4 ms·

> But where does that leave us as a society? Not our problem. exec + mgmt creates the incentives set and reaps nearly all the rewards for it. Don't take person

> But where does that leave us as a society? Not our problem. exec + mgmt creates the incentives set and reaps nearly all the rewards for it. Don't take personal loss for something you do not have meaningful equity in (ie you will not participate in the rewards). And btw the vast majority of equity plans are not meaningful equity. Compare your compensation to exec layer and decide if you're getting a proportional share, I'd argue unless your C suite compensation is around 10x the lower paid folks (it's usually closer to 100x) then no, you're not equitably participating. Now, if you own a meaningful part of the rewards, go HAM.

atonse 3y ago
I get that you're saying Not "our" problem from the perspective of an employee "our" – but you're a consumer, aren't you? A taxpayer too. Pretty much every single issue that we face as humanity will have a business component in the solution. Even larger government-funded solutions will have to fund private contractors to carry out whatever actions, and in many cases, make a difference whether some companies go above and beyond. Take public transit. The buses and trains are manufactured by private industry. So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude? How about the concept of having pride in your work? I'm honestly not trying to make excuses for predatory and greedy management. I'm not. I am arguing that having a "not our problem" makes you just as bad as the evil management. In both cases, the consumer (you) suffers. I wasn't aware there was even a question about fairness regarding equity. Sure, some places would be even more cutthroat in their negotiations, but if you want more equity, usually you have to take more risks. Has that calculation changed in any fundamental way?
- dsr_ 3y ago
  " So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude?" The reality is that we do ride in those trains. It is not up to random employees to decide that today is a great day to go above and beyond. It is up to leadership to create a company that make that an easy and rewarding decision every day. If you want a better system, you're going to have to replace the existing systems.
  - tpoacher 3y ago
    This. Processes, not people.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  > but you're a consumer, aren't you? A taxpayer too. Well the gov't bit is a trick cause they have a monopoly[1], of course I want them to do their best work with what boils down to a forced purchase. (ie when I pay my taxes, I'm forced to purchase a basket of goods decided by politicians and lobbyists) . However, when it comes to private businesses? Let em die, I spend my money at the companies that give me the best value for my dollar. (yes sometimes premium, not always frugally). > of having pride in your work? Totally agree, find an employer that has that culture, then give them your absolute best. My point was do not throw your pearls to swine, do not martyr yourself at a company that does not value those things. [1]: not that I'm automatically advocating for ending all gov't monopolies, I don't have a good alternate solution at hand for some cases, but still can recognize one of the properties of the choice
newsclues 3y ago
"Not our problem." Some of us work in roles that are essential to society. When essential workers choose the "not my problem" mentality, it literally becomes the problem of everyone in society.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  I agree, part of this is that a lot of essential services are also monopolies where folks cannot vote with their money to build the best value add ... Part of the reason I'm currently in favor of voucher systems that serve both redistribution but also market solutions. UBI as a replacement to social safety net (for those of sound mind) is also a similarly intriguing option.
ap99 3y ago
What is your definition of personal loss in this context? Working more than 40 hour weeks? Agreeing to less base compensation for more equity?
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  I think I'd leave it a bit more abstract... Something like sacrifice beyond what is required to stay employed or beyond what would be marginally valuable to the person making the sacrifices. If you'll be fired for not coming in on Saturday, well then you gotta do that. But if you'll not be neither fired, nor sufficiently rewarded (IMO the most common case), then it's personal loss to sacrifice saturday for a reward that will almost entirely be reaped by C suite and Shareholders. Even if equity is part of your comp package, it's likely you'll own less than .01% of the company & your productivity.

atonse 3y ago

I get that you're saying Not "our" problem from the perspective of an employee "our" – but you're a consumer, aren't you? A taxpayer too. Pretty much every single issue that we face as humanity will have a business component in the solution. Even larger government-funded solutions will have to fund private contractors to carry out whatever actions, and in many cases, make a difference whether some companies go above and beyond. Take public transit. The buses and trains are manufactured by private industry. So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude? How about the concept of having pride in your work? I'm honestly not trying to make excuses for predatory and greedy management. I'm not. I am arguing that having a "not our problem" makes you just as bad as the evil management. In both cases, the consumer (you) suffers. I wasn't aware there was even a question about fairness regarding equity. Sure, some places would be even more cutthroat in their negotiations, but if you want more equity, usually you have to take more risks. Has that calculation changed in any fundamental way?

dsr_ 3y ago
" So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude?" The reality is that we do ride in those trains. It is not up to random employees to decide that today is a great day to go above and beyond. It is up to leadership to create a company that make that an easy and rewarding decision every day. If you want a better system, you're going to have to replace the existing systems.
- tpoacher 3y ago
  This. Processes, not people.
maerF0x0 3y ago
> but you're a consumer, aren't you? A taxpayer too. Well the gov't bit is a trick cause they have a monopoly[1], of course I want them to do their best work with what boils down to a forced purchase. (ie when I pay my taxes, I'm forced to purchase a basket of goods decided by politicians and lobbyists) . However, when it comes to private businesses? Let em die, I spend my money at the companies that give me the best value for my dollar. (yes sometimes premium, not always frugally). > of having pride in your work? Totally agree, find an employer that has that culture, then give them your absolute best. My point was do not throw your pearls to swine, do not martyr yourself at a company that does not value those things. [1]: not that I'm automatically advocating for ending all gov't monopolies, I don't have a good alternate solution at hand for some cases, but still can recognize one of the properties of the choice

newsclues 3y ago

"Not our problem." Some of us work in roles that are essential to society. When essential workers choose the "not my problem" mentality, it literally becomes the problem of everyone in society.

maerF0x0 3y ago
I agree, part of this is that a lot of essential services are also monopolies where folks cannot vote with their money to build the best value add ... Part of the reason I'm currently in favor of voucher systems that serve both redistribution but also market solutions. UBI as a replacement to social safety net (for those of sound mind) is also a similarly intriguing option.

ap99 3y ago

What is your definition of personal loss in this context? Working more than 40 hour weeks? Agreeing to less base compensation for more equity?

maerF0x0 3y ago
I think I'd leave it a bit more abstract... Something like sacrifice beyond what is required to stay employed or beyond what would be marginally valuable to the person making the sacrifices. If you'll be fired for not coming in on Saturday, well then you gotta do that. But if you'll not be neither fired, nor sufficiently rewarded (IMO the most common case), then it's personal loss to sacrifice saturday for a reward that will almost entirely be reaped by C suite and Shareholders. Even if equity is part of your comp package, it's likely you'll own less than .01% of the company & your productivity.