3 ms·
Yeah this doesn’t quite cut it. Maybe I’m over thinking it, but not everything scales that way. It gets wonky when you realize the difference between the top s
by mlac 5y ago
Yeah this doesn’t quite cut it. Maybe I’m over thinking it, but not everything scales that way.
It gets wonky when you realize the difference between the top schools and the mediocre schools (as a proxy for talent) is 30-40k annually. That’s nothing in the scheme of large deals. I guess looking a bit more, my question could also be worded to ask what changes or becomes less relevant (or more) as the numbers get bigger.
- Rumudiez 5y agoNothing changes, only the level of egos involved
- mlac 5y agoIf it’s truly just the same numbers, scaled, with no other considerations beyond ego, then a person who makes good decisions with small amounts of $ would be equipped to handle the larger decisions. I’d argue the tools required to budget and effectively allocate $100 are different (or should be) than those needed for $100,000,000. Granted, it’s not 1,000,000 times harder to budget (and your categories are bigger), but there should definitely be more care and thought put into the $100,000,000 problem. I’d like to know what that looks like or if there are resources for making those decisions well. For example, at that level each 1% advantage becomes a million dollar improvement, so hiring a Harvard MBA to study the problem for one year at $150K salary suddenly makes sense. You don’t do that for a $100 problem. In my mind it only gets weirder as you get into the Billions and you can begin to do some really weird and anti-competitive stuff.