6 ms·

I'm not sure what the actual story is here. The important bit seems to be: "“The one third is fictitious,” Andela CEO Jeremy Johnson told Big Technology in a c

by injb 6y ago

I'm not sure what the actual story is here. The important bit seems to be: "“The one third is fictitious,” Andela CEO Jeremy Johnson told Big Technology in a candid interview last week. Some developers make less than a third of what clients pay, some make more, varying by country and seniority level. But the number never accurately described how Andela compensates its developers. “We absolutely bear responsibility for the miscommunication,” Johnson said. “Without question.”" - CEO So that's it? They miscommunicated what their developers get paid? The article doesn't allege any wrongdoing on the part of the company, beyond making this mistake, or suggest that anyone is being paid unfairly. The title line "....but life inside the company can be less than ideal." might as well say "it's a perfectly normal company, nothing to see here". Did I miss something?

genericone 6y ago
I'm outraged that you're not outraged.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  You have that right but its a bit presumptuous
  - skavi 6y ago
    I assume they are being facetious.
realtalk_sp 6y ago
It seems like it's about the optics in the present BLM-heavy climate. But you're absolutely right that the market sets rates. And did no one wonder why the hell Andela would exist and be so valuable if there wasn't significant arbitrage to be had? They're a business not a charity. I'm reminded of a story about child laborers and Nike. In an almost Kafkaeque twist, locales where this was happening ended up experiencing significant economic setbacks when Nike decided to close up certain offending factories. This is just another classic case of people reacting emotionally, biasing towards their own set of experiences and points of view.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  > They're a business not a charity I think maybe the world is starting to feel like companies that take more than they give back are ultimately parasitic and abusive. For a long time it has been considered completely okay to maximize profit over all else, but if corporations were people they wouldn't be very community oriented peoples. Much more on the manipulative and greasy gross spectrum, and maybe that's just going out of style? Also, they kind of were acting like a charity, so that could be part of it too.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    What’s wonderful about a free, liberal society is that we can all make our own choices. For example, you can work at a business that operates more like a charity, while I can choose to work at a business that is laser-focused on maximizing profit. That is just my preference.
    - 0_gravitas 6y ago
      > you can work at a business that operates more like a charity, while I can choose to work at a business that is laser-focused on maximizing profit unlikely unless you have a good degree of financial security or are relatively 'in demand'
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The very way that value is looked at by most people is incorrect and it shows. Not just through rates of bankruptcy and overspending even when circumstances are clearly far outliers in their favor. There are a lot of old myths believed on a deep level like the idea of a universal fair price, fair profit margin, and zero sum benefit from trades where if anyone is making a profit it must be doing so at somebody's expense. All of them are wrong. If operating under those fallacious zero sum models companies always look parasitic if they survive, regardless of what they contributed and what would or wouldn't have occurred in their absense.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  I've spent much of my career as a software consultant. I usually make about 1/3 of my client billing rate. The rake is high. Part of that is normal overhead of employer-side taxes, benefits, expensable items (hardware, business lunches, continuing education), infrastructure/support (office space, office staff/HR/non-owner management). We can generously call that another 1/3 of the client bill rate. That leaves the final 1/3 to the company for profit and business development. There's nothing remotely unusual about this arrangement.
as300 6y ago
I think a sort of understated factor here was the messaging associated with the company and its lofty mission statement - which seemed like it was to kick off a technology movement on the African continent. If you watch the ad in the video they claim to want to "make Africans into global technology thought-leaders" and create an impact that "goes beyond their lifetimes." They tried to brand themselves as an agent for massive social changes when in reality they were just another consulting company - big name investors notwithstanding. If I got fooled by their PR BS I wouldn't be too pleased.
- mtgp1000 6y ago
  On the other hand they're investing in Africa where I don't believe anyone else is. I don't think opportunities for Africans to learn/practice software development in their native country are very common. Moreover while their salary is low compared to western devs, it's still (apparently? Article not clear) high for Africa, where wealth inequality is extreme, mind you, so their "low" salary probably goes a really long way. I imagine they also hire inexperienced workers, so this sounds like a legit opportunity depending on what they're doing. I suppose the crime here is misleading investors as to the proportion of funds that go to salary...but I don't know what they're doing with the money, and unfortunately they might be passing on more of it than some popular charities. Article needs work perhaps.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
femiagbabiaka 6y ago
You think it’s acceptable for a company to capture two thirds of the value generated by a worker?
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  What portion of the value that you produce does your employer capture?
  - femiagbabiaka 6y ago
    I have no idea, that’s the exact point. If I found out, and it was 2/3rds, I’d be just as angry.
    - owyn 6y ago
      Facebook also pays 1/3 so.... ? https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/07/facebook-makes-more-profit-per-employee-than-other.html?page=all https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/0...
      - femiagbabiaka 6y ago
        And Zuck is a billionaire, you don't think that's messed up? The wealth distribution that lead from the success of the company consolidated itself overwhelmingly in the hands of maybe 4-5 people, despite tens of thousands contributing to the creation of that same success.
        ALittleLight 6y ago
        I'd work at Facebook if the salary (plus benefits, coworkers, and mission) appealed to me. My compensation wouldn't become unappealing just because other people made more.
- injb 6y ago
  Acceptable to whom?
Barrin92 6y ago
>I'm not sure what the actual story is here. The important bit seems to be: the mismatch between reality and aspirations when it comes to these ventures, and I guess a broader point about private entities engaging or even substituting proper developmental policy and how often the results are straight up bad. Given the heavy PR that these firms are engaged in it's obviously important to get an accurate view of what reality looks like. It reminds me of Yang's venture for America with a similar mission (albeit in the US rather than outside of it), which ended with barely any job creation and even a suicide at one of his incubators, but still it was used extensively to promote this new class of 'social' entrepreneur activity.

by injb 6y ago

genericone 6y ago

I'm outraged that you're not outraged.

DeonPenny 6y ago
You have that right but its a bit presumptuous
- skavi 6y ago
  I assume they are being facetious.

realtalk_sp 6y ago

It seems like it's about the optics in the present BLM-heavy climate. But you're absolutely right that the market sets rates. And did no one wonder why the hell Andela would exist and be so valuable if there wasn't significant arbitrage to be had? They're a business not a charity. I'm reminded of a story about child laborers and Nike. In an almost Kafkaeque twist, locales where this was happening ended up experiencing significant economic setbacks when Nike decided to close up certain offending factories. This is just another classic case of people reacting emotionally, biasing towards their own set of experiences and points of view.

seph-reed 6y ago
> They're a business not a charity I think maybe the world is starting to feel like companies that take more than they give back are ultimately parasitic and abusive. For a long time it has been considered completely okay to maximize profit over all else, but if corporations were people they wouldn't be very community oriented peoples. Much more on the manipulative and greasy gross spectrum, and maybe that's just going out of style? Also, they kind of were acting like a charity, so that could be part of it too.
- seibelj 6y ago
  What’s wonderful about a free, liberal society is that we can all make our own choices. For example, you can work at a business that operates more like a charity, while I can choose to work at a business that is laser-focused on maximizing profit. That is just my preference.
  - 0_gravitas 6y ago
    > you can work at a business that operates more like a charity, while I can choose to work at a business that is laser-focused on maximizing profit unlikely unless you have a good degree of financial security or are relatively 'in demand'
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The very way that value is looked at by most people is incorrect and it shows. Not just through rates of bankruptcy and overspending even when circumstances are clearly far outliers in their favor. There are a lot of old myths believed on a deep level like the idea of a universal fair price, fair profit margin, and zero sum benefit from trades where if anyone is making a profit it must be doing so at somebody's expense. All of them are wrong. If operating under those fallacious zero sum models companies always look parasitic if they survive, regardless of what they contributed and what would or wouldn't have occurred in their absense.
caymanjim 6y ago
I've spent much of my career as a software consultant. I usually make about 1/3 of my client billing rate. The rake is high. Part of that is normal overhead of employer-side taxes, benefits, expensable items (hardware, business lunches, continuing education), infrastructure/support (office space, office staff/HR/non-owner management). We can generously call that another 1/3 of the client bill rate. That leaves the final 1/3 to the company for profit and business development. There's nothing remotely unusual about this arrangement.

as300 6y ago

I think a sort of understated factor here was the messaging associated with the company and its lofty mission statement - which seemed like it was to kick off a technology movement on the African continent. If you watch the ad in the video they claim to want to "make Africans into global technology thought-leaders" and create an impact that "goes beyond their lifetimes." They tried to brand themselves as an agent for massive social changes when in reality they were just another consulting company - big name investors notwithstanding. If I got fooled by their PR BS I wouldn't be too pleased.

mtgp1000 6y ago
On the other hand they're investing in Africa where I don't believe anyone else is. I don't think opportunities for Africans to learn/practice software development in their native country are very common. Moreover while their salary is low compared to western devs, it's still (apparently? Article not clear) high for Africa, where wealth inequality is extreme, mind you, so their "low" salary probably goes a really long way. I imagine they also hire inexperienced workers, so this sounds like a legit opportunity depending on what they're doing. I suppose the crime here is misleading investors as to the proportion of funds that go to salary...but I don't know what they're doing with the money, and unfortunately they might be passing on more of it than some popular charities. Article needs work perhaps.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

femiagbabiaka 6y ago

You think it’s acceptable for a company to capture two thirds of the value generated by a worker?

ALittleLight 6y ago
What portion of the value that you produce does your employer capture?
- femiagbabiaka 6y ago
  I have no idea, that’s the exact point. If I found out, and it was 2/3rds, I’d be just as angry.
  - owyn 6y ago
    Facebook also pays 1/3 so.... ? https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/07/facebook-makes-more-profit-per-employee-than-other.html?page=all https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/0...
    - femiagbabiaka 6y ago
      And Zuck is a billionaire, you don't think that's messed up? The wealth distribution that lead from the success of the company consolidated itself overwhelmingly in the hands of maybe 4-5 people, despite tens of thousands contributing to the creation of that same success.
      - ALittleLight 6y ago
        I'd work at Facebook if the salary (plus benefits, coworkers, and mission) appealed to me. My compensation wouldn't become unappealing just because other people made more.
injb 6y ago
Acceptable to whom?

Barrin92 6y ago

>I'm not sure what the actual story is here. The important bit seems to be: the mismatch between reality and aspirations when it comes to these ventures, and I guess a broader point about private entities engaging or even substituting proper developmental policy and how often the results are straight up bad. Given the heavy PR that these firms are engaged in it's obviously important to get an accurate view of what reality looks like. It reminds me of Yang's venture for America with a similar mission (albeit in the US rather than outside of it), which ended with barely any job creation and even a suicide at one of his incubators, but still it was used extensively to promote this new class of 'social' entrepreneur activity.