5 ms·

Even if you don't need the money, from personal experience, volunteering is a bad road to go down. For better or worse, money is equivalent to respect, and with

by smabie 6y ago

Even if you don't need the money, from personal experience, volunteering is a bad road to go down. For better or worse, money is equivalent to respect, and without an income, you garner no respect. What astonishes me is that anyone would want run this fund for a long period of time who isn't already very wealthy. When your boss of a two pizza team is earning more than the head of a 1tn fund, you know things are fucked up. Compensation should be in the tens of millions, at the very least. Unless of course some egalitarian image is more important than the money that the entire country depends on.

codebolt 6y ago
I'm a Norwegian and I suspect they don't want to put the compensation higher because of public perception within Norway. If someone was pulling 10 mln USD from the public purse I can guarantee the left leaning press would have something to say about it. I think it's fair anyway. This guy is already loaded, he doesn't need the extra millions. The prestige and power that comes with the position should be motivation enough.
JanSt 6y ago
When your boss of a two pizza team is paid more than $600k they are probably overpaid? He seems very capable and is ready to work for that (still good) money. Do you think paying someone tens of millions would improve results for the fund? Why should it?
- Akababa 6y ago
  It's about supply and demand. If he really is the best person for the job, then there's nothing to be gained from paying him a higher fixed salary. But if there's someone else who's even marginally better that you can get for $10M, it's probably easily worth it - for the size of the fund, one person's pay is a negligible amount.
  - JanSt 6y ago
    That's pure theory. How do you know who is marginally better?
    - Akababa 6y ago
      That's the fundamental problem of hiring: you have to make educated guesses about who is going to make a better employee. And you should be willing to pay more to hire someone who you believe is better. For some companies, salaries are such a small part of their revenue that it makes sense to offer some candidates a lot more... and if your first choice happens to accept a lower salary, it doesn't really matter - you've saved a drop in the bucket.
- smabie 6y ago
  What you're essentially saying is that there's no other person on earth that could generate better returns for the fund. The likelihood of that being true is vanishingly small.
  - JanSt 6y ago
    No, I'm saying you can pay as much as you want, you cannot know which person will generate the best returns. What's your process for picking the person?
    - smabie 6y ago
      You could say the same thing about literally any job. Do you really think that paying more money doesn't find you better candidates? Do you think everyone should have the exact same salary and never get any raises? Think about the logical conclusion of your assumptions. It doesn't make any sense.
      - JanSt 6y ago
        You cannot take an argument I make at the extremes and apply it to the whole salary curve. It's way easier to predict performance at the lower, middle and even reasonably higher salary ranges. If you believe otherwise I'd like you to tell me about the process of determining the future success.
piva00 6y ago
> Compensation should be in the tens of millions, at the very least. Unless of course some egalitarian image is more important than the money that the entire country depends on. Or unless that is your opinion being tacked onto a whole country which values things differently than you. So far the fund has done fine without needing to inject an ultracapitalist in their ranks to pump up a US$ 1tn fund even faster. For the Norwegian people it's better to have stability and some semblance of morality while administering these funds than pure and sheer cash. Your values are just different than what the Norwegian sovereign fund is about...
- JanSt 6y ago
  I agree and also think it's stupid to think you'll get better leaders by paying huge salaries. Would you rather see Ken Lay manage this fund?
  - smabie 6y ago
    So you don't think talent is attracted by higher salaries? Should everyone's salary just be the same, forever? Would you yourself not switch a job because they offered more money? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
    - JanSt 6y ago
      No, but salary is an s-shaped curve. The higher you go, the less the additional benefit, if any. It totally does make sense, because you reach levels where differences in performance cannot be predicted at all. It's naive to believe otherwise.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by smabie 6y ago

codebolt 6y ago

I'm a Norwegian and I suspect they don't want to put the compensation higher because of public perception within Norway. If someone was pulling 10 mln USD from the public purse I can guarantee the left leaning press would have something to say about it. I think it's fair anyway. This guy is already loaded, he doesn't need the extra millions. The prestige and power that comes with the position should be motivation enough.

JanSt 6y ago

When your boss of a two pizza team is paid more than $600k they are probably overpaid? He seems very capable and is ready to work for that (still good) money. Do you think paying someone tens of millions would improve results for the fund? Why should it?

Akababa 6y ago
It's about supply and demand. If he really is the best person for the job, then there's nothing to be gained from paying him a higher fixed salary. But if there's someone else who's even marginally better that you can get for $10M, it's probably easily worth it - for the size of the fund, one person's pay is a negligible amount.
- JanSt 6y ago
  That's pure theory. How do you know who is marginally better?
  - Akababa 6y ago
    That's the fundamental problem of hiring: you have to make educated guesses about who is going to make a better employee. And you should be willing to pay more to hire someone who you believe is better. For some companies, salaries are such a small part of their revenue that it makes sense to offer some candidates a lot more... and if your first choice happens to accept a lower salary, it doesn't really matter - you've saved a drop in the bucket.
smabie 6y ago
What you're essentially saying is that there's no other person on earth that could generate better returns for the fund. The likelihood of that being true is vanishingly small.
- JanSt 6y ago
  No, I'm saying you can pay as much as you want, you cannot know which person will generate the best returns. What's your process for picking the person?
  - smabie 6y ago
    You could say the same thing about literally any job. Do you really think that paying more money doesn't find you better candidates? Do you think everyone should have the exact same salary and never get any raises? Think about the logical conclusion of your assumptions. It doesn't make any sense.
    - JanSt 6y ago
      You cannot take an argument I make at the extremes and apply it to the whole salary curve. It's way easier to predict performance at the lower, middle and even reasonably higher salary ranges. If you believe otherwise I'd like you to tell me about the process of determining the future success.

piva00 6y ago

> Compensation should be in the tens of millions, at the very least. Unless of course some egalitarian image is more important than the money that the entire country depends on. Or unless that is your opinion being tacked onto a whole country which values things differently than you. So far the fund has done fine without needing to inject an ultracapitalist in their ranks to pump up a US$ 1tn fund even faster. For the Norwegian people it's better to have stability and some semblance of morality while administering these funds than pure and sheer cash. Your values are just different than what the Norwegian sovereign fund is about...

JanSt 6y ago
I agree and also think it's stupid to think you'll get better leaders by paying huge salaries. Would you rather see Ken Lay manage this fund?
- smabie 6y ago
  So you don't think talent is attracted by higher salaries? Should everyone's salary just be the same, forever? Would you yourself not switch a job because they offered more money? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
  - JanSt 6y ago
    No, but salary is an s-shaped curve. The higher you go, the less the additional benefit, if any. It totally does make sense, because you reach levels where differences in performance cannot be predicted at all. It's naive to believe otherwise.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]