4 ms·

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 ins

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?
        ucaetano 8y ago
        Still is. When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        That's some pretty dubious logic, that is not completely backed up by reality. And the idea that the split is governed by the value of labor at the time has also been debunked. Businesses everywhere are complaining of a labor shortage, yet they're not raising wages. I'm sorry, but the simplistic Econ 101 stuff isn't really applicable in the real world.
        8y ago
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Because both of those sides are not on a level playing field. Even for some of the best of engineers, the power imbalance is very real.
- 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.

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?
        ucaetano 8y ago
        Still is. When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        That's some pretty dubious logic, that is not completely backed up by reality. And the idea that the split is governed by the value of labor at the time has also been debunked. Businesses everywhere are complaining of a labor shortage, yet they're not raising wages. I'm sorry, but the simplistic Econ 101 stuff isn't really applicable in the real world.
        8y ago
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Because both of those sides are not on a level playing field. Even for some of the best of engineers, the power imbalance is very real.
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.