| ▲ | PittleyDunkin 3 days ago |
| > there will be other firms willing to pay more and attract that talent. ...marginally more. Still nowhere near the actual value their labor brings in. We simply don't have a competitive enough employer market to provide the upward wage pressure that would be sufficient to pay people fairly. |
|
| ▲ | nox101 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you think you're not getting paid enough you should quit and start your own company. The fact that google/apple/amazon make 5-10x per employee is not proof that you're underpaid. The chef at French Laundry makes $$$$$$$, does that mean the apple farmer who supplied the apples for $ is underpaid? |
| |
| ▲ | PittleyDunkin 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you think you're not getting paid enough you should quit and start your own company. I'd rather eat a bullet, thanks. I have dignity and I'd like to keep it. > The fact that google/apple/amazon make 5-10x per employee is not proof that you're underpaid. That's exactly what it means. > The chef at French Laundry makes $$$$$$$, does that mean the apple farmer who supplied the apples for $ is underpaid? The chef is paid for their labor. Shareholders contribute nothing to society. | | |
| ▲ | xyzzy4747 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The original shareholders created the company. Without them there wouldn't be jobs. The newer shareholders provided liquidity to the original shareholders. Their benefit to society was helping to incentivize the people who created the company (and all the jobs) by making them rich. | | |
| ▲ | PittleyDunkin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > The original shareholders created the company. Without them there wouldn't be jobs. For a nation with so many smart people we sure pretend to be dumb. | | |
| ▲ | xyzzy4747 a day ago | parent [-] | | What do you mean exactly? Literally every job that exists in the private sector is created by a company, and companies are created by shareholders. |
|
| |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I have dignity and I'd like to keep it. it's not about dignity, it's about history. That's why those FAANGs offered crazy salaries before tapering off some 5 years ago. The last thing they wanted was for the true 10x'ers to become tomorrow's competition, or for others to work for such 10x'ers. Because if such an engineer could make a 10m/yr business vs being hired for 100k, many would take that business opportunity. >Shareholders contribute nothing to society. they contribute money, and that's all that matters. quality, long term profitability, and worker dignity be damned. |
| |
| ▲ | achierius 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you not see how there's a massive barrier to doing that? That's exactly why there's not enough of a competitive labor market. And at that point, they're not doing their job anymore: they're doing the CEO's. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >Can you not see how there's a massive barrier to doing that yeah, business is hard. FAANG paying a very cushy salary is relatively easier. The ambitious would still consider such a choice tho, and those are the ones they want to keep in their own company instead of as a future competitor. They literally paid off a competitive labor market. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ip26 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The actual value is complex. The only reason an engineer’s presence at the company generates $X in revenue is because the company already has sales, marketing, finance, legal, and all the other necessary functions covered. On their own, that engineer’s output is worth less. So a light switch test does not tell the whole story. The surplus from the combined output is deserved by everyone whose input is required for those $X, not just the engineer. In different terms, maybe you leaving costs the company $X. But if product engineer Joe Bob left first, maybe you leaving suddenly only costs the company $Y, where $X > $Y. Are you really worth $X? |
