3 ms·

I assume these must be small examples on a long list of accomplishments, because 30k/year doesn't seem like it's enough to offset your salary. I have to imagine

I assume these must be small examples on a long list of accomplishments, because 30k/year doesn't seem like it's enough to offset your salary. I have to imagine the impact of a principal engineer should be measured in the 10-100x of their salary?

LoSboccacc 7y ago
it was just a bunch of examples of stuff that was specifically done on top of my other job resps. also, not every place is the silicon valley and not every company is a fortune 500, plus some perspective about relative worth also applies - i.e. the automation stuff was calculated in time saved by the Indian based testing team, which reduces the raw impact.
frostburg 7y ago
That's some pretty impressive ingrained bias towards rent-seekers. Why not 1.1x or the board can try doing the work?
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Consider a fast food business. Should the manager be satisfied with making 10% profit on french fries?
  - frostburg 7y ago
    10% on raw materials would be losing money, but 10% on total expense, with the difference going to the workforce is fine to me. I don't see why fast foods shouldn't be cooperatives, they're not exactly capital intensive or high risk. To be clear, I wasn't referring to the board having a choice in the matter.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  Sorry I both agree with you but reckon 10x is about the correct ratio. It’s not rent-seeking, it’s “sharing wealth” and “diminishing inequalities”. A good engineer needs to pay for: - Administrative employees, - Office rental, - Junior members of the teams who are growing up towards seniority, - Women who are non productive but required to pass the diversity requirements and make the company look good. You may claim it’s unfair that productive members are exploited to pay for nonproductive ones, but that’s the neo-conservatives’ argument, and has been rejected by most of the Silicon Valley. I honestly think that the currebt situation is already the middle ground betweeb “pay proportional to your added value” and “diversity, equality and social responsibility requires adjusting the salaries of highest-paid engineers.”

LoSboccacc 7y ago

it was just a bunch of examples of stuff that was specifically done on top of my other job resps. also, not every place is the silicon valley and not every company is a fortune 500, plus some perspective about relative worth also applies - i.e. the automation stuff was calculated in time saved by the Indian based testing team, which reduces the raw impact.

frostburg 7y ago

That's some pretty impressive ingrained bias towards rent-seekers. Why not 1.1x or the board can try doing the work?

perl4ever 7y ago
Consider a fast food business. Should the manager be satisfied with making 10% profit on french fries?
- frostburg 7y ago
  10% on raw materials would be losing money, but 10% on total expense, with the difference going to the workforce is fine to me. I don't see why fast foods shouldn't be cooperatives, they're not exactly capital intensive or high risk. To be clear, I wasn't referring to the board having a choice in the matter.
alexis_fr 7y ago
Sorry I both agree with you but reckon 10x is about the correct ratio. It’s not rent-seeking, it’s “sharing wealth” and “diminishing inequalities”. A good engineer needs to pay for: - Administrative employees, - Office rental, - Junior members of the teams who are growing up towards seniority, - Women who are non productive but required to pass the diversity requirements and make the company look good. You may claim it’s unfair that productive members are exploited to pay for nonproductive ones, but that’s the neo-conservatives’ argument, and has been rejected by most of the Silicon Valley. I honestly think that the currebt situation is already the middle ground betweeb “pay proportional to your added value” and “diversity, equality and social responsibility requires adjusting the salaries of highest-paid engineers.”