3 ms·

> an individual engineer is likely contributing tens of millions of dollars of real value to your organization... If that's the case. If as an engineer you ca

> an individual engineer is likely contributing tens of millions of dollars of real value to your organization... If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Why don't you start your own? I'm sure each line of code you create will inflate the price by a million dollars. Of course, I'm being flippant. But the point still stands. Stefan Molyneux explains the true value of employees in a free market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 Now you are entitled to argue against this and even dismiss this opinion. But go to your employer and demand one of the following:- - 7 figure salary - % of profit share - Equity in the company for your role in the company. Please let us know how it works out. I'm sure a lot of like-minded people such as yourself will be very interested to hear.

geezerjay 8y ago
> If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Because hard skills that are vital for the viability of a business don't translate to soft skills required to setup organizations, manage people, get proposals and close deals. For a sports analogy, Michael Jordan might have been the absolute best basketball player but he is unable to build or manage a team. Does that mean to you that Michael Jordan did not deserved to be compensated for the "tens of millions of dollars of real value" that he brought to the Chicago Bulls in particular and the NBA in general? Do you actually believe that if he should've shut up and started his own basketball team to have any claim to any of the value he created for other organizations?
- no1youknowz 8y ago
  > Because hard skills that are vital for the viability of a business don't translate to soft skills required to setup organizations, manage people, get proposals and close deals. True. But then there is nothing stopping the enginners from attaining those skills and then reaping the rewards. Many engineers have done just that. Like it or not. We participate in the free market. Want more monies? 1) Start up your own venture. 2) Increase your skills with desirable ones which an employer will pay for. 3) Negotiate with your employer that you should have a higher salary/benefit package for exchange of your time. At the end of the day, this is how it's always been. But if you want to inject Socialism into the workplace then fine. Guess what? Go and setup a company which is a co-operative. Everyone who joins gets an equal piece of the company and revenue of the company. It's pretty easy to setup. There's really no excuse from my perspective why no one can't do it. Again, once in that co-operative, let us know [who don't know], how it works out.
spamizbad 8y ago
> If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Why don't you start your own? I'm sure each line of code you create will inflate the price by a million dollars. But the same is true for founders and VCs: Everyone needs each other. VCs require founders. Founders require employees. An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. This is why they absolutely should not be complaining about the so-called entitled employee: Demand for skilled labor is high. Normally, this would push wages upward, but organizations have managed to short-circuit this by offering non-salary compensation in the form of perks. They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. They should be delighted. > Stefan Molyneux explains the true value of employees in a free market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 Not really. This video completely skips over all the classical and neoclassical thinking on labor economics and inadvertently lays the foundation for an argument on collective bargaining by employees.... but I don't think that's what the video's author was going for.
- no1youknowz 8y ago
  > But the same is true for founders and VCs No, it's not. A VC already has the finances, they aren't constrained by the original argument of "demanding" a higher price for their salary. They have already attained wealth and now choose to pour some of that wealth into funding other ventures. A founder, is someone who has decided to push the gratification of (payment, rewards, whatever you want to call it) to the far future and that is if they make it. In the interim they will survive by various means, bootstrap, F+F round or they approach a VC giving up equity for investment and a salary to the next round of investment. This isn't about who needs who. VCs or Founders don't actually need anyone: A VC doesn't need a founder. They can setup a company themselves and pay market rate for the staff to fill positions. A Founder doesn't actually need a VC, they can bootstrap the company and live off raman noodles until they reach profitability and in some cases keep investing into the company until it gets big enough to sustain itself and the founder. The only class (if you want to call it that) in this scenario are the workers that need the VC or the Founder to setup a company for them to join. > An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. What is the problem here? This is how a company is meant to be run. If you want otherwise, it's now called a CHARITY. > They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. Have they? Let me know when they have guns to people's heads demanding they work there. There is nothing stopping someone from leaving and getting more cash/perks elsewhere. We are in the free market after all. Free market, which I have pointed out numerous times and yet you don't quite seem to grasp this notion. > Not really. I don't think you understood the video and honestly, I don't know what you are arguing for. This will be my last reply. I think I've said all that needs to be said.

geezerjay 8y ago

> If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Because hard skills that are vital for the viability of a business don't translate to soft skills required to setup organizations, manage people, get proposals and close deals. For a sports analogy, Michael Jordan might have been the absolute best basketball player but he is unable to build or manage a team. Does that mean to you that Michael Jordan did not deserved to be compensated for the "tens of millions of dollars of real value" that he brought to the Chicago Bulls in particular and the NBA in general? Do you actually believe that if he should've shut up and started his own basketball team to have any claim to any of the value he created for other organizations?

no1youknowz 8y ago
> Because hard skills that are vital for the viability of a business don't translate to soft skills required to setup organizations, manage people, get proposals and close deals. True. But then there is nothing stopping the enginners from attaining those skills and then reaping the rewards. Many engineers have done just that. Like it or not. We participate in the free market. Want more monies? 1) Start up your own venture. 2) Increase your skills with desirable ones which an employer will pay for. 3) Negotiate with your employer that you should have a higher salary/benefit package for exchange of your time. At the end of the day, this is how it's always been. But if you want to inject Socialism into the workplace then fine. Guess what? Go and setup a company which is a co-operative. Everyone who joins gets an equal piece of the company and revenue of the company. It's pretty easy to setup. There's really no excuse from my perspective why no one can't do it. Again, once in that co-operative, let us know [who don't know], how it works out.

spamizbad 8y ago

> If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Why don't you start your own? I'm sure each line of code you create will inflate the price by a million dollars. But the same is true for founders and VCs: Everyone needs each other. VCs require founders. Founders require employees. An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. This is why they absolutely should not be complaining about the so-called entitled employee: Demand for skilled labor is high. Normally, this would push wages upward, but organizations have managed to short-circuit this by offering non-salary compensation in the form of perks. They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. They should be delighted. > Stefan Molyneux explains the true value of employees in a free market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 Not really. This video completely skips over all the classical and neoclassical thinking on labor economics and inadvertently lays the foundation for an argument on collective bargaining by employees.... but I don't think that's what the video's author was going for.

no1youknowz 8y ago
> But the same is true for founders and VCs No, it's not. A VC already has the finances, they aren't constrained by the original argument of "demanding" a higher price for their salary. They have already attained wealth and now choose to pour some of that wealth into funding other ventures. A founder, is someone who has decided to push the gratification of (payment, rewards, whatever you want to call it) to the far future and that is if they make it. In the interim they will survive by various means, bootstrap, F+F round or they approach a VC giving up equity for investment and a salary to the next round of investment. This isn't about who needs who. VCs or Founders don't actually need anyone: A VC doesn't need a founder. They can setup a company themselves and pay market rate for the staff to fill positions. A Founder doesn't actually need a VC, they can bootstrap the company and live off raman noodles until they reach profitability and in some cases keep investing into the company until it gets big enough to sustain itself and the founder. The only class (if you want to call it that) in this scenario are the workers that need the VC or the Founder to setup a company for them to join. > An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. What is the problem here? This is how a company is meant to be run. If you want otherwise, it's now called a CHARITY. > They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. Have they? Let me know when they have guns to people's heads demanding they work there. There is nothing stopping someone from leaving and getting more cash/perks elsewhere. We are in the free market after all. Free market, which I have pointed out numerous times and yet you don't quite seem to grasp this notion. > Not really. I don't think you understood the video and honestly, I don't know what you are arguing for. This will be my last reply. I think I've said all that needs to be said.