I don't know why you would say things like "offer was accepted but not contract was signed" in another comment and then mention just "offers" without saying acceptance when you try to lecture me on it. Also I'm puzzled why you would mention "counter-offer", as if it's related. I mean what happens after you "counter-offer"? Eventually you have to "accept" it right? In this case, it's alleged Stripe rescinded offers after the candidates accepted them, so I don't there should be any ambiguity as to what we're talking about. Whether or not there was a counter-offer, and you don't know whether there was, the offers were accepted. You're not even being coherent.

I've always been talking in terms of having accepted the offer. In many (first world) countries, accepting an offer (e.g. explicitly replying to the offer letter with "Yes, I accept the offer") makes the offer a contract, even before a formal and more detailed employment contract is coming later. An offer is a contract. It may or may not be a formal employment contract, but it is a contract. Once a candidate accepts the offer, it becomes a legally binding contract, in many jurisdictions, e.g.
https://employmentlaw101.ca/em...
https://www.gov.uk/job-offers-...
In those jurisdictions, there are limited things a company can do to retract the offer after it's accepted, without any legal consequences.

Given these counterexamples to your ultimatum statements that there's no legal protection for this anywhere, I think it's time for you to contemplate shoving everything you said, including the misplaced comments about autism, to where they belong.

First of all, there are legal protections. In many countries, it's a breach of contract. Only in certain states in the US this thing is perfectly legal; in places where it isn't, some companies do it anyway because they think they wouldn't get sued.

There are good economic reasons to this. When contracts carry no weight and therefore people should have no faith in them, it's much more difficult to seal a deal, and increases the overall costs of making a deal, as both sides need to compensate for risks they have no control over. It also create more opportunities for powerful entities to abuse less powerful entities, which is regarded as economically inefficient (i.e. bad for society as a whole), as it allows the more powerful entity to obtain something without merit, harming the market.

Requesting normal contractual practices to be extended to employment isn't entitlement. Even if it somehow is, in your psychopath's wonderland, it's definitely not "top tier" entitlement.

Rescinded job offers means rescinded jobs. The company offered a job, and after the candidate accepted (which is signing a contract), the job offer gets withdrawn. Usually by accepting a job offer you need to decline other job offers and quit your current job. This costs exactly the same as a rescinded jobs, and is extremely disruptive. Declining a job offer is normal, rescinding an offer (as is accepting an offer but rescinding the acceptance) should be considered unethical.

There's no legal protection in US for this, but the argument really is that (1) there should be and (2) candidates are warned to be cautious with Stripe because of that risk. Companies with good management don't normally do that, at least not at scale.

Even the "trial period" argument is only really valid when the company operates in good faith to only really terminate the employee for a good reason. The normal terms that the termination can be "for no reason" is really just to avoid legal troubles. Legality of the issue aside, people are fully entitled to call out behavior that is legal but is unethical.

node is the top competitor of PHP, and arguably winning, especially over newer entrants and serving more complex needs.

"larger stockpile of chips - also called semiconductors"

Semiconductors are the material. "Integrated circuits" is the other proper name for chips.

When what you want is allowed, there will be more incentives to press false charges and take things away from random people. This is the reason we need due process. It's bad to make things too easy for the government. I can't believe this needs to be spelled out.

Um, how do you think they're going to pay back the loans? Maybe due to your preconception of how money works, you think it's free money? Also do you know the dividend yield of a company like Samsung? A very large part of their dividends will go on to pay the interest of the loans. If most of their assets are in shares, now tell me, how would they get the cash to pay back the loans? All in all there are ways to cushion the blow and reduce the number of shares they have to sell, but there's no way they don't at least give up a few B in shares in order to pay the 11B tax.

Also I'm not even sure why you're so smug about taking the claims of some unnamed analysts as gospel. FYI, if you don't trust me, other "analysts" also report they think it's unavoidable that the family weakens their control over Samsung for this tax bill. I hate large corporates and stupidly rich people who bully everyone else, even much more so the family behind Korean conglomerates who are corrupt bullies even at the personal level. But the premise of this tax is stupid, and you're supporting it for stupid reasons.

And the cash used to pay tax, where does it come from? They'll need to liquidate shares and significantly reduce their stake in the company. Like GP said, this disincentivizes them to care about the long term prospects of the company, and it's a risk to the company's health.

So again tell me there's no such thing?

It's still a one-time event, as far as my reasoning is concerned.

You know the cash doesn't come from a vacuum right? There's no other way than to liquidate the shares in order to pay the tax, unless they magically come up with much more cash from their other assets. Spreading it over five years only makes it easier to liquidate the shares, because you can get a huge discount trying to sell it all at once, but doesn't change the fact that they likely need to sell a significant fraction of their shares.

Somehow I don't tend to have mod points when I really need them.

Just to concur that Korea is risking the future of Samsung and in turn its own economy, by collecting this tax. If the purpose is to maximize tax revenue, there are many ways to slowly tax much larger amounts than this over longer periods of time, as long as the incentives are aligned for the long term between the family and the company. Forced one-time liquidation of 60% of ownership is a terrible way to risk that potential.

Big firms change their intentions often, and often have to prove to regulators they had good reasons to cancel, and that's different from spoofing where orders are placed with no intention to execute.

It's not black and white, maybe Microsoft just represents a better balance between money and freedom.

That said I'd be willing to write uninteresting CRUD stuff for a few million a year.

Only in university and hollywood one can employ talented individuals for 4-6 years of near minimim wage and call it a prolonged internship. Most jobs, even high-paying jobs, expect you know little about actual business and train you on the job, i.e. an apprenticeship.

Work is work, and even a 5-year internship should be recognized as labor. Individually post-docs are more productive but star students are more productive than even some professors and are thus criminally underpaid. Even the median student at a median school is an important asset to their advisors, and even if the pay can't be raised too much, their contribution should be recognized.

Graduate students, particularly PhDs (the ones that get paid), are labor. They're the fuel of research institutions like UC, in scientific disciplines at least. Now go educate yourself.

The cost of the nutrients is probably pretty low, but education is a huge cost. It takes 7-8 years of hand-holding for a new human to become functional as child labor for simple tasks, while a new machine can come with every piece of functionality pre-programmed into it. The real estate cost to host a human is also likely to be higher.