4 ms·

>key concept here is that a low performer is more easily replaced. It’s not easy to replace a low performing worker with scarce skills or domain specific knowl

>key concept here is that a low performer is more easily replaced. It’s not easy to replace a low performing worker with scarce skills or domain specific knowledge. It not difficult to replace a manual worker that requires limited training or domain knowledge. Developers are paid way more than an equitable share of the salary share in organisations like Amazon because their skills are currently scarce. This will not be the case in 20 years.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> It’s not easy to replace a low performing worker with scarce skills or domain specific knowledge. I’m defining “high performance” to include those sorts of persons. > Developers are paid way more than an equitable share of the salary share in organisations like Amazon because their skills are currently scarce. It is equitable precisely because those skills are scarce.
- flower-giraffe 6y ago
  >I’m defining “high performance” to include those sorts of persons. My point is that you may be confusing the ability to perform a function efficiently with the ability to perform a function that less people can do. I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace. >It is equitable precisely because those skills are scarce. My use of the use of equitable was as a synonym for fair. I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace. I didn’t mean to debate semantics with you and I can see how my language provoked that. My claim is that a scarce, difficult to replace employee deserves more money because of their scarcity and difficulty in being replaced. > I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair. I believe its fair. In fact I believe its unfair not to do so. Rather than debate the fairness, I’m more interested in if you think fairness is objective or intersubjective?
    - flower-giraffe 6y ago
      To me the debate does not seem to be semantics, we simply disagree what is fair and who is deserving. It’s unlikely either of us will change the others view, and HN is not the forum to attempt to do so.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        I respect your attempt to disengage from the discussion. Can I respectfully ask you to consider how your notions of fairness impact on the ethics of forcing one person’s notion of fairness on another? Thank you.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> It’s not easy to replace a low performing worker with scarce skills or domain specific knowledge. I’m defining “high performance” to include those sorts of persons. > Developers are paid way more than an equitable share of the salary share in organisations like Amazon because their skills are currently scarce. It is equitable precisely because those skills are scarce.

flower-giraffe 6y ago
>I’m defining “high performance” to include those sorts of persons. My point is that you may be confusing the ability to perform a function efficiently with the ability to perform a function that less people can do. I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace. >It is equitable precisely because those skills are scarce. My use of the use of equitable was as a synonym for fair. I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace. I didn’t mean to debate semantics with you and I can see how my language provoked that. My claim is that a scarce, difficult to replace employee deserves more money because of their scarcity and difficulty in being replaced. > I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair. I believe its fair. In fact I believe its unfair not to do so. Rather than debate the fairness, I’m more interested in if you think fairness is objective or intersubjective?
  - flower-giraffe 6y ago
    To me the debate does not seem to be semantics, we simply disagree what is fair and who is deserving. It’s unlikely either of us will change the others view, and HN is not the forum to attempt to do so.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      I respect your attempt to disengage from the discussion. Can I respectfully ask you to consider how your notions of fairness impact on the ethics of forcing one person’s notion of fairness on another? Thank you.