I'd like to welcome you to the 11th annual undergraduate economics debate presented by the Department of Economics and the Undergraduate Economics Club. I'm Zach Baer, so you may have seen my face here before. I'm a senior political science and economics major, and I'm going to be moderating the debate today. I hope you find it engaging and the evidence convincing and informative. We're debating the motion, high-tech employee antitrust litigation should formal or informal agreements between companies be allowed which prevent the poaching of newly trained employees. In support of the motion over here we have David Chassire class of 2017, Tristan Deschler class of 2018, Ryan Manning class of 2015, and Brian Wells also class of 2015. Against the motion we have Willis Chen class of 2015, Matthew Harmon class of 2018, Ryan Salem class of 2015, and Sonya Shuka class of 2017. I'd also like to introduce our judges. We have Bill Troy, class of 1976, Paul Lawrence class of 1978, and Sam Jordan class of 2014. The rules of the debate are as follows. First, our team in support is going to have 15 minutes to present their argument, followed by the team in opposition, they'll have 15 minutes as well, and the time will be divided equally among three members of the team, so five minutes each. Then we're going to have a five minute period of deliberation between the teams followed by rebuttals. During the rebuttals we're going to switch the order, the team in opposition will have nine minutes, and then the team in support will have nine minutes. The judges will then be able to ask one question each. For each question the teams are going to have three minutes to deliberate, and then we're going to have alternating order again, the team in support will have two minutes to speak followed by the team in opposition, and then vice versa for each following question. The judges will then have 15 minutes to deliberate during which time we're going to have our scholarship awards presentations, and then we'll have the announcement of the winner and the closing remarks. So without further ado, we can begin with the team in support. Now many arguments against anti-poaching are from the assumption that it is anti-free market, and that in a free market economy, markets will always work as they should, whether laws of supply and demand always set the demand for the price of a good. Theoretically this is sound and definitely true in numerous sectors, but it would however be dangerous to assume that free market practices are exactly effective across all markets at all times. The tech industry is an example of an industry that isn't necessarily governed by these conditions. It operates on quite different economic access to the rest of the economy because it uses the most advanced technologies available. This has led to, on average, higher investments at higher rates and higher risks with a greater emphasis of capital invested into training and proportionately less into fixed assets. Because the industry operates under these very different conditions, its policies too should be observed through this lens. The agreements between firms in Silicon Valley not to poach each other's employees should not be viewed as a defiant move against capitalism, but rather a recognition of the limitations of the free market economy. The aim of the agreement was to bring about sustainability in the industry, which is important not only for the firm, but for all stakeholders, employees and shareholders alike. Collusion industry has proven to be successful in the past. The airline industry is one example of how important it is for firms to understand each other in context to their industry. The Airline Regulation Act of 1978 was a federal law that was aimed at removing regulation in the industry and reducing collusion between firms to not pursue each other's workers and set ticket prices. This increased exposure to market forces and led to upheaval in the labor market as the disruption brought about major losses in the industry. Between 1978 and 2001, nine major carriers and 100 smaller airlines went bankrupt and were liquidated as thousands lost jobs. The technologies industry is in many ways very similar to the airline industry of the late 70s. They both explore the boundaries of human innovation. They both have seen spectacular growth and investment and they both have employed self-regulation at some point. It would be therefore irresponsible as economists not to learn from history, especially now that the tech industry accounts for such a significant proportion of the US economy. It is therefore no longer about the financial gains of a few employees. This is in the interest of the US and global economy. So as mentioned, the technologies industry is very large. It accounts for 6% of the US GDP and in 2013, the average annual wage for high-tech workers in Silicon Valley was $196,000, compared to the average of $54,000 in the US. From this, we can see that the average employee in Silicon Valley is already well-compensated for their work in comparison to the rest of the economy. Now this is mainly a problem when looking at its effect on inequality. Census data on the right shows that wealthy people with incomes of over $100,000 are twice as common in Silicon Valley than in the rest of the United States and in California. This has caused costs of living in the area to be virtually unaffordable for most people outside of the industry and no community is built in binary. The agreement would result in a lower inflation of these wages. This high wage rate would be expected due to the rapid growth of the industry and the growing importance of technology in the long-term economic growth. Economists have even coined this term as the state of the technology. However, the largest contributor to this high wage rate has to be the scarcity of skills following the principle of supply and demand. So in this book, The Wealth of the Nations, Adam Smith describes the labor's a commodity and small firms have invested a lot more in comparison to larger firms given their access to capital. And because of this, I believe that these agreements would go a long way in incentivizing firms to invest more in training for their employees in the aim of to further promote innovation due to greater security on their investment. Now, considering that intellectual property is the number one asset in the tech industry, it is reasonable to deduce that firms would look into securing their place in the market by acquiring as much of it as possible. Then we look at blue chip companies of the Silicon Valley and consider that most of them have revenues that dwarf small country economies. Apple, for example, has reserves of over $146 billion, twice that of the federal government and in direct competition with talent with a startup that just left a dormant. The ability for companies to be able to retain their clients will go a long way in increasing their investment and the competition and innovation in the industry. First and foremost, I would like to make a clarification about anti-poaching agreements. Anti-poaching agreements do not stop people who want to leave the company willfully from leaving. Actually, on the contrary, they're aiding them. Previous methods of enforcement, such as non-compete agreements, do not allow individuals from leaving and working for other companies. APAs, on the other hand, just state that the company under agreement will not recruit or poach from each other. If an individual is not satisfied in their current job, why force them to work it? People who do not enjoy their job will have a lower productivity, which brings me to my next objective. Without anti-poaching agreements, productivity decreases. Unnecessary movement, which is employees who wouldn't have moved in the first place, will cause said drop in production.  Now, since most high-tech companies have a team-based working environment, a quintessential part of the team is missing. This means that this company will now also need to hire someone new, which in most cases will also be poached. This employee needs to be trained in ways of the team, be caught up on the project at hand, and learn the specific systems necessary to successfully complete this goal. Matthew Bidwell, a professor at University of Pennsylvania Wharton Business School, states in an article pertaining to the issue. In noting that external hires need about two years to get up to speed in their new jobs, Bidwell suggests it is because outsiders need that amount of time to learn how to be effective in their new organization. Specifically, how to build relationships. This all costs money and time that these companies do not have. In some cases, it can cause as large of a problem of where a product release date must be delayed or canceled. That is a serious drop in productivity. On the other hand, the receiving company also needs to take similar action. While theirs may be willful, they still need to train and educate the employee on the new systems and projects. But in this case, it makes it more difficult to train this new employee as they are used to an old system and may be working in a certain way. This issue can be solved if the company hires new employees and trains those employees from the ground up. A certain pattern of poaching can be seen that seems quite cyclical, almost as if the industry is playing a game of musical chairs. Employees keep moving over, whereas there are less seats and more people being poached. In the end, there is a massive amount of people poached, but the productivity of the entire industry is slim. This is a major problem for the economy of the high-tech industry. Bidwell concludes in his research and I quote, results show that internal mobility allows the firm to staff higher-level jobs with workers who have better performance but are paid less. Concluding, poaching is not as effective as hiring new employees and training them from the ground up. Secondly, I would like to talk about product innovation within the high-tech industry and how anti-poaching agreements actually benefit innovation rather than prohibit it. Anti-poaching agreements are a small step in what seems to be a larger issue, the theft of intellectual property, the currency of the high-tech market. Anti-poaching agreements prevent certain companies from recruiting individuals from other companies working on the same project and therefore forces them to find an alternative solution. The technology market in this reference can be compared to Darwinist evolution. If multiple companies build different products fulfilling the same goal, then it benefits the consumer as they now have a multitude of products to choose from. Following the model of survival of the fittest, the best product will survive or have the largest market share in this case. Isn't that what the free market is about? Letting the consumer choose what product is best? This is what creates healthy competition among the tech firms to innovate more. The more choice, the better the economy will be in the long run and that is the ultimate goal, a better, more advanced, and stronger economy. Good afternoon. My name is Brian and my teammates have already done an excellent job telling you about how anti-poaching agreements will give companies an incentive to invest more money in training their employees as well as the macroeconomic effects to the entire high-tech market. Now, I'm going to finish by talking about the microeconomic effects. That is, how will individual workers and individual firms behave? If our team loses today and we end up in a world without anti-poaching agreements, what will firms do? Well, they won't do nothing. They're still investing a lot of money in training employees and they'll still want to find a way to protect that investment. And we already have a good idea how they'll do it. Like Tristan mentioned, that's a non-compete agreement. This is the most common thing going on right now in high-tech. Recent research from the University of Illinois found that about 30% of employees in high-tech jobs are currently subject to a non-compete agreement. So to clarify, anti-poaching is when two companies agree not to recruit each other's employees and a non-compete is one company and one employee saying, if you leave, you can't work for our competitors. So both of these accomplish the basic goal of protecting the company's investment and therefore encouraging more training. But that's where the similarities end. And our team has found that anti-poaching agreements are a much better alternative and therefore they should be allowed. So let's go through some of those reasons. First of all, a worker who wants to leave their job is prohibited from doing so if they've signed a non-compete. But anti-poaching only stops the other company from calling. If the worker wants to leave, wants to leave, they can leave. So we think it's more fair to workers. Next, anti-poaching agreements basically enforce themselves. The companies just don't call each other's employees. Non-compete agreements, on the other hand, have to be violated first, then the recourse is to go to court, file a lawsuit that costs a lot of time and money. Anyone who's ever paid a lawyer's bill knows my next point. The anti-poaching agreements enforce themselves for free. The non-compete agreements cost companies a ton of time and money going to court. All that time and money would be better spent by the company doing whatever their primary business is, hopefully building cool new smartphones and software for us. Finally, there's a potential for abuse. A recent investigation by the Huffington Post revealed that Jimmy Johns requires every employee to sign a non-compete agreement. And I'm sure you'll agree that a minimum wage sandwich maker doesn't need to be under a non-compete agreement. Why did Jimmy Johns do that? Well, non-compete agreements are basically free. Companies don't have to pay much. Employees don't argue with them. And so there's a likelihood to use them too much. That's less likely to happen because an anti-poaching agreement requires a company to give something up. They gain employee retention, but they give up the ability to easily recruit. They have to weigh those two things. Because there's both a cost and a benefit, it's less likely to be overused. Here's an interesting consequence of all of this. Anti-poaching agreements actually benefit startup companies. Why is that? Well, an anti-poaching agreement only involves the companies who are part of the agreement. Usually startups aren't. That means startups are free to poach. That means they have an advantage to recruit employees. Well, why do we want startups to have an advantage? I'll bet you already know the reason. Startup companies are more innovative than larger companies. They're better at making cool new things. That's not just my opinion. Some research that was funded by the Small Business Administration compared the productivity of dollars spent on research and development and found that dollar for dollar startup companies are five times more productive in research and development than larger companies. For all those reasons, we believe the anti-poaching agreement should be allowed. They're better than the alternative that's currently being used in the market. They cost less. They're more fair to employees. Why not allow them? It's just common sense. Thank you. Now we'll move on to the team in opposition. Hi, everyone. My name's Ryan Salem. As has been mentioned, labor is an asset for companies and individuals in our free market economy, especially in the high tech industries where innovation is crucial. You can see here on this entry level intro to economics graph, which demonstrates supply and demand of labor in our economy. On one side, you have employers who are looking at the cost-benefit analysis of hiring an employee. And on the other side, you have the employers who are selling their labor on what is supposed to be a free market. Our concern is protecting these employees. These tech giants such as Apple and Google and IBM and Adobe, they have resource and power beyond imagination. As of 2014, this is what their market caps look like. These are huge companies. They control a large portion of the technology market and I assure you they don't need protecting or favorable collusion. Firms can already protect their intellectual property through many different legal frameworks. They have copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, even garden leave agreements in the UK. There's plenty of ways for firms to protect their intellectual property. With anti-poaching agreements, these companies are effectively creating a monopsony due to their market power and domination. A monopsony exists when a large buyer or buyer is effectively control the purchasing price, in this case, labor. If anti-poaching agreements are allowed, the smaller firms outside the agreements who would be willing to pay more for an individual's labor are cut off. Allowing firms to stop poaching is effectively a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which states the following. Anti-poaching laws suppress competition and drive wages down. The same effect the monopsony of tech companies demonstrates. The individuals are selling their labor to the firms. The employees are already at the mercy of these companies, and thus, laws and concerns need to be directed toward protecting and aiding employees' rights in the market. With that said, employees also research and understand the field and profession they're getting into. The high tech industry, the massive company, the startups, the spin-offs, the hiring and maintaining the most elite employees. And these employees know this. They know the profession they're getting into, and they know the possibility of being poached as a luring. Poaching exists because these employees are so sought after and are such talented individuals. That's the only reason firms would go through the effort of poaching and attempting to attract other employees. Poaching or the movement of employees increases labor efficiency. Employees find where they belong, and which company and culture they fit in best. It is proven that our generation moves and switches companies more than any previous generation in history. We are a very mobile group of individuals in the workforce. But poaching also serves another important purpose, as an information disseminator. The tech companies are able to learn about opportunities in the open market by receiving poaching offers. Information has always been power and information asymmetry destroys the free market. In a market that doesn't allow perfect competition or poaching in this case, the wages of these employees are kept artificially low. Not allowing poaching mainly affects the knowledge of opportunities for the individual. Allowing poaching does not mean that every employee will leave a firm and jump ship. On the contrary, they may decide to stay with a company for a lower salary, or bargain for a higher salary they deserve, or they may leave a company in hopes of starting their own. These all frequently happen. The issue here is the knowledge and the freedom within the labor market, the dissemination of information. Preventing cold calling or poaching opportunities is cutting that link between tech employees and the knowledge of opportunities within an open labor market. It's not fair to them, and as you'll hear, it's not efficient for the economy as a whole. It's proven to prevent mobility, and it clearly hurts the formation of clusters and economic hotspots through these lost mobility opportunities and possibilities. These aspects are paramount to a thriving economy, to innovation, and to a free market economy. Remember that anti-poaching law's biggest effect is destroying this link between an employee and the knowledge of opportunities or bargaining power. The Department of Justice has already agreed with us on many of its recent findings. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will begin my case by saying anti-poaching does not support innovation, change, and expansion in the market. Companies should not hold information that can benefit the employees. Companies, in addition to the non-poaching offer, can improve the offers that can benefit the employee. This drives up the salaries giving more power to the employees. Non-poaching transfers the balance of powers to the bank companies from the individual workers who want to bring their ideas to the market themselves, but cannot, unfortunately, do to not knowing other opportunities out there. Although employee does gain experience and information that is valuable to the company, the tradeoff is much more beneficial to not allow anti-poaching legislation or contracts. This is seen in the Cambridge University Press, as it says. And since some of the benefit from training falls on the poachers, there is no way for the worker demanding the training and the firm supplying it to capture all the rewards from this training. Inevitably, therefore, the free market mechanism provides insufficient incentives to acquiring skills. As Ryan previously said, these companies do not need protecting. These companies already have enough power and money to produce the innovation they want. If companies should have anti-poaching laws or contracts, their power is increased a lot. And this does not benefit individual intellects that maybe would want to be approached with better opportunities that can lead to big breakthroughs and thus more innovation in the economy. The market would be unfair and biased toward the big companies, giving them more power and generating bigger and more powerful monopolies. In the article, Silicon Valley non-poaching case, the growing debate over employee mobility, UPenn management professor Ivan Brinkley says, there have to be two factors in determining wages and compensation, employees, productivity and bargaining power. When employees are more productive, they generate more profits and how much of these rents they can appropriate for themselves depends on their bargaining power. Companies can make attractive offers to employees so that they will not leave or walk away with intellectual capital. They do not need to, as the other team said, force people to sign non-copied agreements. If there is bargaining between companies and individuals, there will be better salaries and better conditions giving to the employees. As Ryan said, in a market that doesn't allow perfect competition or poaching in this case, the wages of these employees are kept artificially low. Ivan Brinkley also said, when companies use methods to retain employees their increased power most likely leads to decreased wages and also a drop in productivity since it is an increased price externality which is essential in today's economy. He also says big companies do not include the benefits of the information sharing across firms that raise overall productivity in the economy. According to Bidwell, a productive economy is one where employees are in the right jobs, the jobs that both fit their interests and make their best use of their abilities. When you restrict that mobility to some extent, you are limiting the employees' ability to get those matches. In Bloomberg business, Tesla's co-founder and chief executive offers says, Apple has been trying to poach Tesla employees too offering $250,000 signing bonuses and 60% salary increases. Apple tries very hard to recruit from Tesla, he said but so far they've actually recruited very few people. Companies like Apple have the means necessary to replace employees but this was not caused a complete disaster in their finance. Tesla's ability to lure talent from Apple could give it an edge as cars become more like computers. This is the innovation that we need to have in the market for better and more improved opportunities for the good of companies and the market. In conclusion, information should not be withheld from the employees but rather their opinion, their options should be broadened with bargaining from both sides. Companies would rather not do this however and thus choosing to restrict mobility between companies with anti-poaching laws or regulations making it harder for the workers to find better opportunities elsewhere. Today, I will be talking about spin-offs and clusters and how anti-poaching agreements inhibit the positive benefits that spin-offs and clusters bring to the economy. Before I start, I like to give a brief description about spin-offs on clusters. Spin-offs are companies that are started by employees from bigger established firms who develop technological invasions during the research and development phase. They then capitalize on these newly discovered innovations by creating a separate company to focus on developing the innovation for the specific market of a particular industry. Furthermore, clusters are created when many companies within a particular industry are formed and are based in a certain geographic area. In short, employee mobility allows employees from different firms to meet and network with each other and share ideas on possible technological innovations with each other. If these employees have like-minded interests, they may be motivated to go out and form their network companies specifically for the focus of capitalizing on their ideas and developing specific technological innovations. As David Price from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond he argued that research has shown that spin-offs prove to be an important factor in the rise of Silicon Valley during the 1960s. Furthermore, research by other academics show that in industries in certain geographic areas that have employee mobility have seen substantial, yet positive economic benefits. For example, research conducted by Phallic, Fleischmann and Reichster have shown that high mobility in the tech industry cluster in the Silicon Valley have resulted in the rapid reallocation of talented employees ideas and knowledge to the firms with the best innovations and a pattern of hyper-employed mobility seen in Silicon Valley has spread to other industry clusters within the same other geographical areas within the state of California. This shows that the similar economic benefits are seen in Silicon Valley due to spin-offs in clusters are similarly replicating other clusters throughout in other geographical areas throughout the state of California. Furthermore, they also found that hyper-employing mobility in California's tech industry contributes to modular innovation by having smaller companies focus on specific technological innovations. This simple, yet important divisional labor arrangement plays an important part towards facilitating and increasing innovation within the overall industry. And as for the economic benefits and relations to the anti-poaching agreements, one can be seen in the drastic contrast of employment growth between the two tech corridors. Silicon Valley in California and Route 128 within our very own Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 1965, Route 28 had approximately three times more tech employment compared to Silicon Valley. But, within a decade by 1975, Route 120's employment had only tripled, but Silicon Valley's employment had quintupled five times. With resulted in a 15% higher total employment in Silicon Valley, from 1975 to 1990, Silicon Valley had tripled Route 120's new job innovation. In addition, from 1985 to 1990, the number of fastest growing electronic firms in Silicon Valley increased significantly, while the number of fastest growing electronic firms in the Route 120 tech corridor decreased in general. The reason for this discrepancy in economic employment growth and the number of fastest growing high tech firms between Silicon Valley and Massachusetts Route 120 tech corridor can be attributed to the difference in between these two tech corridors. Within Silicon Valley, their industry cultures features a regional network-based industrial system that promotes learning and mutual adjustment among specialist producers of complex yet related technologies. The region's social networks and open labor markets encourage entrepreneurship and experimentation and as a result, boundaries between firms are blurred and opportunities for exchange of ideas and technological innovations are substantially increased. The promotion of employee mobility and collaboration, instead of utilization of anti-poaching agreements to achieve similar goals, encourages spin-offs to be created, which leads to increased job creation and economic benefits to emerge from these companies that would otherwise stifle this dynamic by being involved in anti-poaching agreements. In comparison, the industry culture in Route 120 corridor is dominated by self-sufficient employees who prefer to have vertical integration throughout their entire production process. As a result, they are self-reliant. High-tech employees are frowned on employee mobility and prefer loyal employees and prefers secrecy and corporate loyalty. And as a result of this closed employee arrangement, social networks are more internalized and boundaries between firms and local institutions are more distinct and thus opportunities between ideas for exchange of ideas and technological innovations are suddenly flawed. So in conclusion, technological innovations happen in spin-offs and clusters because of high employee mobility between firms. High employee mobility can facilitate the formation of clusters of companies within the same geographic areas and promote the exchange ideas and technological innovations. As a result, the creation increases economic activity within the industry when anti-poaching agreements are implemented. It stifles employee mobility between firms which consequently stifles the exchange of ideas and inhibits technological innovations within companies that are involved in anti-poaching agreements. Thank you. So at this point both teams are going to have five minutes to deliberate and form their rebuttals so we can have some quiet conversation. Good afternoon. My name is Matthew Harmon and I would like to begin by addressing research and development. A firm must invest in its employees and it must do R&D independent of the status of anti-poaching in the area. According to the American Society for Training and Development, U.S. businesses spent 171.5 billion dollars on learning and development in 2010, the most recent year for which data is available. Firms across the country are increasing employee investment in California tech companies are leading the way. Google has Google EDU, a focus training program for new employees. Karen May, Google's Vice President of Leadership and Talent who has led the revamping of Google EDU notes that it is evident in employee satisfaction scores that it does make a difference when we invest in people. Moving on, the sharing of technologies should be seen as a good thing. We have multiple, while having multiple avenues to solve the same problem may sound like good competition from a macro scale it is inefficient. Say company A solves a problem that company B can't solve. The sooner company B solves that problem the sooner those two companies are competitive once again. If ideas are shared at a greater rate companies will have to push each other to innovate faster. This higher level of competition makes the industry as a whole move faster. Regarding small firms and startups small firms and startups are not as vulnerable as they're made out to be. Small firms and startups do have venture capitalists backing them so their funds aren't significant and they have some financial freedom when it comes to experimentation and research. More importantly, the magnitude of these reserves in one company do not determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not they will poach a given employee. If a firm has billions of dollars yes it allows for flexibility however just because they can afford to buy numerous employees doesn't mean that these employees add value to their production. The only thing any poacher has to do regardless of whether they are big and small is a cost-benefit analysis as to whether or not poaching a given employee is worth it, as Ryan mentioned. As far as intellectual theft goes firms take into account that people will leave. For any given technological project there's a large team composed of numerous people who all have specialized tasks. If intellectual property theft is a concern then consider that Lisa the programmer is a member of a team who likely only knows one piece of a much much larger puzzle. This programmer doesn't know every facet of the project nor does she necessarily know all the other pieces of this how all the other pieces of this puzzle are put together. So poaching Lisa doesn't mean that you're getting the whole technology you're just getting a good programmer. As Ryan mentioned earlier there are many many ways to protect against intellectual property theft. Now onto the final idea of excessive mobility the opposing or the affirmative team has suggested that excessive mobility creates great inefficiency in a marketplace. However I think well I think this is slightly exaggerated. If everyone can poach if all companies can poach other companies will have to guard against poaching by making strong incentives for workers to stay loyal. Again they won't spend more than employees worth but if they can keep an employee that's just competition. Allowing for poaching does not mean that people will leave. People still have free will. As Sonion mentioned with Tesla and Apple workers just like to work at Tesla. They get bit away from Apple and they just prefer to work at Tesla. So yeah people will go to the place that's best for them. Workers will go where they're paid the most where they're most comfortable. When a worker finds a place they will either they will either remain loyal or they will get a better offer to leave that firm. A person will never be paid more than the worth so people will eventually find a resting place where they can't possibly be bit away from that place. A company can't offer them any more and they can't be bit away from it. And even if an offer is made to an employee they're very social and personal frictions associated with changing one's environment. Perks and benefits also play a strong role. This concern over excessive mobility or as musical chairs as they've mentioned is somewhat inaccurate because someone will eventually find a chair that fits them and they'll stay in it. This emphasis on productivity loss assumes that employees are constantly in motion yet this is not feasible they will likely find a place and settle down. Thank you. So I'm not sure how this became anti-poaching versus non-compete. These are very different things. Anti-poaching is company to company and non-compete agreements are employee to company. The mobility is lost because employees don't know about the opportunities. They are kept in the dark. Yes it's obvious that non-compete restrict mobility more. That's not the question. The problem here is that mobility is restricted because the opportunity is not known. Firms already use non-compete that's not going to happen more or less with anti-poaching agreements. And then as far as the airline industry I don't think the tech industry is looking at collapse anytime soon. These employees make so much money because of the knowledge they have in the work they do. Does anyone here not have a smartphone? Exactly. They get these salaries because of this knowledge and this workability. So thank you. Thank you for coming out. My opposing team here would have you believe that companies don't need these anti-poaching agreements because employees are selling their labor to the firms and so they need to be able to do that very freely. And they would also say that these agreements keep wages artificially low by restricting the freedom and information about opportunities for employment by employees at these firms that employ these agreements. I would argue that there are still plenty of other companies that are not involved in non-compete agreements that can seek out and offer employment to these really high skilled coveted employees if they want to. So it is not necessarily restricting the information in its entirety. It's only restricting information from certain companies. And usually the companies that have these agreements are large companies and most people who work in the high-tech industry are going to know that there are job opportunities available to these firms like Google, Microsoft, Apple. They're going to take the initiative if they want to leave their company to look for opportunities at these firms. The smaller companies that typically don't have these anti-poaching agreements are not as well advertised. Employees might not be able to find these jobs at small firms but that's okay because the small firms are perfectly capable of poaching these employees. What they do is prevent large firms from driving up the cost of high-skilled employees because as you can imagine if Google and Apple are competing over an employee they have trillions or some ridiculous amount of money that they can throw at this person and they can go back and forth increasing the wages that they offer him. And it creates a leapfrog effect possibly maybe not just two companies maybe it's one employee many big firms competing for him that these large tech companies can afford to pay them a very high wage and these smaller companies might not be able to do that and if you don't allow the small companies to be able to hire the highly skilled workers you're going to decrease the amount of variety in the firms and therefore in the products which is bad for the economy overall. Thank you. So I want to confront the opposition's view on investment and poaching. Firstly Ryan I want to thank you for redefining what's the difference between anti-poaching and non-compete. In your argument you cited articles that constantly referred to non-compete. For example the Cambridge article does not necessarily argue that anti-poaching discourages investment but rather non-compete do. In fact I had the pleasure of reading Bidwell's article as well that anti-poaching reduces mobility it doesn't prevent it and if anything discourages hyper mobility and this has huge this has huge effect when you look at motivational theories. Now the basis of the opposition's argument is that money is the largest motivator whereby you pay somebody X amount of money and the next person comes across and plays X plus one they'll be more likely to work more for that extra dollar but this is not true if we look at motivational theories for example Herzberg's hygiene factors or Maslow's hierarchy of needs monetary factors are definitely in there but they're at the earliest and most preliminary rounds. For workers to really start to pay back on their investment we really have to look at the impact that the company has on their self actualization and their self their self standing and those are the factors that anti-poaching would really help a company build within an employee. Hello one of my opponents drew an analogy between California and Massachusetts and in economics it's often difficult to do large scale studies because you can't control the behavior of companies and put them in a control group so you have to look at the real world and try to find a natural experiment. Unfortunately we don't think they've done a good job of that so there are a lot of differences between Massachusetts and California other than anti-poaching agreements which could account for the difference maybe all the programmers like the better weather not today there's lower taxes in California we all know that Massachusetts is a very high tax state maybe that has to do with difference in business activity in any case the analogy just isn't well drawn. Next there's this idea of limited information hurting workers and anti-poaching agreements usually only involve a small number of firms big firms you know them Google, Microsoft, Apple and workers who are looking for a new job so that those firms exist and can easily call up the human resources department or call their friend from college who works there so we're not convinced that the lack of information is significant or widespread enough to have a big impact is mobility always a driver of innovation we're not sure of that stealing is certainly not the same thing as innovation and if the whole argument is just that engineers leaving one place take an idea and take it to the other company that doesn't drive innovation in the economy next I want to respond to this idea of comparing non-compete agreements with anti-poaching agreements the reason that comparison was drawn is because a non-compete agreement is a real thing that's happening every day that accomplishes the same goal as an anti-poaching agreement let's say you were cooking a batch of chili and you wanted to make it less spicy and you took out the black pepper but you left in the cayenne pepper that wouldn't accomplish your goal likewise a non-compete agreement is something more restrictive an anti-poaching agreement is less restrictive so if you're going to allow non-compete you might as well allow anti-poaching and if you want to remove restriction make it more fair to employees you should remove non-competes first thank you now we're going to have our question and answer period with the judges the judges who want to ask questions can come up and ask them at the podium then both teams will have a minute to deliberate and then we'll start with the team in support on the first question they'll have two minutes to answer followed by the team in opposition who will have two minutes hi everyone I'm Sam Jordan I'm in this debate so my first question will be for the support team you noted that high wages were a reason to to utilize anti-poaching and perhaps to cap those wages shouldn't those high wages or I'd like to know your thoughts on the high wages themselves being the incentive for young people to join that industry or career path and then increase the supply of labor there and minimize wages in that sense so I'd like to hear your thoughts on that and then for the opposition you provided an analysis of the difference in growth rates between Silicon Valley and the 128 corridor and you noted that industry culture was a big contributing factor there I'd like to know the other attributes of that analysis that you took under consideration besides industry culture thank you most people aren't as tall as I am so I understand that your question is why these high wages restrict the industry am I right having the high wages the reasoning behind implementing the fact that the wage themselves should act as incentive okay so without anti-poaching agreements these large companies such as Apple and Google can compete for certain employees and can poach them which like both teams stated these companies have very large budgets they can kind of throw money at the problem and say like just artificially these wages which restricts the startups or the smaller companies from actually acting upon maybe poaching one of or hiring one of these employees and we all know that these startups are the drivers of innovation take for example Apple Apple wasn't always this huge company Apple started in a garage and they were competing against IBM this multinational billion-dollar corporation and look at them now they're the largest company in the world so I mean these high wages are not always an incentive to go somewhere maybe it's the innovation also and if these large companies are always driving high that may become an incentive but that maybe shouldn't be the incentive okay so Samuel you asked a question about the difference between Silicon Valley and Route 120 and other attributes that can contribute to the difference between those two tech corridors one of the factors is that employees can leave on their own if they choose to do so and it's all bringing back to the fact that about employee mobility and how Silicon Valley was created first place and in fact Silicon Valley was created first place because of employee mobility because it was resulted from one big company that was established there during the 1950s and employees thinking that they could do better on their own because they developed technological invasions and I could have more freedom more room to further develop these technological invasions without the company essentially bothering me and so this was one of the reasons why the famous chip maker Intel was created just because from the spin-offs and clusters that was creating Silicon Valley during that time that's a fun fact and also employee mobility has shown has allowed other employees to meet with each other even from competing firms to bounce off ideas of one another maybe they might talk about for example they might talk about with each other about what they're working on within their respective companies and then they realize hey our interests, our work are almost interrelated with each other why can't we just leave the companies are working for go into the business ourselves and create a product based on the idea, based on the things that we're working for and focus specifically on that sub-marketing with specific industry and help foster technological innovations through this simple division of labor strategy and we even agree with the opposition with the, sorry the affirmative that small businesses drive innovation and the way startups formed by spin-offs and clustering has resulted in plenty of technological innovation in Silicon Valley that even continues today and also in our attribute that I would also consider is company culture benefits and perks and while they are usually not measurable by its monetary value it is clear nowadays that clearly when they think about which companies they want to join and work for it they want to see what kind of culture, environment benefits and perks they offer because they want to be happy in the first place and be the most productive ever. Now I have to adjust this. Oh no oh no he's made an error okay hi I'm Bill Troy I don't usually need a microphone but I need a good stand so I was a high tech executive for 17 years so I have more than a little interest in this topic so for the for the change team I I don't know why we would change supply and the reason for that is if we're seeing above market wage rates isn't the real problem we're not training enough scientists engineers to fill those jobs and isn't that all we really need rather than worrying about suppressing wages that's for you for the other team having been in high tech a long time I'm troubled by a lack of definition of what high tech means what industries would you count for example the 1960s were a time of defense and the 1960s the main issue besides training is big clearances and that probably takes more time than actually training people and getting their software engineering skills up so I'm asking that team to think about what do we mean by that industry and don't tech industries change in definition and scope every three to five years thank you so I understand that the question is what are these companies like these tech companies and as we are progressing this is changing so what makes them tech companies and I'd like to answer that question by saying first of all that's a tough question because you know we didn't know 20 years ago we would be at this point following the progression of everything that has been leading up to this point like companies like Facebook for example which just came from a college dorm and so for my example where I talked about Tesla they took they poached a programmer from the Google company and he in this example he used his knowledge from building computers to advancing taking that and working with Tesla with their auto company and now they're thinking about building better cars more efficient and they're becoming more computer like generally just more innovative and we never know where that can go in the future but we know that it is improving everyone is working hard to just come up with creative ideas that can reduce global warming can just be more innovative and support values that the market should bring up and these companies like Google and you know Facebook they have like millions of workers and they will not be damaged by just trading off a couple of employees who want to who can be poached by other companies and bring more innovative ideas and that's why I think that is the question, thank you Hi, so from what I understand your question was kind of do you think that the real problem is that there's not enough supply of engineers, labor supply of these skilled workers and I think that I would agree with that if these firms were poaching people that were more run-of-the-mill programmers with people with less experience in that world so maybe come right out of college, stuff like that increasing labor if they were poaching those kinds of people then increasing the labor supply would be good but what happens is that these people are usually these firms are usually targeting really high skilled workers so there's a smaller pool of them increasing, getting more people trained on the basics of it is going to create a lot of low skilled workers and these people poaching employees are really looking for high skilled workers so I think that increasing the supply of engineers in this case would not bring down the wages because they're still going to be poaching the people who are really skilled at what they do Good afternoon, I'm Paul Lawrence I have two questions one for the support side could you explain to me the micro-economic incentives for my large firm to join this organization that I cannot identify all the other participants in the agreement and to the antifirm early in the argument these guys over here I'm sorry early in the debate your opposition made an argument about the airline industry and deregulation leading to decrease in wages of the employees offer an alternative explanation for what happened to the airline industry in the 1970s no no no I'm asking you to offer an alternative explanation for their argument Paul, thank you for your question and I have no clue what it will look like in the future but in the recent case that was just settled in federal district court there was transparency it was just a network of agreements but each agreement just had two parties and Google made a separate agreement with Samsung a separate agreement with Apple etc perhaps in the future a hypothetical network without transparency could form and I hadn't thought through that but to answer your basic question about micro-economic incentives the primary incentive for a company to join an anti-poaching agreement is to keep their employees prevent them from leaving because they've been enticed away by a job offer from a competitor thank you for the question if I'm correct the question is to explain alternatives for what could have taken down the airline industry so first off the airline industry is very service based most tech companies are very commodity product based so in a service base you can only put a couple hundred people on an airplane you can make so many iPhones and sell them out so that's one big reason and if we remember Southwest they never posted a loss they've always had profits they had a very intelligent business plan so this wasn't the entire airline industry this was a large portion of them secondly they faced a lot of huge costs the airline industry that the tech industry doesn't have like the cost of fuel the cost of products a lot of different personnel different airline control people so I believe there's a lot more than went into the airline a lot more expenses that exist in the tech industry and also the airline industry is very substitutable so people could drive a car instead they could take a bus instead they could take a train instead I think the airline industry especially a while ago was a very luxury idea versus technology now where everyone's got technology I think even the lowest end of the spectrum has technology all over the world so I think they're very different services and very different commodities thank you so our judges are now going to have 15 minutes to deliberate and choose a winner and in that time acting chair of the department of economics professor Jerry Friedman will present the department of economics scholarships and awards and after the scholarships and awards are presented the winner will be announced so the judges were very impressed with the preparation that both teams had done we all noted the public speaking skills of the teams were very very good and where I work we look at what we call executive presence do the people convey an idea in a way that you're confident and it is believable and that was very high on everybody side at the heart of this what we talked about was this being a discussion of the importance of a competitive market and so we felt that the team actually in favor of competition and keeping the marks probably could have done a better job driving that point home so I think your argument was very very solid based on sort of all our knowledge that was perhaps could have been a little more rigor in explaining why competitive market is so important conversely the team that none of us intuitively believed in did a very good job of trying hard to leverage economic arguments some of which had some holes but they weren't for lack of trying and you know understood the kind of arguments and so therefore winning is always a tough term but as we say in the marketplace that's how it works we ruled you as the winner so congratulations.


Now time for members statements member from Carlton, Mississippi Mills Mr.. Speaker This is about the petition of right which has been our topic of today And for the people that are here as guests to see this be done The property owners of Godridge Township want to de-amalgamate from the amalgamated municipality of central Huron in Huron County They have chosen the petition of right an ancient law from 1628 as the instrument to restore their right to determine their own self-governance The property owners of Godridge Township pay about 60% of the total property tax bill For the for the amalgamated township of Huron central But none of this money is spent on capital projects in Godridge Township The people of Godridge Township are unhappy and they want out The petition of right of 1628 was used by common people to have the king or parliament correct a wrong The people would take a petition signed by a legal majority of the people that defined the wrong and Defined what right should be done and presented this petition of right to the king or parliament and The king or parliament was bound to say Let right be done This was the law then This is the law now So I say to this house and the crown and the people of Godridge Let right be done Thank you Member statements the member from Timmins James Bay well mr. Speaker yet again we've approached that season where we have lots of snow coming down on our highways across the province of Ontario and People are starting to be concerned about the conditions of roads yet again I appreciate and I respect that the government has tried to move somewhat on this issue By increasing the number of vehicles or not vehicles a number of plows that are on our highways But we all know that we're still above 400 plows short to what we used to have when MTO was responsible for plowing our highways That means highways in your community highway highways in my communities and across this province are being plowed at a less frequent For less frequent rate than they were before I've yet again got phone calls this morning in my constituency office in regards to Condition of our roads People are recognizing that the roads are not being maintained to the degree that they used to before So I have a very simple Point that I want to make here in a very simple request that I want to make to the minister our roads are In worse condition than they ever have been before and we're calling on this government to do the right thing Got to do two things You've got to include inside the current area maintenance Contracts the circuit times that used to be in those contracts before that allowed our roads to be in a better position Condition as far as as far as plowing and we need to increase the amount of equipment that we're using on our highways In order to make sure that the highways across this province are safe for everyone to travel Thank you members statements Well, thank you speaker mr. Speaker, it's my honor It's an honor for me to for me to speak today about an outstanding restaurant in my riding on summer Cooney West The social bar a table in Port Hope has been designated with the Ontario tourism Alliance feast Ontario program This designation is awarded Two applicants were purchased at least 25% of their food in beverage from Ontario producers They must also commit to participate in local food events and partner local food in beverage providers The social bar and table buys over 55% of their products from Ontario suppliers I'm thrilled that they are one of five restaurant chosen to participate today at Queen's Park at the 2014 premier summit in agricultural food innovation the social bar and table will be showcasing Local products from Linwood Acre Strout Burnham family farm apples in Northgate organic produce Please take time to stop by the agri-food summit reception later on this afternoon downstairs Which focus on terry of finest producers and demonstrate how important it is to buy local and Know where our products are coming from the social bar and table is located at 26 Ontario Street in Port Hope Please stop by when you're in the riding And don't forget good. Thanks grown Ontario Member statements the member for Lampkin head middle sex. Thank you speaker I'm delighted to rise today to congratulate the Federation of Philippine Chinese in Ontario on celebrating their 25th anniversary This is a non-profit organization that works tirelessly on behalf of the Philippine Chinese community With the goal of preserving their unique traditions while putting down roots here in our province They promote wonderful cultural and recreational events throughout the province including holiday traditions Sports leagues and youth events. They also offer support to new Canadians assisting with communication Socialization and helping them to integrate into their new communities I was lucky enough to attend the moon festival celebrations held by the FPCO in September and Mr Speaker I was blown away by what a vibrant and engaged community. They have and by the warm welcome I received Tomorrow night, they will be celebrating their 25th anniversary with a Christmas party So I want to join with the friends and supporters of the FPCO in commending the dedicated service Which is built and sustained a thriving community environment for the Philippine Chinese in Ontario So again, congratulations on a milestone anniversary. I'm sure it's just one milestone of many to come. Thank you Thank you, Mr. Speaker I'm always proud to stand in this house and to have the opportunity which quite frankly not many are able to enjoy Today, I have to say I'm thankful to be standing here today to speak about the wonderful city that I live in and Also enjoy. I'm a proud Hamiltonian speaker and I quite frankly have been my entire life I have always been the person to jump at the chance to support a city gathering a parade or the torture on that ran through my city I have always been eager to show up at the rallies or engagements that showcase our city and cheer on our teams Speaker as you're aware Hamilton was very successful last weekend McMaster Marauders Won the Mitchell Bowl sending them to this Saturday's Vanier Cup where they will be to face Montreal University The Marauders were Vanier Cup champions in 2011 finalists into in 2012 And I know they're looking forward to bringing that victory home this year Then there are our tiger cat speaker and I have to say I'm rally and I'm excited And I am so looking forward to Sunday's game on Saturday We won the Eastern final and on Sunday. We will be playing in the hundred and second great cup I've been attending the game since I was a child speaker I remember being a little kid sitting in the stands with my family and watching the game this season has been no different I did my best to be at as many games as I could my brother and I are both season ticket holders and many a game We shared bringing our dad or a nephew or really just spending time with our spouses at the games Whoever I was with was okay with me as long as I was cheering on my team and having a good time brainer shine I can't believe I'm out of time already speaker But I just have to say go cats go oski wee wee Hamilton will be cheering you on and I know you're going to bring it home Thanks speaker or be it from me to cut off oski. Wee. Wee First thing is the member from Burlington. Mr. Speaker oski. Wee. Wee indeed I rise in the house today speaker to Recognize the extraordinary work of the Burlington Public Library and in particular a wonderful organization that I had the Privilege of learning about when I toured our library recently the Center for equitable library access The CEL a is a national non-for-profit organization established by Canadian Public Libraries to provide equitable public library services for Canadians with print disabilities Our Burlington Public Library is a member of this wonderful national organization providing print disabled residents in my writing of Burlington with access to published material in accessible formats The ability to hold or manipulate a book an impairment to reading comprehension Severe or total impairment of sight or the inability to focus or move one's eyes Are a few examples of disabilities that prevent print disabled residents from accessing conventional print for the 10% of Canadians who have a print Disability access to reading materials in alternate formats such as Braille Audio or described video is often an ongoing challenge with help from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind Digital accessible formats of published material are being produced for visually impaired and print disabled residents And my public library is serving as an accent point The Center for equitable library access makes it possible for print disabled residents to gain easy access to a wealth of published materials In formats of their choice right in their own communities through their public library and speaker I'm so pleased to say to stand in my place today rather and salute our Burlington Public Library for this wonderful and enjoyable and accessible programs Today is a good day when we celebrate excellence in Ontario's agri-food industry But I'd also like to remind the house that earlier this year the Premier challenged this very same industry to double its growth rate And create a hundred and twenty thousand new jobs by 2020 years ago when I was vice chair of Ontario agri-food education Laurie Jocas the current chair projected Ontario's agri-food industry would have jobs without people and sadly that's our reality today First of all, I would like to congratulate the University of Guelph as well as the food and beverage Ontario For recently announcing their action plan to address this indeed a new generation must be interested and enthused to pursue post-secondary education Focused on primary agriculture and the agri-food sector But the question is when should this interest be fostered and the industry has already indicated that current the current number of students in post-secondary education will not meet their future employment needs and Educational stakeholders are telling me some of their programs are going not completely filled This all indicates that we need to promote careers in Ontario's agri-food sector to youth at a timely manner And I would suggest speaker that you will find in the order papers today I've introduced a resolution that would encourage the government to include a mandatory agri-food component of career Opportunities in grade 9 to 10 guidance and career education by supporting Ontario agri-food education The industry at large has already invested in educational material now. It's time to put it to use. Thank you very much Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well a week ago 7,000 young people crammed into the Kitchener auditorium There was music there was a glitzy light show and a lineup of famous people But this was more than just a rock concert Kitchener hosted we day It's a day-long event which encourages young people to care about global issues The elementary and the high school students who were invited to the event all helped to raise funds for free the children And this was their reward since 2007 young people across Canada have raised 45 million dollars for more than 1,000 local and global causes Captain Richard Phillips who was portrayed by Tom Hanks in a movie about the 2009 hijacking of a ship told the students that attitude will always impact results Mr. Speaker I had a chance to see this in action a few years ago when I visited a camp in West Kenya While producing a TV documentary on a group of high school students from my region after fundraising for two years They traveled to this remote area and they helped build a school They installed a water collection project and they were there to learn practical ways to mitigate poverty and hunger They built the school. They provided young people there a very positive and good change for them So we day is more than just a one-day event the messages that they hear Empowers them to find their passion and to live by example the kinds of changes that they want to see in this world Thank you Thank you member statements the member from Davenport Thank You mr. Speaker. I'm rising today to showcase a fantastic Organization in my riding of Davenport every day I'm struck by the generosity of our fellow citizens and nowhere is that generosity of character more apparent than at the Davenport Perth neighborhood and community health center mr. Speaker for nearly 30 years the Davenport Perth neighborhood and community health center has tirelessly worked to promote the health and social well-being of the West Toronto community with broad range of Programming from the preschool program and other services at the Ontario earlier center today youth leadership project for teenagers all the way to Computer training for seniors the center really provides something for everyone and these programs may make a huge difference in the lives of my constituents the centers new here for youth Initiative launched last week and it will fit right in among the roster of fantastic services Here for youth is a youth-led program that aims to empower young people between the ages of 13 and 24 in the West Toronto area A team of young researchers are engaging their peers through a number of means in order to figure out What prevents the city's youth from accessing sexual and mental health services? It's an important question and here for youth is a great program model the initiative which was funded by on an Ontario Trillium grant not only explores a Pressing question, but also offers a chance for young people to develop their research and community engagement skills Last week I was delighted to attend here for youth's community fair at the Davenport Perth Center And I'm happy to report that it was a successful evening. Thank you. Thank you Thank all members for their statements is now time


Sally Lowenthal, better known to the world as Sally, Jesse Raphael made a name for herself as the host of her sensational talk show Sally that ran for nearly 20 years from 1983 to 2002. Now at 87 years old, Sally's ready to part with her sprawling countryside estate in Pauline, New York that she has called home for the past 25 years. The 25.5 acre property known as Elmwood Farm contains a palatial 15,000 square foot Elizabethan Tudor style manor with 43 rooms and listed for $6.5 million. The manor house itself is an impressive structure dating back to 1860.


Hello everyone. This is Vishwanath Chauhan, assistant professor from the CAC department, Walchand Institute of Technology, Solapur. Now I am here to explain the concept of floating point arithmetic. At the end of this session, students will be able to solve the arithmetic operations on floating point numbers. So we will see the different operations. There are very few standard arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison, square root, etc. In today's session, we will focus on addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. So let us see the formulas. For addition, if you take two numbers x and y, then x plus y is equal to xm into 2 raised to xc minus y plus ym, close the bracket, into 2 raised to y, where the xm indicates mantessa and xc indicates the respective exponent. Similarly for subtraction, x minus y is equal to into bracket xm into 2 raised to xc minus y minus ym, close the bracket, into 2 raised to y. For multiplication, x into y is equal to xm into ym into 2 raised to xc plus y. And for division, x divided by y is equal to xm divided by xm into 2 raised to xc minus y. So where x and y are two floating point numbers, xm and ym are respective mantissa, xc and y are respective exponent. Now we will see the addition. x plus y are the two numbers, we need to find the sum of two numbers. Let us consider x is equal to plus 12.375 and y is equal to plus 54.125. If we represent the plus 12.375 in binary, then it becomes 1100.011, which is equal to 110011 to the base 2 into 2 raised to 3, which is in the form of xm into 2 raised to xc, where xm is nothing but 110011, which is equal to 99 in decimal and xc exponent of x, which is equal to minus 3. For second number plus 54.125, in terms of binary, it is 11001100.001 to the base 2, which is equal to 110011001 to the base 2 into 2 raised to minus 3, which is equal to ym into 2 raised to y, where ym is equal to 110011001, which is equal to 433 and y is equal to minus 3. Now, the sum of x and y, which is equal to, according to the above formula, substitute the respective values xm, xc, ym and y in this formula will get 66.5, but here the condition is that xc should be less than or is equal to y, is fe floating point addition associative? To answer for this question, now we will see the associative law. According to this law for addition, it should be equal to like this, a plus into bracket b plus c is equal to into bracket a plus b, close the bracket plus c. If these two values are matching, then we will see that it is associative. Let us consider a number a is equal to minus 2.7 into 10 to the power 23, b is equal to 2.7 into 10 to the power 23 and c is equal to 1.0. So left hand side, a plus into bracket b plus c is equal to minus 2.7 into 10 to the power 23 plus into bracket 2.7 into 10 to the power 23 plus 1.0 close the bracket, which leads to 0.0. This is left side. So according to this formula, let us find out right side value, which is into bracket a plus b, close the bracket plus c, which is equal to minus 2.7 into 10 to the power 23 plus 2.7 into 10 to the power 23, close the bracket plus 1.0, which leads to 1.0. Now the left hand side value is 0.0 and right side value is 1.0. They are not equal and hence this is not an associative. Let us see subtraction x minus y, xm into 2 to the power xc minus y, minus ym close the bracket 2 to the power y. So where xc is less than y. So let us consider the same example as that we have taken in addition. X is equal to plus 12.375. So this number is written in binary as 1100011 into 2 to the power minus 3. So which is equal to xm into 2 raise to xc, where xm is equal to 99 and xc is equal to minus 3. So we require these two values to put in this formula. Similarly for y variable, we have taken it as a 54.125, which is equal to 110011001 into 2 to the power minus 3. So here ym is 433, y is minus 3. So if we substitute all four values xm, xc, ym and y in the above formula will get x minus y is equal to minus 41.75. Pause this video, think and write the answer for this question. Find the mantissa and exponents of the following number plus 10.375. I hope you have worked out. So the mantissa is 83 and the exponent is minus 3. You will see the multiplication. So already we know this formula will take same example as that of previous one. So according to that, if we substitute the respective values in the formula, we will get x into y is equal to 669.79. For division x divided by y, substitute the same values in the above equation, we will get x divided by y is equal to 0.2286, floating point instructions. So there are a few floating point instructions. According to the assumption, there is one architecture which includes 80 bit stack registers and these are 80 numbers like st0, 1, 2, 3. We will see the floating point operations push which push and pop which is required to perform the operations. So these are the different instructions push and pop, FLD, FSTP which is push and pop concerned with floating point operation. FILD, FIR, STP are concerned with push and pop for integer data.  These are the respective description for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Now third type of instruction trigonometry like F sign, cosine, tangent and this is for pi. So all these are having the respective values. These are the references. Thank you.


n that's looking at redeveloping and infill development and handling all the capital projects we have coming down the road um that that's economic development and that wouldn't that wouldn't be the responsibility of a joint economic developed joint village town economic development committee that would have to be just a an s6 junction only focused uh downtown commission and so i guess saying there's a lot of overlap between what that housing or what i'm sorry what that downtown commission would be doing and what the the more general uh shared economic development development commission does um but would see that almost in certain instances be working at cross purposes um or or doing the same thing i guess so that's why i'm saying i'm not really sure down the road but um we're i'm talking probably to get a downtown commission going um and get it approved by the state um is probably going to take the better part of the year so it's not something that's going to happen right away and so my point is is that the the current economic development commission would be fine um i don't see any use any reason to abolish it or dissolve it right away but i'd be i think we have to be honest and say assigning some contract or something making some statutory commitment that we're gonna keep this thing going for years to come uh that's where i would have a problem and but then i say well wait a second commissions we could we could decide five months from now the two boards could decide to dissolve the economic development they're just creatures of of elected boards so that's why i don't know a little bit of a confused answer that but that i don't know if that answers your question yeah i was just trying to understand because it references forming your own economic development commission i didn't know whether the thought process was in addition or in place of so no in place the the the downtown commission would be the economic development commission they would they would serve the same purpose okay it it says forming a downtown committee or their own economic development commission so maybe that's it might have been something lost in translation yep absolutely yep thanks i mean in the interest of brevity i'm ready to make i'm i know what i've given this some thought and i'm we've got four here we heard from a six best tonight i've already said i think it makes sense to continue that work especially since a lot of it involves our public safety resources which we have already agreed to share um i think we've heard from an energy committee that they've actually had the conversation and they want to stay together and that also makes sense to me a lot of that energy doesn't stop at borders and frankly we should bring in more communities economic development i don't think that should continue i think we have cross purposes if they want to collaborate great but generally speaking i think we should probably separate it and i think the joint housing commission is just getting off its feet and should be given time to continue and i think unlike economic development i think housing and the issues around it are a little bit different and that commission can do good work as long as we take some time over the next year to give them some parameters about how the logistics will work out about them with decision-making and budgeting so from an mou point of view and from a decision-making point of view i i suspect we can make that kind of decision that said what george brought up a minute ago saying that you know these things are not you know just because we agree to do the economic development commission for instance um in an mou doesn't mean we can't turn around in six months and decide as a board that we don't want one anymore um or or you um they're not um sort of statutory beings that that are contractually you know created so sort of of two minds i mean does it need to be do does this really need to be part of the overall conversation and the overall decision um that said i don't know that that's that i i totally hear you pat i'm just not sure um i guess we haven't heard from joint housing i think what they ask is best report uh the implication from their final report is they see that work continuing so i guess it's fair to say yes we haven't heard from joint housing but you know my overall question is you know how with with another year in front of us of of untangling consolidation how critical is this decision to the overall scheme of things quickly into that question roge from from my perspective this is very low in terms of how important it is to untangling consolidation and separation so i know the there was a request from from me to the select board about um the ways to move this forward roge i don't disagree with anything you said um i think we need to hear from the select board and whether that's now we're from us from their own subsequent meeting i would just request that we resolve this for our next meeting we'll have a discussion there's nothing else on this and i believe that would take us to the consent i move that the select board approve the consent agenda just jump right to it second thank you tracy any further discussion all those in favor please say aye hi i oppose okay select board approves consent agenda five zero and i'll make a motion that the trustees approve the consent agenda good thank you george thank you dan any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying aye aye anybody oppose aye zero as well and board member comments if we want to say anything we haven't already said i just want to reiterate my appreciation to evan sorry george uh so i just want to reiterate the appreciation for evan teach again this is the last joint meeting appreciate all you have done to get us to where we are where we have been um your leadership has truly been a wonderful addition to our community sorry to see that you're you won't be around i won't be able to see you walking your dog in a in a few months um you will be greatly missed thank you here here thank you evan yeah thank you evan thank you those were my that's what i was going to say and thank you for talking to my mouth thank you for the kind words anybody else nothing i would entertain a motion to adjourn from the trustees second hey dan had the motion brought to the second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying aye aye anybody oppose five zero thank you make a motion at the end of select board adjourn for the evening and thank you evan for your hard work thank you don to have a second a grateful second just a question for the discussion go ahead yeah i just wanted to ask a question whether we wanted to go into executive to talk about our response to the the trustees responses tonight i don't think it was Warren Tracy um well we do have a an executive session for the tentative agreement that's on the agenda that's how the trustees right the trustees went executive earlier i don't really want to but if others do i guess we could i'm not saying i particularly want to i'm just wondering if it would be a we our next our next meeting is uh wednesday next week stirring the school vacations anybody gone i have another question i'm hoping to ask we we didn't ask for public input on any of our discussion single public input question tonight right yeah not to be too particular but i think we do already have a motion and a second on the table and motions to adjourn are non-debatable non-debatable all those in favor please say hi hi hi hi motion passes five zero night folks have a good


Hey guys, welcome back to our channel. My name is Andrea with Food and Mentory Adventures in Food, and I am here today with a Dollar Tree haul. It literally has been years since I've done a Dollar Tree haul on our channel. I went there today to find a few things for my son's Easter basket, and I ended up finding a lot more. So I decided to share it with you all. I don't go there as much as I used to since they went up on their prices to $1.25, but like I said, I found a lot of goodies. I spent $53 and some change, so I will jump right in. Everything that I bought today was $1.25. You know, they also have things that cost $3 and $5, but everything I got was $1.25. So I will start back here. I got these small bottles of water that have really cute little sayings on it for my son. He is four years old, and I also saw this Chipotle Jasmine Rice by Mahatma. I love their products. I've never tried their 90 second microwave rice, especially not in this flavor. So I grabbed two of them, and they don't expire until September. So I thought that was a really good deal. I grabbed some elbow macaroni because it is really hard to find elbow macaroni that doesn't have those ridges in it. I do not like the elbow macaroni with the ridges, so I grabbed a box, and then I also grabbed some oven ready lasagna as well. I love the magazines in the Dollar Tree, especially the cooking magazines. So I saw this one, cast iron cooking for two, and then all time best freezer mills as well. I grabbed a few air fresheners for my car. I saw this lavender sachet, and I love the smell of lavender, so I grabbed that. And then they had the fresh linen, and you get six pieces. And then they also had strawberry and lemonade, and I don't know if these are going to smell good or not, or how strong they'll be, but I just wanted to give them a try. So these are some items that I grabbed for my son's Easter basket. He loves the alphabet and shapes and colors and numbers, and so I thought this was really cool, the Berry Hungry Caterpillar. There is a book series under the same name, so they have the alphabet flashcards, the shapes and colors, and the numbers. He does know all of them already, but he still loves to look at cards and recite things, so I thought this would be really cute for him. I grabbed some foam dice for him. They had different colors. We're trying to teach him addition right now, and so I thought this would be a really easy way for him to see how things add up, so I grabbed that for him. I grabbed these. I thought he would think this is pretty cool. These are dinosaurs, and he's into them right now, and they're supposed to grow once you put them in water, so I thought he would like that. And then they had these Play-Doh play sets, and they had different types, but this one has a roller, and then it also has shapes, and it comes with Play-Doh, and he also has some at home, but I thought he might like that. And then I saw this light projector. Let me show you the box first. I took it out so you all could see it, but it's a light projector. It does use three AAA batteries, and it has different colors. I thought that was pretty cool. He would like to look at that at night, and this is what it looks like. So it's a pretty decent size, and there is the battery holder right there, so I grabbed that. I grabbed these hair clips for myself. I have to drop off my son early in the morning before 7.30 in the carpool lane, and these are really sturdy.  I like them a lot. I like the colors. And then I grabbed some seasonings, which I 100% don't need any seasonings, but they had this salt-free seasoning, which I thought was pretty good. And let me see. Here's what's in there. Garlic, onion, orange peel, black pepper, crushed pepper, et cetera. I grabbed some chopped chives for my scrambled eggs, and then I grabbed this citrus garlic seasoning. Try to show you what's in there right here. So I love seasonings. So grab that, and then I like to have these at home for my son. So when I send them to school, I send a much sturdier water bottle, but I like to have these at home for him. So they had this one, which I thought was pretty cute, says blast off. And then they also had the camouflage version as well. So these are the two boy-type varieties, and they also had two for girls as well. So I got two camouflage and just one blast off. Let's see. Go over here to the cleaning products. I recently discovered Dollar Tree's cleaning products. I have bought this one before, the totally awesome. And I have a spray bottle that I poured into. This stuff is really good. You're supposed to dilute it, but I don't. I use it to clean my showers, any hard to clean areas, and it really works very well. I have not tried this awesome orange before, but I'm sure it's pretty good too. It says degreaser and spot remover. And then I also grabbed this kitchen cleaner. I love having foam soap in my son's bathroom because it makes less of a mess, and this was a pretty good deal. 11.25 ounces for it. And then I like having this oxydol on hand too. I use it to clean my shower stall, like the bottom, the floor, and it works pretty good. I saw this for the first time. It's a cleaning paste, and it's supposed to be, I'm assuming it's similar to the, I think it's called the pink stuff.  So grab that, and then I saw this, which was pretty cute. It's a fruit fly trap. I don't have any fruit flies right now, but it seems with summer and summer fruit, they're always hanging around. And so, I don't know if you all can see, there's a little cone on the inside. You're supposed to put fruit in there, and then it traps a little fruit froth. Fruit flies in there. I thought that was pretty cool. And then if I just need to do a quick mop or quick clean, then I love having my little Swiffer on hand, but I needed some more of the wet refills. And this says that it's similar to the Swiffer wet. So we'll see you get 10 of them in there. And then these are two and a half gallon, I saw it somewhere, two and a half gallon bags, storage bags. So I got these for Harrison's toy pieces that are everywhere just to try to get them all in one spot from all his different games or puzzles, whatever it may be. So I like having that on hand or those on hand. And then this is a garden kneeling pad. So my small group at church is doing a service project. We are going to a food donation farm. We're going to be harvesting vegetables. So we're supposed to bring garden gloves, but I decided to bring a kneeling pad too, in case we're doing a lot of kneeling and pooling and planting and so forth. So I grabbed that. And then I was very excited to see these air fryer liners. And these are pretty deep. You get 20 of them. So this size is six inches. And this size right here is 7.9 inches. So you get 15 of the larger ones and 20 of the smaller ones. So this is everything that I picked up on my Dollar Tree haul. Oh, let me show you this paste. So here is what that paste looks like, that pink paste. So I just wanted you all to see what it looks like because I know I like to see stuff like that too. But anyway, this is everything that I picked up on my Dollar Tree haul. I hope you all enjoyed it. If you did, please make sure to give us a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed to our channel, we'd certainly love to have you. Thanks so much for watching, and we'll see you all next time.