3 ms·
This is a little strange. The essay says: 1) Paying workers as little as possible isn't the best way to maxmize business profits. 2) Paying workers way above
by pmichaud 17y ago
This is a little strange. The essay says:
1) Paying workers as little as possible isn't the best way to maxmize business profits.
2) Paying workers way above market rates doesn't attract the best talent.
3) You should pay the fabled 10X productive engineer 10 times the salary.
So... I don't know, I think the author was trying to say to pay in the middle somewhere, but got lost on the way to the point?
- mcantor 17y agoIt's okay. Sometimes the stuff you find when you're lost is more interesting than where you were trying to end up anyway.
- dunstad 17y agoAgreed; however, that's what editing is for: to make it look like you never got lost.
- angelbob 17y agoA point he merely skimmed was that Ford did seek out the best talent (and presumably fired people if they turned out not to be the best). Paying people very high wages (he says) retains the best talent, which turns out to be a really good investment. The businesses he mentions that overpay mediocre engineers presumably aren't good at finding the best talent, nor at firing talent that turns out not to be good. At least, that's how I read it.
- JoachimSchipper 17y agoThere is a (somewhat hidden) point 2a) in there: interesting people don't work on dull problems. You should create a tight-knit team of highly competent people in an environment that favors productivity. This will attract the best people. Then share the profits with them (i.e. pay them well) to make sure they stay. Of course, this may be easier said than done, and ignores the fact that not all work is interesting.