5 ms·

> In fact, one basic result in the theory of cheap talk is that if you assume the cheap-talker will do what’s best for him and worst for you, you can often get

> In fact, one basic result in the theory of cheap talk is that if you assume the cheap-talker will do what’s best for him and worst for you, you can often get him to reveal more of the truth. This is basically the definition of enemy. These people are your enemies. By that I mean, in the context of fair wages, employees ought to treat executives as enemies, not as slightly conflicted parties with slightly divergent interests. To win the pay he or she deserves, the employee must have both resolve ("I don't want this person to beat me") and clarity ("this person would gladly pay me half of what I make"). Mind and heart must be ready to fight, thus the word "enemy". A dangerous label but sometimes, a courageous one. Pretending that these people care about your best interests, that they'd be willing to sacrifice a little because they're so forward-thinking, smacks of conflict-avoidance. I.e., "Oh my boss's boss is just trying to minimize and maximize like any rational actor. It's normal. Happens to everyone. I'm scared!"

Eridrus 8y ago
This is very reductive. You could use the same logic to argue that your coworkers are your enemies because the money being paid to them could be paid to you instead.
- hitekker 8y ago
  If a person had a coworker who thought "well I could get a 40% pay increase if I get <person> fired", then that person should consider that coworker an enemy. Fortunately, the world does not revolve around game-theory and most other parties with whom we choose to associate, will at least consider and value our interests. Enemies do not do so, or value our interests at something close to zero; thus their calculus: "worst for you, best for them".
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    If you would get a 40% raise if you switched companies, would you? Should execs see you as the enemy, then? There are no "sides", everyone is just maximizing their own payouts. People here don't seem to mind when profit-focused engineers switch companies for better salaries, but seem to mind when companies do the same.
    - Tade0 8y ago
      Which means it's essentially a free-for-all. If everybody is your enemy, then you still have enemies.
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        > Which means it's essentially a free-for-all. If everybody is your enemy, then you still have enemies. Being a free-for-all doesn't make it enemies, just a game. The two prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma aren't enemies. Employment is just another case of game theory. There are times when the best outcome for you is to collaborate with your employer, other times is to play against them. And so on. A reductive vision of me vs. the world, or us against them is naive and counterproductive. Particularly because you'd do the same in their shoes.
        Tade0 8y ago
        > Being a free-for-all doesn't make it enemies, just a game. The two prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma aren't enemies. You're disregarding the fact that while the prisoner's dilemma is a non-zero sum game, employment in general is - any value added over your marginal usefulness is your loss and your employer's gain. Some people even "solve" this problem by being minimally valuable.
        ucaetano 8y ago
        > employment in general is You're absolutely, utterly wrong. Voluntary employment only exists because it isn't a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade is not a zero-sum game, by definition. And any value generated in excess of your cost is capture by you and the employer based on the price elasticity of the demand for labor.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Can it really be called "voluntary" if you starve if you don't have a job?
  - WJW 8y ago
    In my experience, the calculus is more like "best for them, indifferent to you". If a business or personal goal can reasonably be solved by paying you more then they don't mind. In fact there are even scenarios where you'd win even more than the other party, but they still cooperate if they gain 'enough'. It is the absolute difference created by the action for their position that matters. Meanwhile in an actual adversarial relationship the other party can be expected to take actions that harm their own position if it harms you more. In such a position it is the relative difference that matters, an enemy seeks to either lose less or win more than you. I'd argue that (except for the most pathological managers), jobs fall in the first category instead of in the second.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Except in the case of co-workers, that logic is pretty dubious, and isn't true except in certain situations (stack ranking, for example). In the case of executives, it's been proven to be completely true over the past 50 years.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Enemy and counterparty are not the same. When I negotiate with my landlord, they aren’t my enemy. They’re someone I’m negotiating with.
- hitekker 8y ago
  Counterparty when the landlord says rent goes up by 5% or 10%. Enemy when the landlord says rent is going up by 90% and has sent you eviction papers to that effect. It's not "best for them, a little bad for you", it's "best for them, worst for you".

Eridrus 8y ago

This is very reductive. You could use the same logic to argue that your coworkers are your enemies because the money being paid to them could be paid to you instead.

hitekker 8y ago
If a person had a coworker who thought "well I could get a 40% pay increase if I get <person> fired", then that person should consider that coworker an enemy. Fortunately, the world does not revolve around game-theory and most other parties with whom we choose to associate, will at least consider and value our interests. Enemies do not do so, or value our interests at something close to zero; thus their calculus: "worst for you, best for them".
- ucaetano 8y ago
  If you would get a 40% raise if you switched companies, would you? Should execs see you as the enemy, then? There are no "sides", everyone is just maximizing their own payouts. People here don't seem to mind when profit-focused engineers switch companies for better salaries, but seem to mind when companies do the same.
  - Tade0 8y ago
    Which means it's essentially a free-for-all. If everybody is your enemy, then you still have enemies.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > Which means it's essentially a free-for-all. If everybody is your enemy, then you still have enemies. Being a free-for-all doesn't make it enemies, just a game. The two prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma aren't enemies. Employment is just another case of game theory. There are times when the best outcome for you is to collaborate with your employer, other times is to play against them. And so on. A reductive vision of me vs. the world, or us against them is naive and counterproductive. Particularly because you'd do the same in their shoes.
      - Tade0 8y ago
        > Being a free-for-all doesn't make it enemies, just a game. The two prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma aren't enemies. You're disregarding the fact that while the prisoner's dilemma is a non-zero sum game, employment in general is - any value added over your marginal usefulness is your loss and your employer's gain. Some people even "solve" this problem by being minimally valuable.
        ucaetano 8y ago
        > employment in general is You're absolutely, utterly wrong. Voluntary employment only exists because it isn't a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade is not a zero-sum game, by definition. And any value generated in excess of your cost is capture by you and the employer based on the price elasticity of the demand for labor.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Can it really be called "voluntary" if you starve if you don't have a job?
- WJW 8y ago
  In my experience, the calculus is more like "best for them, indifferent to you". If a business or personal goal can reasonably be solved by paying you more then they don't mind. In fact there are even scenarios where you'd win even more than the other party, but they still cooperate if they gain 'enough'. It is the absolute difference created by the action for their position that matters. Meanwhile in an actual adversarial relationship the other party can be expected to take actions that harm their own position if it harms you more. In such a position it is the relative difference that matters, an enemy seeks to either lose less or win more than you. I'd argue that (except for the most pathological managers), jobs fall in the first category instead of in the second.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Except in the case of co-workers, that logic is pretty dubious, and isn't true except in certain situations (stack ranking, for example). In the case of executives, it's been proven to be completely true over the past 50 years.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

Enemy and counterparty are not the same. When I negotiate with my landlord, they aren’t my enemy. They’re someone I’m negotiating with.

hitekker 8y ago
Counterparty when the landlord says rent goes up by 5% or 10%. Enemy when the landlord says rent is going up by 90% and has sent you eviction papers to that effect. It's not "best for them, a little bad for you", it's "best for them, worst for you".