4 ms·

Not all jobs have quantitative measures for impact. The more a job is decoupled from a measurable value, the more likely that job is to be bid up to "as much as

Not all jobs have quantitative measures for impact. The more a job is decoupled from a measurable value, the more likely that job is to be bid up to "as much as the company can afford." I've seen this in my career, the closer I get to "SRE" or "platform engineer" the more decoupled my salary has become from my actual measurable value. I'd articulate the thinking as, roughly: We know this role is important. We know that having a bad SRE team (or CEO or platform team) is expensive, it could cost us the 100% of the business. And we don't know how to measure the value a good one provides. Therefore we are willing to spend as much as we can afford to make sure we get a good one.

candiddevmike 3y ago
SREs aren't on the board of directors setting the pay for other SREs who are on their board of directors though. The elite/ownership/"capitalism winner" class are playing on an entirely different level with their power and influence. Don't kid yourself into drawing comparisons with your situation and miniscule in comparison compensation. It's always heads they win, tails you lose.
- smfjaw 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Jaygles 3y ago
    The people who decide where money gets allocated are allocating most of it to themselves? If this was done in a government it would be called extreme corruption.
    - jjoonathan 3y ago
      But but competition keeps them in check!!! (Competition between the two players in the market that have a revolving door of executives, a carefully crafted moat a mile wide, and raise prices together in lock-step but definitely do not collude, no sir!)
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >The people who decide where money gets allocated are allocating most of it to themselves The difference is that the people who decide to pay the CEO so much are the ones who made the money (the company owners), it's their money to spend how they see fit. In the government it's not people spending their own money, they're spending other people's money that they obtained through the threat of jail for those who don't pay it.
  - jacobr1 3y ago
    That is generally how it works though. The buyer wants to pay as little as possible and seller wants the maximum. That works in most circumstances. In the case hiring, in a tight labor market, there are more open roles than people, so the companies that want a particular hire, or value experience in that role, need to pay more to secure the candidate. And those that don't, end up with roles that aren't filled. In a market with more labor, then the firm has its pick of candidates, and can make lower offers, secure in the fact it probably will get a bite from a candidate with fewer options. It works that way with oil, or hog futures, or my corner bodega's sandwich prices.
  - p0pcult 3y ago
    [dead]
- r3trohack3r 3y ago
  > Don't kid yourself into drawing comparisons with your situation and miniscule in comparison compensation. There are two ways to read my comment. One as explaining CEO salaries. The other as actionable career advice for negotiating your own salary. I've used this insight to nearly 5x my salary. That salary was not minuscule to me.
mr_toad 3y ago
> as much as the company can afford. This is pretty much it. Everyone wants to avoid hiring a bad CEO so it’s a bidding war for executives with track records at large companies. And when you’re making billions a year the CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket.
carlosjobim 3y ago
> We know this role is important. We know that having a bad SRE team (or CEO or platform team) is expensive, it could cost us the 100% of the business. And we don't know how to measure the value a good one provides. Therefore we are willing to spend as much as we can afford to make sure we get a good one. And who are "we" in this train-of-thought? If it's shareholders, that's where the root of any problem lies. If shareholders are real businessmen and entrepreneurs who built up the company or similar companies, they will have a clue as to what is a good CEO. If the shareholders are real workers who believe in the company they're working for, they will have a clue as to what is a good CEO. Today, shareholders are no longer real businessmen or real workers, but retirees represented by bureaucratic investors. That's why they have no clue as to what is a good CEO.
- ummonk 3y ago
  Yup the shareholder is an ETF today. The people voting on behalf of shareholders aren’t the people benefiting from the success of the company.

candiddevmike 3y ago

SREs aren't on the board of directors setting the pay for other SREs who are on their board of directors though. The elite/ownership/"capitalism winner" class are playing on an entirely different level with their power and influence. Don't kid yourself into drawing comparisons with your situation and miniscule in comparison compensation. It's always heads they win, tails you lose.

smfjaw 3y ago
[flagged]
- Jaygles 3y ago
  The people who decide where money gets allocated are allocating most of it to themselves? If this was done in a government it would be called extreme corruption.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    But but competition keeps them in check!!! (Competition between the two players in the market that have a revolving door of executives, a carefully crafted moat a mile wide, and raise prices together in lock-step but definitely do not collude, no sir!)
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >The people who decide where money gets allocated are allocating most of it to themselves The difference is that the people who decide to pay the CEO so much are the ones who made the money (the company owners), it's their money to spend how they see fit. In the government it's not people spending their own money, they're spending other people's money that they obtained through the threat of jail for those who don't pay it.
- jacobr1 3y ago
  That is generally how it works though. The buyer wants to pay as little as possible and seller wants the maximum. That works in most circumstances. In the case hiring, in a tight labor market, there are more open roles than people, so the companies that want a particular hire, or value experience in that role, need to pay more to secure the candidate. And those that don't, end up with roles that aren't filled. In a market with more labor, then the firm has its pick of candidates, and can make lower offers, secure in the fact it probably will get a bite from a candidate with fewer options. It works that way with oil, or hog futures, or my corner bodega's sandwich prices.
- p0pcult 3y ago
  [dead]
r3trohack3r 3y ago
> Don't kid yourself into drawing comparisons with your situation and miniscule in comparison compensation. There are two ways to read my comment. One as explaining CEO salaries. The other as actionable career advice for negotiating your own salary. I've used this insight to nearly 5x my salary. That salary was not minuscule to me.

mr_toad 3y ago

> as much as the company can afford. This is pretty much it. Everyone wants to avoid hiring a bad CEO so it’s a bidding war for executives with track records at large companies. And when you’re making billions a year the CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket.

carlosjobim 3y ago

> We know this role is important. We know that having a bad SRE team (or CEO or platform team) is expensive, it could cost us the 100% of the business. And we don't know how to measure the value a good one provides. Therefore we are willing to spend as much as we can afford to make sure we get a good one. And who are "we" in this train-of-thought? If it's shareholders, that's where the root of any problem lies. If shareholders are real businessmen and entrepreneurs who built up the company or similar companies, they will have a clue as to what is a good CEO. If the shareholders are real workers who believe in the company they're working for, they will have a clue as to what is a good CEO. Today, shareholders are no longer real businessmen or real workers, but retirees represented by bureaucratic investors. That's why they have no clue as to what is a good CEO.

ummonk 3y ago
Yup the shareholder is an ETF today. The people voting on behalf of shareholders aren’t the people benefiting from the success of the company.