3 ms·
Equating the two creates a perception that employees shouldn't be paid as much as they're worth. An employee being paid $500k/year is probably producing even mo
by JoshTriplett 6y ago
Equating the two creates a perception that employees shouldn't be paid as much as they're worth. An employee being paid $500k/year is probably producing even more value to their employer than that, and if anything, the goal should be to close the gap between value and compensation, not widen it.
- Cederfjard 6y agoI think the point is that very wealthy companies can temporarily pay employees more than the value they provide, and willingly eat that cost until the competition has been stifled, at which point they can lower compensation again.
- jefftk 6y agoOn the other hand, offering extremely high salaries makes a lot of people consider becoming programmers who wouldn't otherwise think of it. You can't buy your way out of having your competitors having access to skilled labor, outside of perhaps the very short-term.
- saalweachter 6y agoYeah, this is the housing problem all over again. If the price to buy (well, rent) an engineer is too high, build more engineers.
- thesuitonym 6y ago>is probably producing even more value to their employer than that That's the crux of the argument, though. Google can afford to take a loss on the employee's salary for years, just to keep them from a competitor. We're not talking about Google arbitrarily paying a developer more than their competitors, we're talking about Google diverting funds from other business units to cover costs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]