4 ms·

The agreement isn't for X, the agreement was for "whatever you can provide". You don't provide a unit of work, you provide "your brain as applied to the proble

The agreement isn't for X, the agreement was for "whatever you can provide". You don't provide a unit of work, you provide "your brain as applied to the problems of the company". Game theory is for the company to fire you and find someone who will honor their contract...

notfromhere 8y ago
Your employer hires you to solve a problem, they don't get rights to unlimited productivity. You're held to a specific quality/output of work, and as long as that's satisfactory, you remain employed. The game theory is to produce enough quality/output to remain employed. An employee increasing their productivity without increased compensation for said productivity is a bit of a sucker.
- diminoten 8y ago
  They hire you for whatever they hire you for. If you're hourly, sure what you said applies. Otherwise, no, they bought your brain. The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    > Otherwise, no, they bought your brain. No, they rent some of it. Like a cloud host; you don't own the hardware, you're timesharing. > The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't. Companies prefer to hire suckers if they can, yes.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      Depends on your contact with your employer. If you're exempt and not hourly, they don't rent your brain for a period of time, they rent it to solve a set of problems. The volume those problems, and the rate they expect you to solve them at is up to your employer. Their only limit is to not assign you so much work you quit. That's it.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      >> The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't. > Companies prefer to hire suckers if they can, yes. Pretty cynical, no? Obviously employers make more money off their employees than they pay them, otherwise they wouldn't be in business, but that doesn't make an employee a sucker.
      - notfromhere 8y ago
        An employee is definitely a sucker if they indefinitely keep increasing output without a rise in compensation.
        diminoten 8y ago
        You can't/won't justify a rise in compensation without increasing output first.

notfromhere 8y ago

Your employer hires you to solve a problem, they don't get rights to unlimited productivity. You're held to a specific quality/output of work, and as long as that's satisfactory, you remain employed. The game theory is to produce enough quality/output to remain employed. An employee increasing their productivity without increased compensation for said productivity is a bit of a sucker.

diminoten 8y ago
They hire you for whatever they hire you for. If you're hourly, sure what you said applies. Otherwise, no, they bought your brain. The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  > Otherwise, no, they bought your brain. No, they rent some of it. Like a cloud host; you don't own the hardware, you're timesharing. > The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't. Companies prefer to hire suckers if they can, yes.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Depends on your contact with your employer. If you're exempt and not hourly, they don't rent your brain for a period of time, they rent it to solve a set of problems. The volume those problems, and the rate they expect you to solve them at is up to your employer. Their only limit is to not assign you so much work you quit. That's it.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    >> The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't. > Companies prefer to hire suckers if they can, yes. Pretty cynical, no? Obviously employers make more money off their employees than they pay them, otherwise they wouldn't be in business, but that doesn't make an employee a sucker.
    - notfromhere 8y ago
      An employee is definitely a sucker if they indefinitely keep increasing output without a rise in compensation.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        You can't/won't justify a rise in compensation without increasing output first.