4 ms·

This reads like typical top 1% B.S. My previous employer kept cutting benefits (401k matches, health premiums, health copays, coinsurance) and meanwhile magical

This reads like typical top 1% B.S. My previous employer kept cutting benefits (401k matches, health premiums, health copays, coinsurance) and meanwhile magically the Head of Product is buying a 3M condo, the executive team is having 4 day "offsites" at Napa (when we have perfectly great conf rooms right here), and the CTO just got an M5. It doesn't take geniuses to realize the money isn't being distributed equally. Yeah productivity has fallen -- it was the only lever regular workers have. Why take on added stress when it doesnt turn into shared success? The bosses want more for less. Politicians want to just import overseas labor (whom they treat as semi-slaves) so they can reduce salaries and working conditions for everyone ("work more or else i'll replace you with a lower paid H1 that I can abuse because they are desperate") SHARED SUCCESS will magically fix productivity issues.

WalterBright 4y ago
> The bosses want more for less Everybody wants more for less. Systems based on self-sacrifice don't work.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Actually they work great, so long as everyone shares in the sacrificing.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Present an example.
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      Any functional family or military unit. Many non-profits and charities. A lot of successful startups. Costco, there's a reason their employees tend to stick around. Self-sacrifice doesn't mean you get zero reward or that reward is evenly distributed, it means everyone gives of themselves to improve the whole, whatever that is in context. You're part of the whole, so regardless of your position in it you benefit indirectly. The converse is a parasitic/extractive relationship, where your objective is to consume/destroy as much of the whole as possible to improve your own perceived standing relative to others. See Sears, most private equity firms, Kanye's recent antics, and arguably some of what Elon's doing with Twitter. At a large-scale, democracies work because they incentivize/force self-centered assholes to act in self-sacrificing manners in order to satisfy their greed.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        The military has never been known for efficiency. Non-profits and charities are well known for very little of the donations actually go to help people. > A lot of successful startups None are staffed by people deliberately working at a loss. Self-sacrifice is about deliberately working for a below-market salary for the benefit of others. Family units are selfishly motivated - the propagation of their genes.
        scottLobster 4y ago
        Sounds like you're defining "works" as whatever's convenient to your argument. The military can and will kick your ass, it doesn't need to be efficient to do that. The Gates foundation is well known for making progress on eradicating polio, among other measures. If we're defining self-sacrifice as deliberately working for a below-market salary for the benefit of others, you just defined pretty much every high-skill government employee. Every FBI agent, every general, every agency staffer could almost certainly make more in the private sector. Many of them stay out of a sense of duty and service, and because they want their work to be meaningful. I don't know how you don't say startups aren't staffed by people deliberately working at a loss. Almost by default startups pay less in salary with the vague promise of outsized gains on company stock when it goes public. Startups are also often started by idealists who want to try and put a vision out there into the world, and are willing to make giant sacrifice to achieve that vision. Usually that vision involves improving other peoples' lives in some way "making the world a better place" and all that. If you want to drill down deep enough any action that produces emotional reward is selfishly motivated, by that logic the only selfless actions are the ones that make us miserable without any hope of a reward, which is a very useless way to define selflessness as it excludes nearly all human activity.
    - dv_dt 4y ago
      Ray Dalio has been aggregating interesting historical data on characteristics of inequality correlated with loss of productivity. He places it in larger civilizational cycles. I donor know if I buy every corner of his theory but the data is there in his articles and books.
    - TuringNYC 4y ago
      >> Present an example. A startup where there is a single class of stock with no shortcuts for anyone to vesting.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Why is that sacrificing? People will be working for the big payday.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Systems where the perception of distribution is unfair don't work either - it disincentivizes people from participating. Many of us have a psychological reactance[1] reaction to such systems and no amount of trying to convince us that it actually is "fair" or that "everything is unfair" is going to change things. The only solution to this psychological problem is the construction of systems where it's not possible for the person taking more to tell the people they are taking from to "get used to it." 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I've never heard anyone say their compensation was fair. They always felt they deserved more. Systems where everyone gets the same pay are also invariably viewed as unfair by the people who know they produce more than others. The fair price is when the price is set by Supply&Demand. All attempts otherwise produce worse results.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you made such a broad claim, but I'll be happy to exploit it. Please list all attempts and confirm they produce worse results.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Public school teacher pay is based on education level and years of service. Nothing else. Public school results are significantly worse than private schools.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Right, but your argument used "all" and you've provided half of one example. You have to do it for every system. Again, I'm not sure why you universally qualified your argument. You're attempting to prove a universal with existentials.

WalterBright 4y ago

> The bosses want more for less Everybody wants more for less. Systems based on self-sacrifice don't work.

scottLobster 4y ago
Actually they work great, so long as everyone shares in the sacrificing.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Present an example.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Any functional family or military unit. Many non-profits and charities. A lot of successful startups. Costco, there's a reason their employees tend to stick around. Self-sacrifice doesn't mean you get zero reward or that reward is evenly distributed, it means everyone gives of themselves to improve the whole, whatever that is in context. You're part of the whole, so regardless of your position in it you benefit indirectly. The converse is a parasitic/extractive relationship, where your objective is to consume/destroy as much of the whole as possible to improve your own perceived standing relative to others. See Sears, most private equity firms, Kanye's recent antics, and arguably some of what Elon's doing with Twitter. At a large-scale, democracies work because they incentivize/force self-centered assholes to act in self-sacrificing manners in order to satisfy their greed.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The military has never been known for efficiency. Non-profits and charities are well known for very little of the donations actually go to help people. > A lot of successful startups None are staffed by people deliberately working at a loss. Self-sacrifice is about deliberately working for a below-market salary for the benefit of others. Family units are selfishly motivated - the propagation of their genes.
      - scottLobster 4y ago
        Sounds like you're defining "works" as whatever's convenient to your argument. The military can and will kick your ass, it doesn't need to be efficient to do that. The Gates foundation is well known for making progress on eradicating polio, among other measures. If we're defining self-sacrifice as deliberately working for a below-market salary for the benefit of others, you just defined pretty much every high-skill government employee. Every FBI agent, every general, every agency staffer could almost certainly make more in the private sector. Many of them stay out of a sense of duty and service, and because they want their work to be meaningful. I don't know how you don't say startups aren't staffed by people deliberately working at a loss. Almost by default startups pay less in salary with the vague promise of outsized gains on company stock when it goes public. Startups are also often started by idealists who want to try and put a vision out there into the world, and are willing to make giant sacrifice to achieve that vision. Usually that vision involves improving other peoples' lives in some way "making the world a better place" and all that. If you want to drill down deep enough any action that produces emotional reward is selfishly motivated, by that logic the only selfless actions are the ones that make us miserable without any hope of a reward, which is a very useless way to define selflessness as it excludes nearly all human activity.
  - dv_dt 4y ago
    Ray Dalio has been aggregating interesting historical data on characteristics of inequality correlated with loss of productivity. He places it in larger civilizational cycles. I donor know if I buy every corner of his theory but the data is there in his articles and books.
  - TuringNYC 4y ago
    >> Present an example. A startup where there is a single class of stock with no shortcuts for anyone to vesting.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Why is that sacrificing? People will be working for the big payday.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Systems where the perception of distribution is unfair don't work either - it disincentivizes people from participating. Many of us have a psychological reactance[1] reaction to such systems and no amount of trying to convince us that it actually is "fair" or that "everything is unfair" is going to change things. The only solution to this psychological problem is the construction of systems where it's not possible for the person taking more to tell the people they are taking from to "get used to it." 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I've never heard anyone say their compensation was fair. They always felt they deserved more. Systems where everyone gets the same pay are also invariably viewed as unfair by the people who know they produce more than others. The fair price is when the price is set by Supply&Demand. All attempts otherwise produce worse results.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you made such a broad claim, but I'll be happy to exploit it. Please list all attempts and confirm they produce worse results.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Public school teacher pay is based on education level and years of service. Nothing else. Public school results are significantly worse than private schools.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Right, but your argument used "all" and you've provided half of one example. You have to do it for every system. Again, I'm not sure why you universally qualified your argument. You're attempting to prove a universal with existentials.