Ok, you can walk away, but that's not the point. The point is that if I want to get a better offer, and I seek that at another company, it's not fair to ask my current employer if they're willing to let me take that offer, because they may also not be willing to improve your compensation, so you end up stuck where you are just because your company wants you and you are skilled enough for other companies to want you too.

All you are saying is that you are free from reprisal in that situation, OK, great, but that doesn't improve your compensation situation.

It's not just that, though.

There is a really profound, fundamental mismatch in power between employers and employees: an employee depends upon the employer for the means of basic existence, while the employer does not have the same dependence on any given single employee.

That disparity in power means that there must be very strong legal and social constraints on employers to make the labor market reasonably fair and equitable. Since essentially the only means the employee has at their disposal to better their situation is leaving or seeking better offers elsewhere, this fundamental right must be strongly protected.

Employers can't have it both ways: laws that allow them to fire for any reason or no reason, set any level of compensation they choose (including cutting pay at any time for any reason) all in the name of the free labor market, but at the same time making secret backroom deals to limit compensation or employee attrition. It's either a free labor market or it isn't.

Your definition of a "free labor market" is a contradiction in terms. A free labor market is one where people are free to exchange their labor (collusion), not one where a third party decides who gets to exchange what labor and for how much.

Laws against hiring and pricing agreements are interventions in the market. Laws against hiring agreements are not consistent with a free market.

There's nothing wrong with people (employers) making agreements with other people (employers) regarding the things they own (their money).

As always, wikipedia is a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_law_theory

I'm familiar with anti-trust theory. The idea of collusion reducing competition is fallacious because market competition is not a quantity, but a process by which goods and services are exchanged.

Price fixing and hiring agreements do not involve force, fraud, or misrepresentation- yet the regulation or prohibition thereof directly violates the property rights of the market participants.

I've read the Wikipedia entry you've linked to in its entirety, so I kindly ask that you will read this one: https://mises.org/daily/4397

The problem with libertarianism is that it starts with a tiny set of axioms, and then attempts to derive how the world should be. Any deviations from that are then taken as evidence that the world is wrong, unjust, etc. In reality, humans are hierarchical social creatures with complex dynamics, and you kind of have to play by the rules that other people set for you. In this case, a group of people broke the rules and some other people think they should be punished, and I think most of the people here have no problem with that.

> In this case, a group of people broke the rules and some other people think they should be punished, and I think most of the people here have no problem with that.

The percentage of people who agree with what I've asserted here has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. And attacking my argument for being libertarian is argumentum ad hominem. Shooting the messenger does not address the message.

"attacking my argument for being libertarian is argumentum ad hominem"

No. Saying that the framework you're basing an argument on is flawed isn't dismissing the argument because of a personal flaw of the person asserting something. It's saying that the core axioms/assumptions are flawed.

Maybe you over-identify with that ideology and are taking criticisms of the ideology personally since it feels personal, but it's not at all about you, it's about the ideas you're espousing.

> it's about the ideas you're espousing.

And you've espoused none. You may disagree with said axioms but you haven't pointed out what those are or why you disagree with them.

"You're wrong" isn't an argument. "You're wrong because what you're saying sounds like libertarianism" isn't an argument either.

Why do you distinguish force and fraud arbitrarily from collusion? Me bashing you over the head and taking your stuff is the ultimate freedom of action.

It's not arbitrary. Hiring agreements (collusion) do not involve force or fraud. Do you truly not distinguish between bashing someone over the head for my stuff from agreeing to exchange something for it? The latter is voluntary and the former is forced.

>Hiring agreements (collusion) do not involve force or fraud.

Hiring agreements are where an employer uses the power of their position (and those they are colluding with) to control their employees. I would argue this is just another form of 'force'. You don't need to physically harm someone to control them.

A shop that opens across the street from another shop doesn't "force" the other shop to lose money. Your definition of force is contradictory, as it leaves no room for anything that is not pre facto considered force.

I don't distinguish between a group of people colluding to beat someone up, and colluding to subvert the market by suppressing wages. I think it's entirely arbitrary to say that the state should use violence to prevent one kind of harmful activity and not the other.

What aspect of the market is subverted by hiring agreements? A price is what two parties agree to trade. Hiring agreements in no way prevent parties from agreeing to trade. McDonald's isn't subverting anything if they won't sell you a burger for 50 cents.

@dreamdu5t in your view, it is acceptable to person to freely agree to be enslaved?

In my view, the only problem with slavery is that it's involuntary. It's important to make a distinction between voluntary servitude and involuntary servitude (real slavery). To prevent someone from voluntary servitude would require their involuntary servitude to whomever is preventing them.

To put it another way: If person A is forcefully preventing me from voluntarily serving person B, that makes me person A's involuntary slave.

>There's nothing wrong with people (employers) making agreements with other people (employers) regarding the things they own (their money).

If you ever own a business, you deserve for it to fail.

Personal insults aren't an argument.

There is nothing preventing you from engaging other employers if you wish to improve your compensation level. We saw this with Facebook ultimately being responsible for the breaking up of the downward pressure on salaries.

That's because Facebook had no part in the agreement. Their policy was to hire from anywhere they could, and they've poached plenty of Google employees. If every company was colluding to fix wages, where would you go?

Google does not owe you a job. If every company had an agreement to not to hire with any other company and there was nobody who didn't work for any of these other companies, then they would have to terminate their agreement or go out of business. But of course, that wouldn't happen because that situation would incentive companies to break their agreements or not form them at all (such as Facebook). Sure, Google and Apple drive wages down in the same way that Facebook drives wages up.

But to answer your question directly: Yes, if nobody wants to hire you... nobody wants to hire you. I don't see why Google should be forced to hire you anymore than you should be forced to work at Google.