), and you'll be in danger of being one of the early casualties during a culling of non-essential employees. Making a transition to a new career track is time-intensive, but again, quite doable once you know what direction to head in (see above bullet). Not surprisingly, this transition process is the focus of the second half of my book.
  • Become a domain expert with organizational ownership Management values most the talent it needs that is expensive (time and/or cost-wise) to replace. It can always reduce budgets or department staff levels, but it will do its utmost to retain talent that does work others can't (or can't do as well or as cheaply). 
  • Develop a professional support network Make yourself known in your field, particularly outside of your company. Be a source of useful industry insights, and seek to learn as much as you share. Help other people. Seek out mentors. People change firms often throughout their careers; after a few years, you'll find you have contacts across numerous companies. Should you fall victim to a layoff, you'll have insiders at other firms working on your behalf to get you hired in.
  • Develop a personal support network Talk actively with family and friends about what you are willing to do for each other should one of you lose your job. How can you help ease the burden (meals, child care, loans, etc.) of the uncertain time between gainful employment? Figuring a plan out in advance, and making deposits in the Bank of Karma by supporting struggling folks in your community, will result in payback that will dramatically reduce the shock of sudden job loss.
  • Create multiple streams of income Ideally, you want to develop enough diversity of income that the loss of any single one won't compromise your lifestyle dramatically. Again, there are no easy shortcuts here. But options include: taking on a second job, moonlighting, starting a side business, enabling an unemployed family member to start a paying job, investing in assets that produce cash flows/coupons/dividends, consulting, monetizing existing assets (e.g., renting out a room on AirBnB), etc. Spend some time deciding which approach seems most appropriate for you and start with that one. Once you've got that second income started, ask yourself: How can I make it bigger? What other new sources can I add next? 
  • Save Start by amassing a rainy-day fund equal to 3 months of your current monthly income. Then expand it to six. Then, if you're able to, a year. This cushion will take the pressure off immensely if you find yourself unexpectedly out of work. Concurrently, strive to not only live within your means, but below them. Learn to appreciate non-material joys in life. You'll reduce your expenses (the difference of which should go straight into savings) in the immediate term and be able to better maintain your quality of life if your income takes a hit.
  • Develop a plan for business ownership In the end, it's better to be the one calling the shots than answering to them. Yes, there are other types of risks that apply to business owners, but your employment and income destinies are much more within your control as long as the business remains solvent. As you currently build your domain expertise, develop a plan for converting it into your ticket to independence. How can you use it to create value that others will pay you for, versus depending on the single check from your employer? If you have multiple customers, it's unlikely they'll all stop doing business with you at once. With an employer, it's all or nothing.

This list is just a starting-off point, as entire books have been written on each of the steps above. But if you fall in the 100% vulnerable-to-a-pink-slip category, you should start thinking now about which one makes the most sense to tackle first.

As help for those at the beginning of this process, Peak Prosperity is offering its first-ever Countdown Deal for the Kindle version of Finding Your Way to Your Authentic Career. The promotion starts on Saturday, February 7, runs for a week, and depending on the day, will offer the e-book for as low as $0.99 (earlier buyers get the deepest discounts)

And the Hits Keep Coming

Even those who feel 'safe' in their jobs are seeing erosion of their 'purchasing power' as employees. Let's look at AOL again.

Like most other companies in the U.S., AOL will incur costs in complying with the Affordable Care Act. Its compliance expenses will be in the $millions, annually. So today, Tim Armstrong announced that AOL was cutting 401k benefits for its workers:

AOL Blames Obamacare for Plan to Reduce Retirement Benefits (Bloomberg)

AOL Inc. (AOL) blamed President Barack Obama’s health-care law for its plan to reduce spending on contributions to employees’ 401(k) retirement plans.

AOL, owner of websites such as the Huffington Post, will still match employee contributions to retirement plans up to 3 percent of their paychecks, Chief Executive Officer Tim Armstrong said. Under the new policy, it will make the matching payments in a lump sum at the end of the year, forcing employees who leave before then to forfeit the benefit, he said in an interview today on CNBC.

“Obamacare is an additional $7.1 million expense for us as a company,” Armstrong said. “We have to decide whether to pass that expense to employees or cut other benefits.”

The White House is defending the law from criticism that it causes consumers more economic harm than good. Republicans have seized on a report this week by the Congressional Budget Office, which said Obamacare will reduce the hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs in 2017.

Armstrong didn’t specify how the health-care law had increased costs for New York-based AOL. The CEO told employees today that the health-care expenses of two employees in 2012 played a role in his decision on which benefits to cut, Capital New York reported. The two workers had “distressed babies that were born,” costing AOL $1 million each, he said, indicating that he’d rather prioritize health care over retirement among the company’s benefits.

(Source)

So, even the 'safe' salaried professionals are more vulnerable than they realize. Do you think they have any alternative to this news other than "take it or leave it"?

Parting Shot

If this article hasn't already driven home the point that employers are increasingly motivated to find ways to cut employee costs and employees themselves out of the picture, perhaps this simple example will do the trick.

In the past, those finding themselves between jobs could often rely on unskilled but unpleasant work to provide temporary subsistence income. Well, more and more of those jobs are going away, largely due to performance advancements and cost declines in automation.

Ever see a sign spinner on a street corner and think, I guess if I couldn't find work elsewhere, I could always do that? Not anymore. The robots are taking over:

Not only does the encroachment of automation remove income options for those temporarily out of work, but it's increasingly limiting the options for the large pool of unskilled labor with few other alternatives. Of course, this opens up a whole spectrum of economic, social, technological, and policy-related questions, which will have to wait for another day...

But the takeaway is: Don't be 100% vulnerable. If you're employed but at risk, use the time and income you have now to reduce the upheaval that a pink slip could wreak on your life.

Even a 10-20% reduction in your vulnerability will mean a world of difference if you find yourself suddenly out of work. Your future self will be extremely grateful of the steps you take today.

~ Adam Taggart

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/youve-got-no-job/

Interesting read from my perspective as owner of a construction company. Maybe it's Texas instead of Adam's California, but there is high demand for skilled workers (and even unskilled) here.
Yes…this is blue collar work and hard work, but I've made a great living with my hands over the last 35 years. The labor pool has dried up. People are waiting months to get jobs done, and I'm turning down large homes and being very choosy about who I agree to build for. 

Maybe students ought to opt for 2 years of trade school instead of pursuing a master's degree with huge student loan debt attached.  Some jobs like custom home construction, by their nature, can't be automated and mass produced, and the risk of layoff will truly depend on skill level and performance.

 

My job of 37 years was eliminated in October of 2012.  After having survived countless workforce reduction events, my job elimination was, interestingly enough, somewhat self inflicted.
I wrote a number of company web based tools used by finance and engineering across North America.  When the CEO decided to split the company into two separate entities, it was decided that my systems were need by both companies going forward.  IT took over my tools and I became unnecessary.

I was around long enough to watch hundreds of my co workers jobs eliminated.  I watched new professionals being hired with benefit packages that did not include a retirement plan.  These two trends show clearly that the company I worked for was not worried about or supporting the future.

The simple math that I could not ignore is that eliminating 250 or more management jobs so that you can pay the CEO a salary commensurate with todays market, eliminates 249 people who might buy your products. A CEO does not buy any more cheese or lunch meat than a manager.  You are un-employing your very customers.

I prepared appropriately for retirement.  If real interest rates were even 1 or 2 percent, I would be snow birding in New Mexico right now.  If I believed that social security represented a dependable promise in real dollars, I'd be smiling in retirement.

Unfortunately, honestly believing the evidence disseminated on websites like this forces me to proceed on the assumption that retirement will not be a viable option for all but a very few in the next 20 to 30 years.  Hence, I have job applications in process.

There is no complaint here.  I am better off than most. I just don't have the ability to pretend that somehow things will be fixed and the future will look like the past.  That is what almost everyone around me is doing.

[quote=Oliveoilguy]The labor pool has dried up. People are waiting months to get jobs done, and I'm turning down large homes and being very choosy about who I agree to build for. 
[/quote]
If I still lived in Texas, I'd probably come see you.  I framed homes during the summer in Dallas, when I was working on my undergraduate degree and I can still put in a full day of physical labor.  My family was building custom homes in Dallas during the 70s, before the double digit interest rates decimated the industry.
I agree with you regarding trade school.  As energy becomes more expensive, physical labor will have to fill in, not only riding bikes to get somewhere, but using less energy intensive tools.  I recommended to my daughters that my grandchildren should consider technical school or at least pick a career that makes sense in todays job market.
Another problem you face is that fewer young people today are willing to get their hands dirty earning a living.  That is not something that xbox, video games and smart phones prepare them for.  When I was growing up, most high school kids had part time and summer jobs.  That does not seem to be common any longer.  More than a few people are graduating college with no work experience.
 

I cannot find people who can or are willing to do the job.  Its no ones fault - cheap money has flooded the area and mal-investment is the order of the day.  Every 'rock' has been flipped over looking for opportunity.  Now the work that I have (which used to, for decades, paid really well…) is bottom tier, somewhat seasonal and hurting for customers as well due to industry over-capacity.  Thats right, I'm now almost a broker, looking for the right customer and the right employee - and I'm not alone.  Most applicants I talk to are extremely…well, not what I'm used to talking to.   My starting pay is $14-$18 and you can get to the mid-20's.  Horrible to the average PP reader, but you've got to remember its industry specific in the upper midwest.   What's most alarming is the up and coming generation - the millenials.  I've read about them, truly I have - and believe whoever figures 'em out will win.  I'm not impressed and frankly, everyone I talk to knows why.  Now, no one expects anything from them - and they seem cool with that.  But, if you're writing an Iphone app…I have never, ever, experienced such a group of intellectual lightweights.  Its not that they can't try, they won't try - to learn more about the processes and work related issues.  They're late more than they're on time.  If you bark at 'em, more than once or twice, they're gone - quitting is a perfectly good justification to them and more importantly, their parents.  Very, very few will 'play hurt' and go to work when they're not "feeling it", so the ones I have that can and do I bend over backwards for - and make sure they know I know how much they are appreciated.  The best ones I have, are going to go far - as many have before them based on the background checks I field from various agencies. 
But, I suspect the issue will resolve itself soon enough for all the reasons known by most here.   I doesn't matter what skills and opportunities you have these days in my opinion.  Whatever they might be, the landscape is changing so quickly that most will not be able to find firm career footing to live a life you can build on.  Until this thing resets - like after WWII, what plans can you make that don't involve a constant and never ending focus on your ability to earn on shifting ground?  I know I'm generalizing, and this is nonsense to anyone with a perceived rock solid job or business - then it happens to you. 

I didn't know AOL was even in business anymore.
When I first started in IT, a consultant told me to save up a years worth of money to cover all of my expenses. This has been some of the best advice. Nothing worse than going to a job interview and being desperate.

The other advice I got was from an IT recruiter, always change jobs at least every 2 to 3 years. That way you learn new technologies, meet new people and get used to change. At the time a major corporation had laid off a bunch of people and he was having a hard time placing people that had 10 to 15 years at the company. They just weren't marketable for a number of reasons.

If you can break into upper management or the executive level it probably pays to stay longer. However, one CEO that I worked for has moved companies every 3 to 5 years. 

Considering the brand equity that both Apple and Google seek to build around the idea that they are hip, awesome, non-evil companies, their actions say otherwise on several fronts with the most awkward and distasteful episode du jour being this:

Emails Show Apple's Steve Jobs And Google's Eric Schmidt Allegedly Conspired To Screw Over Employees

Jan 24, 2014

Apple founder Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt appear to have secretly cooperated to drive down the salaries of tech workers by agreeing not to recruit each other's staff, according to emails uncovered by a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in California.

Pando Daily has an excellent deep dive on the suit, which has been going on for years.

What's most shocking about the emails is how unambiguous they appear to be, according to the ruling allowing the case to proceed. Jobs and Schmidt exchanged emails to ensure the pact was enforced, and Jobs threatened "war" if he caught Google breaking it by wooing Apple workers over to Google.

Apple, Google and the other companies named in the suit have been fighting the litigation, and many of the emails have been aired before. But the new ruling gathers the emails together in such a way that the scale of the alleged cartel — and the way it was supervised personally by tech's top executives — is breathtaking. Google has previously insisted that it aggressively pursues talent. Apple has mostly declined comment on the debate. The company did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

If this was a simple case of agreeing not to poach each other’s senior talent, I could forgive this, but the effort, as alleged, was clearly designed to save a few bucks on free market wages during a period of time when the companies were raking in so much cash they barely knew what to do with it all.

Why not reward your employees?

I think that’s part of the main thrust of Adam’s post – companies now feel it is well within their operating constructs to screw over employees….that’s just how “business” is done today.

But when exactly did that happen?

When did it become about “us vs. them” instead of companies being about delivering both good products and a shared sense of purpose and livelihood?

This says something…

 

Are workers at Apple and Google underpaid relative to their peers at other companies like Oracle or Microsoft?

I just read that article and I'm not getting the crime. Seems that the big conspiracy centers on the fact that the CEO's told their recruiters not to recruit from each other. Seems to me Eric Holder has better things to do like investigate Wall Street and the IRS.

Okay let an old lady take a stab at the problem here.  If a job applicant from company A applies for a job at company B we would hope that they would be considered based on their qualifications.  Simple and straight forward.  The problem is people are excluded because of other reasons like - where they currently work, their gender, age, color of their skin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation and so on. Some of us think that's wrong.  It is not a free market when you are being discriminated against.  But then some people have no problem discriminating against and using and abusing others. 
AK Granny

VitalyThe crime is price fixing.  If two CEOs get together and decide how much the price of a new laptop computer will be, all consumers are damaged, and the crime is obvious.  In this case they're getting together and setting the price on engineering talent (by eliminating the possibility for those individuals to increase their salaries by changing employers).
Keith

Pretty confident that this is ubiquitous within the tech industries and probably others as well.  A wink and an node between HR leads…[quote=cmartenson]
Considering the brand equity that both Apple and Google seek to build around the idea that they are hip, awesome, non-evil companies, their actions say otherwise on several fronts with the most awkward and distasteful episode du jour being this:

Emails Show Apple's Steve Jobs And Google's Eric Schmidt Allegedly Conspired To Screw Over Employees Jan 24, 2014 Apple founder Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt appear to have secretly cooperated to drive down the salaries of tech workers by agreeing not to recruit each other's staff, according to emails uncovered by a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in California. Pando Daily has an excellent deep dive on the suit, which has been going on for years. What's most shocking about the emails is how unambiguous they appear to be, according to the ruling allowing the case to proceed. Jobs and Schmidt exchanged emails to ensure the pact was enforced, and Jobs threatened "war" if he caught Google breaking it by wooing Apple workers over to Google. Apple, Google and the other companies named in the suit have been fighting the litigation, and many of the emails have been aired before. But the new ruling gathers the emails together in such a way that the scale of the alleged cartel — and the way it was supervised personally by tech's top executives — is breathtaking. Google has previously insisted that it aggressively pursues talent. Apple has mostly declined comment on the debate. The company did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
If this was a simple case of agreeing not to poach each other’s senior talent, I could forgive this, but the effort, as alleged, was clearly designed to save a few bucks on free market wages during a period of time when the companies were raking in so much cash they barely knew what to do with it all. Why not reward your employees? I think that’s part of the main thrust of Adam’s post – companies now feel it is well within their operating constructs to screw over employees….that’s just how “business” is done today. But when exactly did that happen? When did it become about “us vs. them” instead of companies being about delivering both good products and a shared sense of purpose and livelihood? This says something…   [/quote]

Doesn't matter what you call the activity, if the practice harms another especially in the pursuit of profit, it's wrong.  I find it hard to comprehend why people choose to be hurtful and apathetic.
AK Granny

My belief is that this becomes common within discrete geographic locals…e.g. biotech companies in San Diego would probably have a working HR relationship, however going from one state to another - not so much.  Minimizes having your employees "walk down the street" to the next guy for a better deal.

Having owned my own business for twenty-seven years I do not think I could ever go back to being an employee.  Any business is difficult to start, will always have smooth and rough times and will take hard work and responsibility.  The rewards of not having a "boss" (except your customers) and being able to make your own decisions, has a value that is right up there with the monetary rewards.
Technology and economics have greatly affected the employment landscape.  In my field, when I was in graduate school, thirty years ago, it would take three or more secretaries to process the workload of one manager.  Today, with the aid of computers, two managers often share one secretary or assistant.  Technology has also allowed my clients to "follow me" wherever I am.  It is thus no longer so important to have an assistant, or assistants,  to "hold the fort" while I am traveling or tied up in projects.

The costs of following state and federal requirements force many small business to operate with as few employees as possible.  Matching social security payments, workers compensation, workplace safety requirements, while important, also have the effect of depressing the labor markets.  The fewer employees you have the less expensive are these built in costs.

The Affordable Care Act will further affect small employers' ability to hire.  My partners and I have always prided ourselves on providing health insurance as a benefit for our full time employees. Upon until very recently we covered 100% of the cost.  Several years ago we began requiring the employees to pay 10% so they would understand how much the costs were rising.  Our coverage renews each February so we just went through the process.  The first hit was to learn that our prior plan did not meet the standards of the new law so it could not be bought at any price.  A comparable plan, with less coverage and double co-payments, is costing us approximately ten percent more than we paid last year. Our insurance advisors also let us know that our costs under the new plan are more directly affected by the ages of our employees. (Meaning we need to get rid of our over forty crew and seek younger, healthier workers.  All of you middle age folks looking for work, think about how this further limits your possibilities.)  What we will pay this year for health insurance for seven employees is more than enough to hire another full time employee, if we did not offer the insurance. 

No matter how you look at the future, the prospects for wage employees do not appear to be improving.

JT

I don't think there was any price fixing based on the article that Chris posted. What the article stated was that the CEO's made a deal that their recruiting departments would not actively recruit each others employees. For those that don't work in IT, that basically means you don't have recruiters calling and emailing you all day long asking if you are looking for a new job. Until proven otherwise, I bet an Apple employee could reach out to Google for a new job and not be discriminated against.
Personally I think there are two less visible themes to this story.

  1. Politicians want to extract campaign contributions from IT companies through ridiculous lawsuits.

  2. Government upset they are losing tax revenue on 9 billion dollars in wages they think should exist.

Once again I pose this question. In a world of scarce regulatory resources, where should we focus?

  1. Corruption and fraud in Wall Street and Banking

  2. Technology companies agreeing not to poach employees from each other.

Looks like you struck a nerve Adam.
A previous government of Australia, Wee Johnny Howard, got religion about freeing up labour so that companies would be free to hire and fire at will. The companies got all excited and started hiring contract labour.

The whole thing was a disaster because loyalty is a two way street. Labour began to jump all over the place like fleas on a dogs back. If the guy next door was offering 2 min extra for the lunch break everyone up sticks and goes to him, no notice required by either party.

Labour hire companies were pulling their hair out. I had one bawling his outrage that I had accepted a better offer over the phone. I hope my patient ear made him feel better. Come to think about it- I should have billed him for my time.

Isn't economic rationalism wonderful?

Terrance McKenna has a different angle on the whole employment thing.
I have to agree with him that Chaos is the healthy state of affairs. I have posted recently on the hazards of conformity because of destructive harmonic oscillations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNBj_JmnAA

I wish I would have had the chance to meet Steve Jobs in person and work for him. It would have been one heck of a challenge and a pretty wild ride. I was over on Wikipedia and reading about him and a couple things jumped out to me. This is from Wiki not original work.
In a speech Jobs gave at Stanford University in 2005, he said being fired from Apple was the best thing that could have happened to him; "The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life." And he added, "I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful-tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it."

"As the new CEO of the company, Jobs oversaw the development of the iMaciTunesiPodiPhone, and iPad, and on the services side, the company's Apple Retail StoresiTunes Store and the App Store. The success of these products and services provided several years of stable financial returns, and propelled Apple to become the world's most valuable publicly traded company in 2011.The reinvigoration of the company is regarded by many commentators as one of the greatest turnarounds in business history."

Apple employees should thank Steve Jobs. They got to participate in an amazing time.

JT -I enjoyed your post very much. It hit at the heart of my article above.
I'm really hoping we hear from more people who have made the transition from salaried employee to self-employed professional/business owner. Both the pros and the cons of the switchover. By demystifying the risks and rewards, my hope is we'll help folks better assess whether they, too, are fit for such a transition.
But I have to admit my bias here, which is similar to yours: I just can't see myself returning to an employee role. The ride of being an entrepreneur requires a higher risk-tolerance, but the fulfillment of being in control of your own destiny is more than worth it, IMO.
Arthur -
I'm not surprised if this article stirs up strong emotional reactions. In researching my book on career transition, I quickly discovered that the majority of workers carry a lot of unspoken angst regarding their job. (studies show that 70% of people are unhappy with how their careers have turned out).
In addition to the folks who have transitioned to business ownership, I'm also hoping this thread allows those in traditional salaried roles to share their voices. Do they feel vulnerable? Would they switch if they could? Or are there advantages that outweigh the vulnerabilities highlighted by my original article above?
Wildlife Tracker - 
I really appreciate the perspective you've shared (just be sure to stay within our posting decorum guidelines). This site doesn't have enough representation from the millennial generation in the general discourse here (yet). Please keep your observations coming - and recruit some of your peers to chime in!