4 ms·

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I just disagree with you. On one hand you say pay is based on value brought to the company, on the other hand you say it's b

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I just disagree with you. On one hand you say pay is based on value brought to the company, on the other hand you say it's based on scarcity. If it's value then how come the same engineer, bringing the same value, would receive different pay based on the country they live in? Clearly that's not it. So maybe it's scarcity? That drives up pay, but it's not enough by itself. Markets forces are a factor, but they're not the only factor, or even the most important factor, in compensation. No, the CEO is not 100x more valuable than the engineer. The decisions taken don't matter if you can't build well. Building well doesn't matter if you don't build the right thing. They're dependent on each other. Neither has impact by themselves. Also disagreed on 'scarcity' of CEO skills. There's a scarcity of CEOs because there's only 1 per company, but the "skills" are pretty common imo. Any C level exec or director level person has the skills to do the job.

hackerlight 4y ago
> On one hand you say pay is based on value brought to the company, on the other hand you say it's based on scarcity. These things aren't separate unless you're using a colloquial definition of "value" which would be inappropriate. If water was more scarce, it would be more valuable and the market would price it more than $0.005/L or whatever it is. My wording implied these things are linked: "it's about how much value you bring to the table in the context of labor market supply and demand." Which, I admit, wasn't the most precise or clear way to word that. Things hold $ value for two reasons: (1) the thing has perceived utility (we need water to survive, this is the demand side), and (2) the thing is scarce (this is the supply side). The CEO ticks both boxes. There is high demand for a competent CEO because a bad one will cause Apple's market cap to go down by billions, and a good one the opposite. There is short supply (scarcity) because less people can run Apple well than can write code well. You may disagree personally, but the market, that is the people in charge of hiring the CEO, doesn't. And the market is what sets the price of labor.

hackerlight 4y ago

> On one hand you say pay is based on value brought to the company, on the other hand you say it's based on scarcity. These things aren't separate unless you're using a colloquial definition of "value" which would be inappropriate. If water was more scarce, it would be more valuable and the market would price it more than $0.005/L or whatever it is. My wording implied these things are linked: "it's about how much value you bring to the table in the context of labor market supply and demand." Which, I admit, wasn't the most precise or clear way to word that. Things hold $ value for two reasons: (1) the thing has perceived utility (we need water to survive, this is the demand side), and (2) the thing is scarce (this is the supply side). The CEO ticks both boxes. There is high demand for a competent CEO because a bad one will cause Apple's market cap to go down by billions, and a good one the opposite. There is short supply (scarcity) because less people can run Apple well than can write code well. You may disagree personally, but the market, that is the people in charge of hiring the CEO, doesn't. And the market is what sets the price of labor.