|
They also return to the investors, founders, and whatnot, less than the value they produce, too.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:35 |
|
sarehu posted:They also return to the investors, founders, and whatnot, less than the value they produce, too. I guess if you consider shareholders or investors producers, then sure. But for the rest of us with a brain, not really. The people who make capital investments are again, almost by definition, attempting to return something GREATER than the investment put in. That's why they call it an investment, hth
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I guess if you consider shareholders or investors producers, then sure. But for the rest of us with a brain, not really. The people who make capital investments are again, almost by definition, attempting to return something GREATER than the investment put in. That's why they call it an investment, hth
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:21
|
|
Misogynist posted:This is true for non-scalable commodities, like car tires produced by laborers in a factory. The idea doesn't make any sense at all with products that have scalable monetization, like software, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny in even the most basic other cases. Steps in the value chain aren't additive. How does it not make sense? Do you think most tech VCs aren't trying to return more than their original investment? That's pretty much what VC is. It has nothing to do with steps in the value chain being additive (which I said nothing about might I add) Capital investment is about returns. It's right there in the name. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:How does it not make sense? Do you think most tech VCs aren't trying to return more than their original investment? That's pretty much what VC is. This discussion is getting kind of LF though, so I'm gonna leave this point alone. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:31
|
|
Misogynist posted:I was referring to your original point about companies making money by paying employees less than the value they produce. This idea requires a reductionist mindset in which the value of labor within an organization is strictly additive (an organization or a product is solely the sum of its constituent parts), and there's no inherent worth in managing the value chain to produce multiplicative results. In other words: to buy this, you have to outright reject the idea that the product is worth more than the sum of its parts. The bottom line is that labor is a line item and at the end of the day, if you're not a shareholder, you are a cost. I'm not saying good management doesn't matter or that entrepreneurship isn't valuable, on the contrary, I think that's why those parties usually hold some amount of equity in the company (I'd hope). Companies make money by selling their product for more than it costs. I'm not trying to go into LF territory, I was really speaking to employees as a whole as opposed to an individual. down with slavery posted:He's right, companies make money by paying their employees less than the value they produce. Maybe not on an individual level, but certainly as a whole.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
That companies value the marginal dollar less than their employees' labor is news to nobody -- the same is true for every factor of production. The value of your product has to be greater than what customers are paying for it, from the customer's perspective, and vice versa. This is how trade works.Misogynist posted:The disputed premise is true for non-scalable commodities, like car tires produced by laborers in a factory. Not true there, either. It is fallacious to say that an employee provides "X" value and thus the company pays X - Y where Y is the profit for that employee. What you could say meaningfully about an individual employee is the marginal value that they add -- the difference in production if you removed that one employee. But companies do not make money by the formula, "We pay each employee more than their marginal value, thus we make profit." The math doesn't work that way, and you can see this from a few scenarios. For example, suppose superheroes exist, and you have a city with no superheroes. Adding one superhero will decrease property damage from vandalism, theft, etc, by $1 million a year. You might expect this superhero to get paid a really high salary, such as $900000, or $500000, depending on how well it can negotiate -- are there other superheroes willing to work for less? But suppose there's two superheros willing to work, and the property damage decreased with their combined labors would be $1.1 million. Suddenly, you might see each superhero paid only $100000. The reason is, if either of them walk off the job, the other one will still be willing to work. They're no good at mundane jobs, being superheros, so they have no other options, and the city's at most willing to pay $100000 for the marginal superhero. Maybe they could unionize and get paid more, but superheros aren't good at working together. Here, the marginal value of a superhero is $100K but the total value them is greater than the sum of their marginal values! But another scenario is where crime can only be stopped by a coven of witches. It takes 7 witches to make a coven, and then they can do a spell which cuts property damage by $1 million. Here, if you've got 7 witches, the marginal value of any witch is $1 million. But the total value of all 7 witches is much less than the sum of each witch's marginal value. But suppose earth-type witches are extremely rare, while fire-type witches are pretty common. The earth-type witch could negotiate a better salary. It is the same in the "real world." So it is utterly ridiculous to talk about the "value produced" by a single employee, even if you choose to privilege the company's perspective of what the labor is worth. The notion does not exist. Your marginal value and how well you can capitalize on that in your negotiations depends on how much your situation resembles a superhero or witch situation, and whether there's a ready supply of replacement labor for your position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
We're getting a bit off track. My original point was that you should be suspicious if your company or any you're interviewing at balks at the notion of work/life balance because it's part of a greater push to try to wring more labor out of employees. I love being able to leave at 5:15 every day. You would too if you worked at a company that valued work/life balance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
1) "You come in at 8.30h sharp and everyone hits the shutdown button at 16:59h." work/life balance: static 2) "You come in when you want, leave whenever you need to run errands or pick up your kids or whatever, but are often busy till 19h or later." work/life balance: dynamic 3) "We need you to stay in late to get this release out the door but this weekend someone's going to schedule a meeting at 9.30h on Monday and we're going to raise hell if you don't show up in time." work/life balance: lol One of these, while not being bad in itself, has an easier slippery slope to (3). I'll let you guess which one. That doesn't preclude management & peer pressure from loving up (1) as well by shifting 16:59h to 18:29h, but it'll be obvious from the first working day. In any case, if a company balks at the idea of work/life balance or requires keywords such as work/life "integration" these are simply not good signs. Whether you're willing to deal with this depends on your personal situation and what $ they offer in return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I mean, publically traded corporations are by law working for the shareholders, not the employees or anyone else. I recall reading that this is not actually true, which is believable because I recall a time when "it's the law!" was not the excuse trotted out for a company screwing its employees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Believe it or not, there are companies who do not subscribe to the notion that they exist solely to create profit. And as it happens, those companies tend to make more money than those who see profit as the ends rather than a means to fulfill a mission/vision. There's a fair bit of scholarship in this area. Some good books to check out that may help you break out of this pseudo-capitalist cynicism/paranoia and better distinguish between the companies you would and wouldn't want to work for: Conscious Capitalism by John Mackey and Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinak. But I imagine the whole 'us vs. them' class warfare mentality is a lot more popular these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:But I imagine the whole 'us vs. them' class warfare mentality is a lot more popular these days. Yeah, it's not that a bunch of people have been screwed over and expected to work more hours for no pay or any other form of compensation. It's about being the 99%, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:Believe it or not, there are companies who do not subscribe to the notion that they exist solely to create profit. And as it happens, those companies tend to make more money than those who see profit as the ends rather than a means to fulfill a mission/vision. There's a fair bit of scholarship in this area. Some good books to check out that may help you break out of this pseudo-capitalist cynicism/paranoia and better distinguish between the companies you would and wouldn't want to work for: Conscious Capitalism by John Mackey and Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinak. lol you can't be serious
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:lol you can't be serious Why not? I actually have peer-reviewed data supporting my argument. You have anecdotal evidence. Seems that at the very least it's worth considering what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Those peer reviewers were, what, people in the social sciences? That's not exactly reality-based thinking going on there. You're arguing against a strawman of cackling evil anyway. Any non-cackling evil company also wants to minimize its costs too, and behavior between the two is not easily differentiated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:Why not? I actually have peer-reviewed data supporting my argument. You have anecdotal evidence. Seems that at the very least it's worth considering what I'm saying. I feel like I'm arguing against someone who can't fathom the idea that companies actively try to make money. Given a chance, all companies will gladly reduce labor costs because it's easier than trying to find new revenue. If that means dumping more responsibility on people and not paying them for it, or requiring employees to work during their vacations any company would absolutely jump on that train.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:24
|
|
Mniot posted:I recall reading that this is not actually true, which is believable because I recall a time when "it's the law!" was not the excuse trotted out for a company screwing its employees. This is actually pretty interesting, although he does mention that it's basically institutionalized in our society at this point. Either way, I'd still stand by the statement that if you're not getting equity (there are a lot of ways to do this) you're getting screwed. Didn't really mean to get into a conversation about companies as a whole, just to point out that it's way better to be a shareholder than it is an employee if you want to share in the success of a company.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Those peer reviewers were, what, people in the social sciences? That's not exactly reality-based thinking going on there. Well, dismissing social sciences right off the bat doesn't strike me as particularly reality-based, but that's your opinion. Obviously we're talking about social science here since Physicist and Chemists don't have a lot of interest in conducting experiments on corporate attitudes and economics. And I disagree with the assertion that I'm arguing against a 'strawman'. People are actively stating that companies are out to screw you and that you're an idiot if you're not suspicious of all management decisions. Anyway, sorry I brought it up. gently caress the man and all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
It's not even "gently caress the man." Companies want to pay you the minimum amount possible to keep you there. That's a point of fact. Arguing against it is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:It's not even "gently caress the man." Companies want to pay you the minimum amount possible to keep you there. That's a point of fact. Arguing against it is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist. Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
"Every company will fire you the minute they find someone who will work for a dollar less" is about as realistic as the management canard that every employee will goldbrick all day every day unless watched like a hawk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:It's not even "gently caress the man." Companies want to pay you the minimum amount possible to keep you there. That's a point of fact. Arguing against it is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist. Even taking this as true, that allows for a huge amount of diversity in how companies approach this. Some companies will try to pay you the minimum amount possible and expect constant turnover/churn. These are typically lovely companies with lovely products made by people who didn't give a poo poo about the work they were doing. You also you have companies that will pay you well above market value so that they have enough of a 'buffer' that you're not constantly looking for a better opportunity and will actually care about the work you're doing. My point is that not all companies are the same and that companies that focus more on their mission and creating cool products/services, tend to have better employees and make more money than companies that are wholly profit-driven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
I think we're talking past each other. All I'm saying is that it's a slippery slope when you start talking about work/life balance and any company that starts talking about "work/life integration" instead probably wants you to do more work for the same amount of compensation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:I think we're talking past each other. Okay, I can agree with that. I wouldn't work for anyone that saw me caring about work/life balance as a negative. That said, I also don't work in an area where there are fires to put out and being 'on call' would ever be justified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:It's not even "gently caress the man." Companies want to pay you the minimum amount possible to keep you there. That's a point of fact. Arguing against it is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist. Companies seek to create value, not make money. Capitalist markets usually measure value in terms of money. It's a subtle distinction that many miss out on, but an important one. Optimizing for money can destroy value when taken to a literal extreme, i.e. screwing people over pay or hiring and firing in the search for lower salaries. One of my past companies got away with paying people poo poo and when they lost talent, they ended up with a hole they couldn't fill without a significantly higher base salary + spin-up/training time. They're still trying to get back some of the people who left because they failed to determine the appropriate value of retaining their employees. Your framing inevitably results into making a classic mistake that fuels the Innovator's Dilemma. Reducing costs might increase revenues, but it frequently decreases long-term value by starving investment in innovations that might undercut the core business. See: hard drive companies over the past half century, or look up the book (appropriately called The Innovator's Dilemma). With that said, yeah, many companies don't see things that way, and do exploit their workers. They are to be avoided, or exploited in return until the relationship is no longer worth sustaining (i.e. be a contractor and make bank off the fuckers then peace out when they make work not worth the money they're paying you).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Companies seek to create value, not make money. I think there's a few individuals out there with intrinsic motivations to create value, but I'd still argue that, for many/most companies and investors, the end goal is "making money", and "creating value" is the means to that end. If your CEO and board aren't cutting corners and stiffing their workers, that doesn't necessarily mean they're good people. They might just be ruthless motherfuckers with a longer time-horizon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:I feel like I'm arguing against someone who can't fathom the idea that companies actively try to make money. It would be totally cool to work for a profit-oriented company that was actually trying to make money and cut costs and fire ineffective people and the like. It's unclear what the upper level management in my company does aside from play golf and fire a couple of people now and again when they work on projects that fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:It would be totally cool to work for a profit-oriented company that was actually trying to make money and cut costs and fire ineffective people and the like. It's unclear what the upper level management in my company does aside from play golf and fire a couple of people now and again when they work on projects that fail. Well of course, what's best for the company isn't always what's best for the middle manager making these decisions 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:Why not? I actually have peer-reviewed data supporting my argument. You have anecdotal evidence. Seems that at the very least it's worth considering what I'm saying. I've seen some other studies about this that seemed reasonable. The basic idea is that companies that put the profit motive first tend to achieve local maxima, but companies that put things like product quality (Apple) or employee well-being (Google) first tend to move past states that are locally inefficient but lead to greater heights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Either way, I'd still stand by the statement that if you're not getting equity (there are a lot of ways to do this) you're getting screwed. I work in an industry where pretty much noone gets an equity stake, and have no idea exactly how equity stakes work in the world of startups. Is there some good article out there explaining it, for example, how much equity developers really get at various stages of funding, how people negotiate this when they are looking for a new job, how it varies by developer position, and what these shares tend to be worth in the long run? I've long been thinking about leaving my industry for one of the tons of startups since I'm lucky enough to live in a tech hub, but know absolutely nothing about how compensation works on that side of the fence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Articles pop up on HN every so often proposing various different ways to value startup equity, you can use their search to find a few. Most of them are just applications of expected value with a tweak to account for dilution [e: and maybe vesting and the chance of getting hosed or handcuffed thereby], and they all spit out numbers much higher than typical equity stakes actually given to engineers, implying that equity compensation in lieu of salary is typically a bad deal for the employee. The mode of the random variable representing the value of your equity is zero at any startup that is still a startup anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
As a general rule, if equity in a company has any actual value when you join, you're too late to get any meaningful amount of it. If you're an employee (as opposed to a cofounder), you should demand market-rate salary and view the equity as just a potential bonus if you do succeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Dear recruiter: I didn't respond to you when you emailed me at work the first, second, or third time. I am baffled as to why you think emailing me at work a fourth time will result in a different outcome, and why you think it's a good idea to hire the sort of person who thinks it's a good idea to use work email to correspond about leaving their job. Does emailing people at work actually generate actionable leads and responses? Is it the same thing as selling dick pills via spam, that you'll annoy 99.99% of people and they'll trash your message, but the .01% of idiots that respond will make it all worth the trouble?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Dear recruiter: I didn't respond to you when you emailed me at work the first, second, or third time. I am baffled as to why you think emailing me at work a fourth time will result in a different outcome, and why you think it's a good idea to hire the sort of person who thinks it's a good idea to use work email to correspond about leaving their job. Wouldn't surprise me if the recruiter himself wasn't even part of the decision-making process. Automatic keyword matching puts your resume together with job postings, generates a form letter, slaps your email on there, and the recruiter pushes the Go button, maybe after looking it over for 10 seconds (but maybe not). Thinking about appropriate email addresses probably doesn't enter into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Dear recruiter: I didn't respond to you when you emailed me at work the first, second, or third time. I am baffled as to why you think emailing me at work a fourth time will result in a different outcome, and why you think it's a good idea to hire the sort of person who thinks it's a good idea to use work email to correspond about leaving their job. I just told them I'd add them to the blacklist my circle of friends maintain if they kept trying, which was enough to get several off my back. Also, the number of people some recruiters need to successfully place to earn a living is in the low double digits, so if they take a shotgun approach really aggressively, they can probably get away with not being intelligent or tasteful. Also, I stopped updating my linkedin, got rid of my resume and website, and boom, fell off the radar like I wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
I noticed a job posting recently from a recruiter for my company. The salary range was about 20k higher than I currently make. Annual reviews are wrapping up pretty soon and I doubt they'll just bump me up there. It's a pleasant place to work, but I don't want to get dicked around either. Have you guys had any luck in this area? Is it better to be a straight shooter and say you're going to be looking for a new job, or drop more subtle hints? I've been at this place for over five years, and I'm usually the go to guy for most things, so a solid reputation. I also know they have trouble finding talent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
geetee posted:I noticed a job posting recently from a recruiter for my company. The salary range was about 20k higher than I currently make. Annual reviews are wrapping up pretty soon and I doubt they'll just bump me up there. It's a pleasant place to work, but I don't want to get dicked around either. Have you guys had any luck in this area? Is it better to be a straight shooter and say you're going to be looking for a new job, or drop more subtle hints? I've been at this place for over five years, and I'm usually the go to guy for most things, so a solid reputation. I also know they have trouble finding talent. My approach would probably be something like: "Hey boss, I noticed that the salary range for $POSITION is substantially higher than my yearly salary. I like working here, but I'd like to be paid what I'm worth. I add a lot of value here and I understand our systems very well. Sometimes these things can fall through the cracks over time, but I think I've done a lot for $COMPANY in the past 5 years, and it's really important to me that my compensation matches my value to the company. Do you think you could talk to someone about getting this resolved, please?" It's better to be honest IMO, since if you're lying you should leave anyhow. And in any case, even if you do leave, you should get the raise so wherever you go next you have a higher salary number to quote if you don't successfully manage to not give that number before getting an offer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:And in any case, even if you do leave, you should get the raise so wherever you go next you have a higher salary number to quote if you don't successfully manage to not give that number before getting an offer. There's no reason to ever give this number. Some places will refuse to move forward without it, at which time you should either tell them to gently caress off or state a number that corresponds to your desired salary, not your previous one. Your previous salary is irrelevant to your new job. Full stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:There's no reason to ever give this number. Some places will refuse to move forward without it, at which time you should either tell them to gently caress off or state a number that corresponds to your desired salary, not your previous one. *shrug* I don't take such a hardline stance and don't expect others to. I do resist giving a salary, but if push comes to shove, how much I want to work there affects how much I care about giving the number.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Thanks for the advice. You put it in a way that comes across as serious but also nonthreatening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:29
|
|