8 ms·

This quote strikes me most: "Here I am walking around making $1 million a year, and I'm working shoulder to shoulder with people in her situation who are every

by yaps8 11y ago

This quote strikes me most: "Here I am walking around making $1 million a year, and I'm working shoulder to shoulder with people in her situation who are every bit as good and valuable as I am." I wish more people would realize that those earning less than themselves are not necessarily less deserving but merely less valuable in a marketed job force.

yitchelle 11y ago
I had a similar conversation with my wife the other day. Before the kids, she was an elderly care attendant, providing care for the elderly folks who are in their sunset years of their lives, and I worked in tech. Although my salary is not high, it is still about 5x of hers. I feel rather embarrass during my discussion as I feel that she is contributing a lot more to people lives than I am, the essential services. The stuff that I make would not make much difference in everyday life if it did not exists. She is much more valuable to society than I am. edit: grammar
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I hesitate to disagree. But ... the value of services can be easily calculated because they are so visible. Every interaction has an emotional link, and we count that highly. The value to 'society' of improving a toaster by a small percentage, or the hits to a website by a larger one, are hard to calculate except by a bottom line. Any emotional impact is so indirect as to be invisible. Still exist; but we don't see them so can't count them. Add to this: one-on-one services are limited by the time and attention one person can put into them - two hands, one heart, 24 hours in a day. Absolutely no leverage at all, in the economic sense. Exceeding that (admittedly large and important) impact happens at some point in less-direct exchanges (economic, technological) and can go up from there geometrically. So I console myself, as a technician, that what I do affects those unseen people. And if successful, it affects millions, not just tens. It adds up to something important too.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- lujim 11y ago
  I wouldn't feel too guilty about "value". In a world of finite resources with alternative uses, your value (how much you are paid) is often your share of how much revenue you help generate. Value (pay) and value (worth) are not the same thing. Why does a pro athlete make 10 mil and a 3rd grade teacher make 30k? Because more tangible revenue is generated by a single pro athlete than a single 3rd grade teacher in a given year. It sucks, but hating it or feeling guilty about it doesn't change it.
  - existencebox 11y ago
    That may have a component to unequal pay, but I think trying to paint it as the whole picture (or even the major part) isn't quite fair. I'd argue the huge pay differentials are often because humans are TERRIBLE at judging long term... anything. A pro athlete can fill a stadium at some $$ per seat, yes. If a pro athlete stops playing, what happens? the stadium stops filling as much, we potentially lose some ancillary jobs from decreased viewing population (but given the number of sports stars and the nature of teams, losing one outside of a very few likely won't cause much), but in the long term, what is the cost? Now let's remove an equal number of teachers as could be paid with that single salary. Even if this is a low end athlete, given teacher pay, you're losing dozen/few dozen teachers. What is the long term cost to students who can no longer be educated, or get a much poorer education (or simply now have far bigger classes)? I realize there are many holes in this argument as it asserts a lot about how money is distrbuted/what externalities exist, but I see it as one facet. There are also the more well explored aspects of "we like to lionize celebrity/success" and "teachers don't have much political or social clout given their resources/our prioritization in society" (although this links back to my prior statements about long term value and society preferences.) In summary, I think there's plenty of reason to hate/feel guilt about it, and work to change it. Yes, the feelings alone do nothing, but if no one is getting angry then certainly nothing will ever change.
    - lujim 11y ago
      I 100% agree. People are terrible at judging long term non tangible value. That's mainly because it's hard to quantify on a balance sheet. That's why I put the 1 pro athlete vs 1 teacher for 1 year stipulation on it.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > She is much more valuable to society than I am. Perhaps, but a natural effect of the way that capitalist economies work is that contributions aren't valued by social utility in a fair sense, but by utility weighted by the wealth of the people to whom that utility is provided.
- shalmanese 11y ago
  Yeah, but this is just the classic Diamond-Water Paradox in Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value). Value isn't assigned based on essentiality, it's based on the intersection of supply and demand.
ams6110 11y ago
Except those other people are not risking their assets to create that employment opportunity. Most entreprenurial undertakings fail. The high reward for the ones that succeed is the carrot that entices people to take those risks and create the opportunity for a lot of other people to earn a more modest reward but for far less personal risk.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  I'm a little sceptic about that narrative. It's very common but do we have any proof? Surely, personal circumstances are very important if you are going to try to start a business. There is psychological circumstances like: did you grow up in a family or an environment where the idea of start a business was present? And more practical like: Do you have technical abilities that you can sell if your project fail? Do you or your parents, wife, etc. have money that will stop your fall if the project goes wrong? Was really Bezos or Gates or Page really "taking a risk"? And I mean a real risk. Anyway, even if we, as a society, want to reward the "job creators", we probably don't want to live in winner take all world.
  - lujim 11y ago
    Half of all small business fail in the first 3 to 5 years. Imagine taking a job where you had to pay for your office, office supplies, computer, and every thing else out of pocket. And oh yeah, half the people are fired within 3 to 5 years without being reimbursed for their expenses. While some people have more resources or come from a more privileged background that is a social discussion. It's still pretty risky in terms of cash, assets, and time no matter who you are.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      >Half of all small business fail in the first 3 to 5 years. I'm curious about that statistic. A lot of these business could be hobby or other casual enterprises, tax avoidance schemes, and doomed businesses started by naive people. It doesn't mean a whole lot without some more context. >Imagine taking a job where you had to pay for your office, office supplies, computer, and every thing else out of pocket. Become a teacher! >...that is a social discussion. Social factors aren't irrelevant. People behave differently based upon socio-economic incentives. Not just entrepreneurs, either; take two engineers, one comes from a family with "fuck you" money, the other is a first generation college graduate. They both have started their own families and have young children at home. Now, imagine how their reactions might differ when placed in various ethical dilemmas.
lujim 11y ago
I think what he is doing is pretty cool. Remember however that although he may be working with people every bit as smart and productive as he is, starting a business is massively risky. I believe in 3-5 years it amounts to a coin flip. He is earning a risk premium. If you buy a risk free US Treasury Bond you expect to earn (much) less yield than the dividends on a share of Exxon or Apple. He is an entrepreneur/founder. He isn't just a company hopping CEO with soft landings and golden parachutes galore. I think an entrepreneur deserves a solid risk premium.
- yaps8 11y ago
  I don't know how this company works financially but would it be possible that he is not risking much ? They might be in a position where they don't have too much debt or it would not be tied to him and not put him in a difficult situation if it failed. The bottom line might be that the risky part of founding the company is over.
  - lujim 11y ago
    That could very well be. That article does mention that he was nearly wiped out by the great recession in 2008. At one point he was putting it all on the line and the risk was very real. I think you are probably right in saying that the risk premium may change over time. I guess I don't know how much that reward should be and how long it should pay off for. When comparing stocks and bonds you use the risk free interest rate and take a stocks volatility compared to the broad market into account. Maybe the volatility of the business should be a consideration.
caseysoftware 11y ago
I wish people would stop conflating salary and "goodness" or worth. There are great and horrible human beings who make lots of money. There are great and horrible human beings just scraping by. Income and goodness are orthogonal.

by yaps8 11y ago

yitchelle 11y ago

I had a similar conversation with my wife the other day. Before the kids, she was an elderly care attendant, providing care for the elderly folks who are in their sunset years of their lives, and I worked in tech. Although my salary is not high, it is still about 5x of hers. I feel rather embarrass during my discussion as I feel that she is contributing a lot more to people lives than I am, the essential services. The stuff that I make would not make much difference in everyday life if it did not exists. She is much more valuable to society than I am. edit: grammar

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I hesitate to disagree. But ... the value of services can be easily calculated because they are so visible. Every interaction has an emotional link, and we count that highly. The value to 'society' of improving a toaster by a small percentage, or the hits to a website by a larger one, are hard to calculate except by a bottom line. Any emotional impact is so indirect as to be invisible. Still exist; but we don't see them so can't count them. Add to this: one-on-one services are limited by the time and attention one person can put into them - two hands, one heart, 24 hours in a day. Absolutely no leverage at all, in the economic sense. Exceeding that (admittedly large and important) impact happens at some point in less-direct exchanges (economic, technological) and can go up from there geometrically. So I console myself, as a technician, that what I do affects those unseen people. And if successful, it affects millions, not just tens. It adds up to something important too.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lujim 11y ago
I wouldn't feel too guilty about "value". In a world of finite resources with alternative uses, your value (how much you are paid) is often your share of how much revenue you help generate. Value (pay) and value (worth) are not the same thing. Why does a pro athlete make 10 mil and a 3rd grade teacher make 30k? Because more tangible revenue is generated by a single pro athlete than a single 3rd grade teacher in a given year. It sucks, but hating it or feeling guilty about it doesn't change it.
- existencebox 11y ago
  That may have a component to unequal pay, but I think trying to paint it as the whole picture (or even the major part) isn't quite fair. I'd argue the huge pay differentials are often because humans are TERRIBLE at judging long term... anything. A pro athlete can fill a stadium at some $$ per seat, yes. If a pro athlete stops playing, what happens? the stadium stops filling as much, we potentially lose some ancillary jobs from decreased viewing population (but given the number of sports stars and the nature of teams, losing one outside of a very few likely won't cause much), but in the long term, what is the cost? Now let's remove an equal number of teachers as could be paid with that single salary. Even if this is a low end athlete, given teacher pay, you're losing dozen/few dozen teachers. What is the long term cost to students who can no longer be educated, or get a much poorer education (or simply now have far bigger classes)? I realize there are many holes in this argument as it asserts a lot about how money is distrbuted/what externalities exist, but I see it as one facet. There are also the more well explored aspects of "we like to lionize celebrity/success" and "teachers don't have much political or social clout given their resources/our prioritization in society" (although this links back to my prior statements about long term value and society preferences.) In summary, I think there's plenty of reason to hate/feel guilt about it, and work to change it. Yes, the feelings alone do nothing, but if no one is getting angry then certainly nothing will ever change.
  - lujim 11y ago
    I 100% agree. People are terrible at judging long term non tangible value. That's mainly because it's hard to quantify on a balance sheet. That's why I put the 1 pro athlete vs 1 teacher for 1 year stipulation on it.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> She is much more valuable to society than I am. Perhaps, but a natural effect of the way that capitalist economies work is that contributions aren't valued by social utility in a fair sense, but by utility weighted by the wealth of the people to whom that utility is provided.
shalmanese 11y ago
Yeah, but this is just the classic Diamond-Water Paradox in Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value). Value isn't assigned based on essentiality, it's based on the intersection of supply and demand.

ams6110 11y ago

Except those other people are not risking their assets to create that employment opportunity. Most entreprenurial undertakings fail. The high reward for the ones that succeed is the carrot that entices people to take those risks and create the opportunity for a lot of other people to earn a more modest reward but for far less personal risk.

RobertoG 11y ago
I'm a little sceptic about that narrative. It's very common but do we have any proof? Surely, personal circumstances are very important if you are going to try to start a business. There is psychological circumstances like: did you grow up in a family or an environment where the idea of start a business was present? And more practical like: Do you have technical abilities that you can sell if your project fail? Do you or your parents, wife, etc. have money that will stop your fall if the project goes wrong? Was really Bezos or Gates or Page really "taking a risk"? And I mean a real risk. Anyway, even if we, as a society, want to reward the "job creators", we probably don't want to live in winner take all world.
- lujim 11y ago
  Half of all small business fail in the first 3 to 5 years. Imagine taking a job where you had to pay for your office, office supplies, computer, and every thing else out of pocket. And oh yeah, half the people are fired within 3 to 5 years without being reimbursed for their expenses. While some people have more resources or come from a more privileged background that is a social discussion. It's still pretty risky in terms of cash, assets, and time no matter who you are.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >Half of all small business fail in the first 3 to 5 years. I'm curious about that statistic. A lot of these business could be hobby or other casual enterprises, tax avoidance schemes, and doomed businesses started by naive people. It doesn't mean a whole lot without some more context. >Imagine taking a job where you had to pay for your office, office supplies, computer, and every thing else out of pocket. Become a teacher! >...that is a social discussion. Social factors aren't irrelevant. People behave differently based upon socio-economic incentives. Not just entrepreneurs, either; take two engineers, one comes from a family with "fuck you" money, the other is a first generation college graduate. They both have started their own families and have young children at home. Now, imagine how their reactions might differ when placed in various ethical dilemmas.

lujim 11y ago

I think what he is doing is pretty cool. Remember however that although he may be working with people every bit as smart and productive as he is, starting a business is massively risky. I believe in 3-5 years it amounts to a coin flip. He is earning a risk premium. If you buy a risk free US Treasury Bond you expect to earn (much) less yield than the dividends on a share of Exxon or Apple. He is an entrepreneur/founder. He isn't just a company hopping CEO with soft landings and golden parachutes galore. I think an entrepreneur deserves a solid risk premium.

yaps8 11y ago
I don't know how this company works financially but would it be possible that he is not risking much ? They might be in a position where they don't have too much debt or it would not be tied to him and not put him in a difficult situation if it failed. The bottom line might be that the risky part of founding the company is over.
- lujim 11y ago
  That could very well be. That article does mention that he was nearly wiped out by the great recession in 2008. At one point he was putting it all on the line and the risk was very real. I think you are probably right in saying that the risk premium may change over time. I guess I don't know how much that reward should be and how long it should pay off for. When comparing stocks and bonds you use the risk free interest rate and take a stocks volatility compared to the broad market into account. Maybe the volatility of the business should be a consideration.

caseysoftware 11y ago

I wish people would stop conflating salary and "goodness" or worth. There are great and horrible human beings who make lots of money. There are great and horrible human beings just scraping by. Income and goodness are orthogonal.