3 ms·
> Can't we have multiple solutions to this problem? We probably can, but that's not what you suggest. > Some employers who match 401(k)s and do "human conditi
by nolok 6y ago
> Can't we have multiple solutions to this problem?
We probably can, but that's not what you suggest.
> Some employers who match 401(k)s and do "human condition" things. Others who push their teams hard, pay them adequately (albeit not well) and give them equity so they win and lose together.
You make the false assumption that you can't pay well your employees if you push them hard, as if it was an either/or. You can pay well your employees or not. You can push your employees and ask them to do more than average or not.
Choosing to push them yet not pay them well is a specific choice that gives the maximum value to the company at the expanse of its employees, and then the word you are looking for is not "push", it is "exploit". It is a logic that doesn't work, which is why company values skyrocket while salary stagnate.
I do find that doing this while also investing gigantic sums on something that has nothing to do with your core business is a bit unsavory.
There are plenty of companies out there, small and big, that push their employees well above and beyond, but compensate that by also paying them very well. That is also what I am doing at my own company and I've been successful doing so, and I've never had to play the "you're getting screwed for the betterment or humanity, but don't worry maybe someday you will be rich" card.
> I'm not saying Musk is successful because Tesla doesn't match 401(k)s. But perhaps someone focussed on 401(k) matching isn't a great fit at every workplace.
Absolutely. I'm not saying it in a vaccum, I'm saying that in the context of Tesla doing both of those action (the 401k and the Bitcoin thing) simultaneously. You put the context on the employees but I put it on Musk/Tesla. In the goal of improving the future, I think that is the wrong direction and choice.
- LMYahooTFY 6y ago>You make the false assumption that you can't pay well your employees if you push them hard, as if it was an either/or. You can pay well your employees or not. You can push your employees and ask them to do more than average or not. That wasn't an assumption, that was a suggestion that both of these could exist in different permutations. The fact that they there is tension between these two methods doesn't mean they're a binary and mutually exclusive, and that's not how I read GPs comment. You didn't actually address the point either, which was the notion of doubling down and investing in yourselves as a company instead of hedging with a 401k. It is interesting how you interpret this idea for your own company. >I do find that doing this while also investing gigantic sums on something that has nothing to do with your core business is a bit unsavory. I see this as not very relevant to the previous points so I address it separately. Effectively once your company's revenue and value moves beyond 7 digits, I would argue that financial paradigms have everything to do with your business regardless of what it is.