Stop calling it poaching

I hate these "submarine ads" where an author starts off talking about some problem in the world, you think it's just some interesting reading, and then surprise! - they are actually trying to sell you a product.

It&#x27;s strange that there&#x27;s substantial value to &quot;ownership&quot; of developers, such that you buy and sell them like herds of cattle (&quot;acquihires&quot;) and hiring them without consent from their current employer is &quot;poaching&quot;.<p>I suspect this means that as a group we&#x27;re not negotiating hard enough on salaries.

This article feels disjointed and forced; how is a group of people who feel &quot;underutilized and mistreated&quot; leaving their current place of work to build a new company considered &quot;poaching&quot;? Who is the one poaching in this scenario? Not only that, towards the end, the article turns into blunt advertisement for a service that does exactly that: poaching, but in teams. I suspect that this is a crude attempt at &quot;hacking&quot; for views at medium; start with empathetic call-out on some term or expression that nobody <i>actually</i> has any problem with, and lightly transition to whatever the hell you want to talk about.

While we&#x27;re at it, let&#x27;s please stop referring to people as mere <i>resources</i>. We are fellow human beings, people with feelings and needs and desires. Degrading people as &quot;resources&quot; goes hand-in-hand with referring to them as being &quot;poached&quot;.<p>I hear this from managers and project coordinator types, not from fellow hackers, so I&#x27;m probably preaching to the choir. It might help to prudently point out dehumanizing language when we hear it.

I liked the good &#x27;ole 1970&#x27;s in Silicon Valley. The saying was that if you didn&#x27;t like your job then just turn into a different parking lot on your commute and get a new one for more money. It was pretty much true.

A sense provided by Google for &quot;poaching&quot;: &gt;take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way<p>Which fits this use perfectly. Mindless thought policing of this type seldom produces any good; please employ with great caution.

I agree with the position, even if the post feels sponsored content-y, perhap piggybacking on what is becoming a common argument for engineers.<p>The idea of Elevator itself is interesting though: getting hired in groups with friends that you already work well together with. As the author points out, this is a common way to meet cofounders and start a company. I wonder if it&#x27;ll work by putting that same group in an established company.

Ugh....this article totally misrepresents hunting. Cecil was NOT poached. The hunter paid $50,000 for a LEGAL HUNTING TAG. This is the exact opposite of poaching. Poaching happens when you don&#x27;t have a tag and hunt anyway. Hunting, especially in poorer countries, actually helps protect the species. The government body issuing tags wants to continue to issue tags in future as it is a revenue stream. The last thing they they want is to bring the population of a species below sustainable levels. The revenue from the tags employ park rangers and people that stop poachers. When you don&#x27;t have park rangers or anyone to enforce legal hunting that is when poaching becomes a big problem and animals are hunted to extinction.

I don&#x27;t see how the labor market and the investment market are comparable (for example, bonds are auctioned off all the time, but if you try to auction off labor you&#x27;ll find out that&#x27;s been mostly illegal since 1865).<p>I also don&#x27;t see how higher liquidity would at all be beneficial to capital, either as a class or as individual actors

My wife was the head of recruitment at a high-tech company in SV. I started a new company and she quit and stole about a dozen or so of the best from her old company.<p>Is that poaching? She wasn&#x27;t allowed near the old company again.

Poaching or not its still very heartless to take away the life of an innocent animal

Was Cecil the lion actually poached?

You are an animal &gt;... mammal &gt;... species- homo sapiens sapiens-<p>Why do you think that being a member of a particular species somehow excludes you from a set of objects that can be poached, mainly animals? If lions are poached, then humans can be poached as well. Why would a bio-chemical process known as homo sapiens be more important(or sacred, if you want) than a bio-chemical process known as a lion and be excluded from something that can be applied to all animals?