How did people come to the conclusion that these companies had the agreement to reduce wages?
It seems like they had this agreement - only because they hated their employees being poached on.
It's not price fixing.
It's self preservation.
Sure it had a side effect of keeping wages low - but that was not their goal. None of them are short on money.
I'm not saying what they did was right - but lets not frame it in a context that makes it look like they did this to not let employees have more money.
When in reality - they did it to stop others from stealing their employees.
You can't "steal" employees. They're people, not property. They have agency. These agreements exist solely to limit the opportunities of the people who work for these companies. At the bare minimum they should have been public, so people who decided to take a job at one of the companies knew they'd be restricted in their ability to find work elsewhere.
You say 'reducing wages' as though it's a side effect, but in reality it and preventing poaching are one and the same. If companies wanted to keep their emploeyees from being poached, they could pay them more and offer them better conditions. They could have conversations with employees about what it would take to keep them with the company. By having anti-poaching agreements, they avoid having to do that.
Email from Schmidt asking his people at Google to stop poaching: "Google is the talk of the valley because we are driving up salaries across the board."
It seems like they had this agreement - only because they hated their employees being poached on.
It's not price fixing.
It's self preservation.
Sure it had a side effect of keeping wages low - but that was not their goal. None of them are short on money.
I'm not saying what they did was right - but lets not frame it in a context that makes it look like they did this to not let employees have more money.
When in reality - they did it to stop others from stealing their employees.