5 ms·

>They should just pay you instead of paying the insane office rent. Or pay the shareholders instead. Or the CEO. Or ... you are a cost center for your company.

by konjin 6y ago

>They should just pay you instead of paying the insane office rent. Or pay the shareholders instead. Or the CEO. Or ... you are a cost center for your company. Why would they pay you more than the minimum anyone than they would for any other cost center? That said you should negotiate for an extra room as a part of doing business. >I was raised on IM. I'm fine communicating like this. If I need to talk I can always call someone. I finally got emacs connected to the corporate email server. My productivity went up 100% overnight. I'm debating setting it up for slack.

sjtindell 6y ago
I get what you’re saying and business is often like that, but buying employees computer equipment for their home office is common for example. Tech is also on the cutting edge of pampering employees in exchange for better work. Why not an increased salary for more space at home.
andybak 6y ago
> Why would they pay you more than the minimum anyone than they would for any other cost center? Maybe because you're a resource and not a cost center? It's not always the case - some job roles are fungible - but I don't think that's the case with a typical HN denizen. Let me put it another way. Why is paying the CEO more a better use of money to paying an employee more? Doesn't that build in a lot of assumptions about untapped value? And (at risk of getting out of my depth) paying the shareholders isn't the always the right thing to do. Don't most tech companies avoid giving dividends in favour of using the money to improve the share price? Which brings us back to employees and their potential value...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > Why is paying the CEO more a better use of money to paying an employee more? I think the problem here is the one who decides who gets more is the CEO. They tend to believe the employee will keep working for the same amount until they leave.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Maybe because you're a resource and not a cost center? You are providing a resource by consuming money. Imagine a company as if you were playing a CEO in a "software company tycoon" game. Are developers something you like to have, vs. need to have? Would you allocate them more money than strictly necessary to keep the output at desired level?
  - slykar 6y ago
    So make it necessary by refusing to work without being paid for utilizing your space and equipment. It's a thing of culture. You are paid based on supply and demand mostly. Devs should be on the front of this movement. Anyone who is able to generate any kind of financial pillow. If you are a pizza boy where I live you get paid extra if you use your own car. It's not a law. It's expected. That's the work culture. No one will drive for you otherwise.
  - andybak 6y ago
    I'm not saying that you're not a cost. That your are one is obvious. I'm saying that you're not a cost that can be reduced without any negative second order effects.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  It is not about what is better, but what the company considers to be better; it is not the employee's decision, the company may simply decide that raising CEO's bonus or the dividends is the best. The comment was not advocating this, just telling how it happens in the real world.

by konjin 6y ago

sjtindell 6y ago

I get what you’re saying and business is often like that, but buying employees computer equipment for their home office is common for example. Tech is also on the cutting edge of pampering employees in exchange for better work. Why not an increased salary for more space at home.

andybak 6y ago

> Why would they pay you more than the minimum anyone than they would for any other cost center? Maybe because you're a resource and not a cost center? It's not always the case - some job roles are fungible - but I don't think that's the case with a typical HN denizen. Let me put it another way. Why is paying the CEO more a better use of money to paying an employee more? Doesn't that build in a lot of assumptions about untapped value? And (at risk of getting out of my depth) paying the shareholders isn't the always the right thing to do. Don't most tech companies avoid giving dividends in favour of using the money to improve the share price? Which brings us back to employees and their potential value...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 6y ago
> Why is paying the CEO more a better use of money to paying an employee more? I think the problem here is the one who decides who gets more is the CEO. They tend to believe the employee will keep working for the same amount until they leave.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Maybe because you're a resource and not a cost center? You are providing a resource by consuming money. Imagine a company as if you were playing a CEO in a "software company tycoon" game. Are developers something you like to have, vs. need to have? Would you allocate them more money than strictly necessary to keep the output at desired level?
- slykar 6y ago
  So make it necessary by refusing to work without being paid for utilizing your space and equipment. It's a thing of culture. You are paid based on supply and demand mostly. Devs should be on the front of this movement. Anyone who is able to generate any kind of financial pillow. If you are a pizza boy where I live you get paid extra if you use your own car. It's not a law. It's expected. That's the work culture. No one will drive for you otherwise.
- andybak 6y ago
  I'm not saying that you're not a cost. That your are one is obvious. I'm saying that you're not a cost that can be reduced without any negative second order effects.
AdrianB1 6y ago
It is not about what is better, but what the company considers to be better; it is not the employee's decision, the company may simply decide that raising CEO's bonus or the dividends is the best. The comment was not advocating this, just telling how it happens in the real world.