slymon99

I would sell that 99% number for a six figure sum if you'd like to define terms, an arbiter, and setup escrow.

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

Comparing living near jobs and quality schools to living by a mansion on the beach is quite unfair - people don't solely desire the luxury of cities, they desire the opportunity for themselves and their families.

"Working your way up the property ladder"? The median sale price for a house in Westchester County, NY is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. With insurance and property taxes and the current interest rate, that's over six grand a month. That's a hair shy of the US median household income (before taxes!). How exactly is a person ever supposed to afford that?

Cities have jobs. Cities have opportunity. Cities have diversity. Why should we expect, encourage, or even desire that young people sacrifice economic and social opportunity and mobility?

Why is the response to high housing cost in cities lecturing "current generations" about their choices? There are glaringly obvious problems in many of our cities that make housing so expensive. Is it so outrageous to try to solve those problems, and allow people to be able to live where they want to live?

Yes.

Yea, the bonus point is interesting, especially in finance where bonuses can be > 100% of base. You can't insist on firms paying last years bonus, or else people would just quit and get a non compete if they had an insane year. But paying only base also seems a bit unfair.

A thought I had was you'd have to pay whatever their new offer is paying. The argument is that if you want to prevent someone from working, you should have to pay them their worth - which, in the case of someone resigning with a competing offer - has just been priced by the hiring market!

> If companies actually paid employees not to compete they would be able to keep them

Why is this true? If someone is making $200k and leaving to make $350k, an employer may well be able to afford the $100k for 6 months to prevent them from immediately handing over IP, but not be able to match the $350k their new employer is offering.

> So, it's conceivable that an ex-employee could receive 6 months severance in trade for a non-compete of that length, but I doubt it's very popular.

It's quite popular in finance. Also, it's not a one time severance, its paid as a standard paycheck. A firm might "release" someone from their non compete while it is still active (basically saying it's no longer active and we are no longer paying you).

When were trades reversed when a market maker had a bad algo? If you are doing market manipulation, sure, your trades might get reversed, but if someone wants to puke money across the tape it's absolutely legal to take it.

They go bankrupt, because their liabilities exceed their assets. There are three main sets of creditors - the US government who are receiving this $142.7 billion, equity shareholders who own $MMM, and bondholders. In a bankruptcy, you arrange levels of creditors by "seniority", where more senior creditors are paid first. In this case, I would imagine the levels of seniority are:

1. The US government 2. Bondholders 3. Equity shareholders

3M has plenty of assets to be distributed to the creditors - the manufacturing capabilities that you mention, intellectual property, relationships with purchasers. These assets might be sold directly on the market (this is easier with physical assets like manufacturing labs). A new corporation with new management might be established to handle liquidating the assets, or even running the business (this is what happened with FTX). Either way, it seems like bondholders and shareholders alike would get zero'd out and the US government could do what it want with 3M's assets.

To answer your question succintly: > 3M is the only manufacturer of tons of important materials as I understand it, so it's not like they can just get erased from the market

3M is a corporation and one of their assets is their ability to manufacture tons of important materials. 3M the corporation would be obliterated but their ability to manufacture tons of important material would likely be sold off.

I’m seeing this on mobile only

literally no big tech employer is going to allow you to add clauses to your employment contract

Why are you quoting the disclaimer as if its secret, or some kind of gotcha? Yes this is a short selling firm. While they have some incentives to exaggerate, they are trying to find and expose genuine fraud because that is what will actually affect the share price. Hindenburg's record is quite good, and many of their reports have led to followup government enforcement actions.

@danaris - if you are a bank and people want to withdraw money, you need cash to pay them. By "the market" we mean the banks depositors who withdrew their case (partially due to these very concerns, hence why bank runs are called bank runs)

> You don't get to live in San Francisco

You get to live in New York City which is unparalleled in the US in terms of urban amenities. The weather can be brutal though.

Or you live in Chicago which is like, still a solid city, but the weather is even worse.

I would disagree that trading firms are more boring than big tech. They are typically much smaller and leaner (even HRT and JS are like sub 2k?), and generally employees have massively more impact and ownership as opposed to being a cog in a 20k developer machine.