3 ms·

If I owned a company, I'd probably pay people what it cost to retain them with a sufficiently high likelihood for the purposes of their particular role and the

If I owned a company, I'd probably pay people what it cost to retain them with a sufficiently high likelihood for the purposes of their particular role and the quality of their work. This amount would certainly not be permitted to rise above the value they bring to the company, but I'd feel no obligation to pay them exactly their marginal value to me. If I did, there'd be little profit in owning the company. I don't really see why I should be expected to do otherwise. The value a person brings to the company cannot be separated from the company's capital and the person's employment of that capital. An ML engineer would be of little use without the company's cluster of GPUs on which to train models. So what brings the value? The cluster or the engineer? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
It really doesn’t matter what one thinks should or shouldn’t happen. The best mechanism to determine the price of something is for the buyer and seller to agree on a number. AKA supply and demand. Try operating a business otherwise, and you’ll get steamrolled by others allocating resources more productively. Obviously this is subject to government regulations, but the context is outcomes between competing entities in the same framework, who aren’t making life or death decisions like in the emergency room of a hospital.
- cratermoon 6y ago
  That's sort of true in ideal circumstances, but when you get to a point where you have a Wal*Mart of Amazon vs. small independent retailers, they have so much money compared to competitors that they don't have to be especially efficient. Megacorps can even undersell competitors and take a loss until the competition taps out, and now they have no incentive to respond to demand efficiently because they are the only seller.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Yes, you need multiple sellers, multiple buyers, transparent information, and time to negotiate for it to work properly. That usually applies though in the context of tech employers and employees regarding pay.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

It really doesn’t matter what one thinks should or shouldn’t happen. The best mechanism to determine the price of something is for the buyer and seller to agree on a number. AKA supply and demand. Try operating a business otherwise, and you’ll get steamrolled by others allocating resources more productively. Obviously this is subject to government regulations, but the context is outcomes between competing entities in the same framework, who aren’t making life or death decisions like in the emergency room of a hospital.

cratermoon 6y ago
That's sort of true in ideal circumstances, but when you get to a point where you have a Wal*Mart of Amazon vs. small independent retailers, they have so much money compared to competitors that they don't have to be especially efficient. Megacorps can even undersell competitors and take a loss until the competition taps out, and now they have no incentive to respond to demand efficiently because they are the only seller.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Yes, you need multiple sellers, multiple buyers, transparent information, and time to negotiate for it to work properly. That usually applies though in the context of tech employers and employees regarding pay.