3 ms·

growing revenue is not just important, it's the reason for existence of every business! getting everybody to drink the kool-aid all the way to the bursting bub

growing revenue is not just important, it's the reason for existence of every business! getting everybody to drink the kool-aid all the way to the bursting bubble isn't that appealing outside of the silicon valley cloud. you might as well work for IBM if you want to follow platitudes from disengaged senior management. at least they prioritize making money over 'changing the world'

lazaroclapp 11y ago
On the other hand, why would anyone dedicate most of their waking hours to something which has making money as its sole objective and output? I mean, if you wanted to do that, there is the algorithmic trading world. For that matter, joining an early startup at any point beyond employee #10 has a expected return that is way lower than being an employee at a major company. So why would anyone do that in an efficient labor market? You can quite easily argue that growing revenue is not the reason for existence of say Nike. The reason for it's existence, as far as society is concerned, is making shoes. That they make money from it is the incentive and society's way of indicating that what they do is valuable to society. The whole "creating value" thing, in economist terms. For some people it really is true that money is to companies as rocket fuel is to rocket ships. Doesn't mean you need to join a cult or "convert" to the founder's "vision" of what the company will/should be. Just be "ok, I like working on this problem, I think it has future and they are paying me for it this much, let me balance it against the my level of interest and potential financial reward from all this other projects that interest me. Also, let's account for how much overtime and weird commitments my boss demands and which benefits I get in practice (e.g. real vacation time vs 'theoretical' vacation days)".
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "On the other hand, why would anyone dedicate most of their waking hours to something which has making money as its sole objective and output?" Because they're being paid a significant portion of that money? "You can quite easily argue that growing revenue is not the reason for existence of say Nike." I really don't think you can. Otherwise they wouldn't be charging as much as they do for what they sell, and wouldn't be spending so much on athlete endorsements.

lazaroclapp 11y ago

On the other hand, why would anyone dedicate most of their waking hours to something which has making money as its sole objective and output? I mean, if you wanted to do that, there is the algorithmic trading world. For that matter, joining an early startup at any point beyond employee #10 has a expected return that is way lower than being an employee at a major company. So why would anyone do that in an efficient labor market? You can quite easily argue that growing revenue is not the reason for existence of say Nike. The reason for it's existence, as far as society is concerned, is making shoes. That they make money from it is the incentive and society's way of indicating that what they do is valuable to society. The whole "creating value" thing, in economist terms. For some people it really is true that money is to companies as rocket fuel is to rocket ships. Doesn't mean you need to join a cult or "convert" to the founder's "vision" of what the company will/should be. Just be "ok, I like working on this problem, I think it has future and they are paying me for it this much, let me balance it against the my level of interest and potential financial reward from all this other projects that interest me. Also, let's account for how much overtime and weird commitments my boss demands and which benefits I get in practice (e.g. real vacation time vs 'theoretical' vacation days)".

s73v3r 11y ago
"On the other hand, why would anyone dedicate most of their waking hours to something which has making money as its sole objective and output?" Because they're being paid a significant portion of that money? "You can quite easily argue that growing revenue is not the reason for existence of say Nike." I really don't think you can. Otherwise they wouldn't be charging as much as they do for what they sell, and wouldn't be spending so much on athlete endorsements.