4 ms·

>It'd be better for society to fire clowns like these and administer them unemployment than to have them crowd out those that actually give a shit. The people

by nend 5y ago

>It'd be better for society to fire clowns like these and administer them unemployment than to have them crowd out those that actually give a shit. The people that give a shit are making 10x as much by not working for a public middle school. Fire the current lot if you want, but they'll just be replaced by the next set of people who aren't skilled enough to make market rate.

ethbr0 5y ago
Exactly. Most non-core-business organizations can't afford to hire someone competent, and therefore hire someone else. But obviously that person isn't going to say "Gee, I'm really not great at this computer stuff, but I'll do what I can." They say "Sure, I know all about all the computer stuff!" And then you have their leadership (who doesn't know any details), taking whatever they report up at face value. The governor probably believed he had a leg to stand on here, because I'm sure that's exactly what his people told him.
- handrous 5y ago
  > The governor probably believed he had a leg to stand on here, because I'm sure that's exactly what his people told him. My money's on this being purely a political decision. And for that, considering who it is and their position in the political landscape, I think it's too early to definitively call it a blunder.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I think it's a pretty terrible political decision regardless of the outcome. Whenever you take a stance on a highly technical issue like this you're rolling the dice and hoping that you don't actually have a number of technical minded folks in your state. It can backfire amazingly. It's much easier to play political games on much more abstract issues where it's harder to evaluate the options.
    - handrous 5y ago
      I don't think many tech folks, even in Missouri, are among this guy's voters, and the ones who are, aren't turning "blue" over this (they're probably in it for religious reasons, i.e. abortion). Meanwhile, he's received national attention. We'll see, but it may yet be a smart play, politically speaking. I'm not saying it for-sure is, I just don't think that result's anywhere near being off the table.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        I fled to Canada over a decade ago so take my opinion here with a grain of salt but... I think that folks still talk to other folks on a local and familial level so a cousin of mine that's anti-vax has reached out to talk about technical news occasionally and you'll tend to chat with neighbors. So having someone technically minded in your general blob of associations is generally enough for these sorts of obviously stupid moves to get politicians in serious trouble. The stakes are a lot lower obviously - but this is a much clearer case of technical malpractice than anything having to do with Snowden and reminds me of Morris[1]'s case - basically it's complete BS and a misuse of the law. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris (I might be thinking of someone else - I thought there was a teenager that got the book thrown at them back in the early days of the web but maybe I'm just misremebering things)
        gibspaulding 5y ago
        >I fled to Canada over a decade ago Have you written about this anywhere? I'd love to hear more about the motivation (not that it's hard to guess possibilities) and what the process actually looked like. I hear people threatening to move to Canada all the time, but there don't seem to be too many who go through with it!
        munk-a 5y ago
        Oh - I met a partner in Canada and when we looked at the costs to immigrate one way or the other it made a lot more sense to move up to Canada. Additionally the service offering was quite attractive up here, I'm in BC so there isn't any free pharmacare but there still is a pretty large provincial subsidy program. Additionally I was pleasantly surprised, when I moved up, to learn that Canada doesn't have the same culture of greed. I feel like, if you aren't making every cent possible in America that you could - if you aren't constantly extracting the absolute maximum revenue - you're looked down on. Up here I've found a much nicer focus on balancing work with interests.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Ehh I dunno. Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. The bigger problem is the risk of corruption when you start hiring 500k engineers.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The bigger problem is when their manager, and their manager, makes <500k. The manager-should-make-more rule gets squirrelly for technical stuff.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    A regional bank headquartered in my area of upstate NY, which is also a publicly traded company, paid, in 2019, three out of their five C-level executives whose salary is disclosed, a base salary of $500K or less. Do you or have you worked in a place where "engineers" make $500K? Have you thought about what they outsource to people making 1/10th or less, and why?
  - bavila 5y ago
    > Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. That sounds reasonable, unless you're an elected government official in a state where salaries of government employees are public information. Local media outlets and your political opponents will have a field day over a government employee making a half-a-million dollar salary. The public won't ever be able to understand or accept why one talented person should be made so wealthy in relation to the value they provide. However, the public will be fine with the same amount of money being spread out across 10 employees, since it still keeps all recipients in the poor house together with everyone else.
  - bruce511 5y ago
    Having a dept of 1 engineer is not great [1]. You'd want ideally 3 or 4. Whick is kinda no-man's-land between 50k and 500k. Say 125k,which would get you good, but not stellar. (and would be an improvement over 10 somewhat incompetent.) [1] having just 1 creates lots of bigger issues ; Availability (what happens when he's sick or on vacation). Technical documentation (there is none, its all in his head). Role transfer (when he leaves there is short intense handover, then nothing). Opinioned design - he does it his way, no discussion necessary - some will be good, but some will be bad. When he leaves, you can't replace him. 500k engineers won't work for a place where you just maintain the system the last guy designed and wrote - they want to design and write their own stuff from scratch. I could go on, but programming depts of 1 are usually a bad idea...
handrous 5y ago
My spouse is a teacher and has practically made a game of "which low-status jobs would match my current benefits-inclusive income, while never making me take work home or making me deal with kids' mental health issues, which is incredibly stressful?" With current wage hikes in the service industry, the proportion that make the cut is going up daily.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  I think it varies wildly by area, too. The teachers in my area appear to make a reasonable salary once you include pension. Admittedly, the stress level of the job comes into play, too...

by nend 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

Exactly. Most non-core-business organizations can't afford to hire someone competent, and therefore hire someone else. But obviously that person isn't going to say "Gee, I'm really not great at this computer stuff, but I'll do what I can." They say "Sure, I know all about all the computer stuff!" And then you have their leadership (who doesn't know any details), taking whatever they report up at face value. The governor probably believed he had a leg to stand on here, because I'm sure that's exactly what his people told him.

handrous 5y ago
> The governor probably believed he had a leg to stand on here, because I'm sure that's exactly what his people told him. My money's on this being purely a political decision. And for that, considering who it is and their position in the political landscape, I think it's too early to definitively call it a blunder.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think it's a pretty terrible political decision regardless of the outcome. Whenever you take a stance on a highly technical issue like this you're rolling the dice and hoping that you don't actually have a number of technical minded folks in your state. It can backfire amazingly. It's much easier to play political games on much more abstract issues where it's harder to evaluate the options.
  - handrous 5y ago
    I don't think many tech folks, even in Missouri, are among this guy's voters, and the ones who are, aren't turning "blue" over this (they're probably in it for religious reasons, i.e. abortion). Meanwhile, he's received national attention. We'll see, but it may yet be a smart play, politically speaking. I'm not saying it for-sure is, I just don't think that result's anywhere near being off the table.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I fled to Canada over a decade ago so take my opinion here with a grain of salt but... I think that folks still talk to other folks on a local and familial level so a cousin of mine that's anti-vax has reached out to talk about technical news occasionally and you'll tend to chat with neighbors. So having someone technically minded in your general blob of associations is generally enough for these sorts of obviously stupid moves to get politicians in serious trouble. The stakes are a lot lower obviously - but this is a much clearer case of technical malpractice than anything having to do with Snowden and reminds me of Morris[1]'s case - basically it's complete BS and a misuse of the law. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris (I might be thinking of someone else - I thought there was a teenager that got the book thrown at them back in the early days of the web but maybe I'm just misremebering things)
      - gibspaulding 5y ago
        >I fled to Canada over a decade ago Have you written about this anywhere? I'd love to hear more about the motivation (not that it's hard to guess possibilities) and what the process actually looked like. I hear people threatening to move to Canada all the time, but there don't seem to be too many who go through with it!
        munk-a 5y ago
        Oh - I met a partner in Canada and when we looked at the costs to immigrate one way or the other it made a lot more sense to move up to Canada. Additionally the service offering was quite attractive up here, I'm in BC so there isn't any free pharmacare but there still is a pretty large provincial subsidy program. Additionally I was pleasantly surprised, when I moved up, to learn that Canada doesn't have the same culture of greed. I feel like, if you aren't making every cent possible in America that you could - if you aren't constantly extracting the absolute maximum revenue - you're looked down on. Up here I've found a much nicer focus on balancing work with interests.
ummonk 5y ago
Ehh I dunno. Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. The bigger problem is the risk of corruption when you start hiring 500k engineers.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The bigger problem is when their manager, and their manager, makes <500k. The manager-should-make-more rule gets squirrelly for technical stuff.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  A regional bank headquartered in my area of upstate NY, which is also a publicly traded company, paid, in 2019, three out of their five C-level executives whose salary is disclosed, a base salary of $500K or less. Do you or have you worked in a place where "engineers" make $500K? Have you thought about what they outsource to people making 1/10th or less, and why?
- bavila 5y ago
  > Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. That sounds reasonable, unless you're an elected government official in a state where salaries of government employees are public information. Local media outlets and your political opponents will have a field day over a government employee making a half-a-million dollar salary. The public won't ever be able to understand or accept why one talented person should be made so wealthy in relation to the value they provide. However, the public will be fine with the same amount of money being spread out across 10 employees, since it still keeps all recipients in the poor house together with everyone else.
- bruce511 5y ago
  Having a dept of 1 engineer is not great [1]. You'd want ideally 3 or 4. Whick is kinda no-man's-land between 50k and 500k. Say 125k,which would get you good, but not stellar. (and would be an improvement over 10 somewhat incompetent.) [1] having just 1 creates lots of bigger issues ; Availability (what happens when he's sick or on vacation). Technical documentation (there is none, its all in his head). Role transfer (when he leaves there is short intense handover, then nothing). Opinioned design - he does it his way, no discussion necessary - some will be good, but some will be bad. When he leaves, you can't replace him. 500k engineers won't work for a place where you just maintain the system the last guy designed and wrote - they want to design and write their own stuff from scratch. I could go on, but programming depts of 1 are usually a bad idea...

handrous 5y ago

My spouse is a teacher and has practically made a game of "which low-status jobs would match my current benefits-inclusive income, while never making me take work home or making me deal with kids' mental health issues, which is incredibly stressful?" With current wage hikes in the service industry, the proportion that make the cut is going up daily.

RHSeeger 5y ago
I think it varies wildly by area, too. The teachers in my area appear to make a reasonable salary once you include pension. Admittedly, the stress level of the job comes into play, too...