3 ms·

In a certain sense, having a 9 to 5 is an even more extreme version of 'one thing' in that you have one big client that accounts for 100% of your revenue. Of c

by davidw 9y ago

In a certain sense, having a 9 to 5 is an even more extreme version of 'one thing' in that you have one big client that accounts for 100% of your revenue. Of course, there are also efficiencies in having one 'client' that are beneficial to both employee and employer. Edit: see 'Theory of the Firm'.

annabellish 9y ago
On the small scales (i.e., you or me) it can make sense to have your second thing be a large pot of savings, which is a relatively inexpensive way of providing limited redundancy. In the same way that a data center has full redundancy for failure of an individual machine, but limited redundancy for failure of the city's power grid, all we _really_ need is enough redundancy to give us time to solve the problem. Large organisations move too slowly for this to be an option, so they need the much more expensive full redundancy.
johnrob 9y ago
It's rare in nature when the optimal placement of a 'dial' is at an endpoint (0 or 100). In everyday life, when I see people making such a choice, it's usually because they focused on a single attribute at the expense of all other considerations (e.g. "cheapest" or "best battery life"). While there's value in doing less work, ignoring the other criteria means the choice is not the best. After almost two decades of professional experience (including a few years of consulting), I'm becoming more convinced that employees often make a similar 'lazy' decision when they choose full time employment. That decision is only optimal for under performers (and only for as long as they can hold on to the gig). Selling labor in units of time offers no possibility for economic profit. The value of any productivity gains are realized by the employer. This is not the case for a business (or a consultant), where productivity gains yield profit. EDIT: Consultants sell time too, but are free to adjust their rates as they see fit. Employees have significant barriers to changing their 'price'; infact it often involves a job change. Another challenge for the employee is demonstrating their value created due to the extremely complex structuring of most companies (this makes it hard to objectively justify a raise).

by davidw 9y ago

annabellish 9y ago

On the small scales (i.e., you or me) it can make sense to have your second thing be a large pot of savings, which is a relatively inexpensive way of providing limited redundancy. In the same way that a data center has full redundancy for failure of an individual machine, but limited redundancy for failure of the city's power grid, all we _really_ need is enough redundancy to give us time to solve the problem. Large organisations move too slowly for this to be an option, so they need the much more expensive full redundancy.

johnrob 9y ago

It's rare in nature when the optimal placement of a 'dial' is at an endpoint (0 or 100). In everyday life, when I see people making such a choice, it's usually because they focused on a single attribute at the expense of all other considerations (e.g. "cheapest" or "best battery life"). While there's value in doing less work, ignoring the other criteria means the choice is not the best. After almost two decades of professional experience (including a few years of consulting), I'm becoming more convinced that employees often make a similar 'lazy' decision when they choose full time employment. That decision is only optimal for under performers (and only for as long as they can hold on to the gig). Selling labor in units of time offers no possibility for economic profit. The value of any productivity gains are realized by the employer. This is not the case for a business (or a consultant), where productivity gains yield profit. EDIT: Consultants sell time too, but are free to adjust their rates as they see fit. Employees have significant barriers to changing their 'price'; infact it often involves a job change. Another challenge for the employee is demonstrating their value created due to the extremely complex structuring of most companies (this makes it hard to objectively justify a raise).