2 ms·

You're missing the point. OP is generally right. It's a hard world out there, and you have to be educated to succeed at anything more than a trade or service in

You're missing the point. OP is generally right. It's a hard world out there, and you have to be educated to succeed at anything more than a trade or service industry job.

achenet 3y ago
> It's a hard world out there, and you have to be educated to succeed at anything more than a trade or service industry job. this is true. The market isn't fair however, nor does it pay everyone what they are worth, and I would rather correct that common falsehood when I see it.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  The market pays what their skills are worth given the demand for their skills in that location. That's all. If someone is in India they will not be paid a SF salary for many reasons. But the market sorts all of it into a quantifiable price for labor. If you want to voluntarily pay more than what the market demands, that's more akin to charity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - achenet 3y ago
    this may be a difference in definition of worth that we have. You seem to equate "worth" with "market price"/"business value". I equate "worth" with "how much money they make the business". So in my defintion/worldview, an programmer in India that increases the click through rate on $AD_TECH_GIANT's ads by 1%, raising the ARR from $1 billion to $1 billion, $10 million dollars is worth $10 million, and a programmer in San Fransisco who accomplishes the same is worth the same. In your worldview, how much value they bring to the organisation is irrelevant, and they are worth what the market pays them... which honestly doesn't strike me as a particularly useful mental model if you're trying to get rich, but if it works for you, keep using it. To quote Warren Buffet: "price is what you pay, value is what you get." I try to find things with a good value/price ratio. Using your model, the value of a thing is it's price, so... not really sure how you can make purchase decisions thinking like that, honestly. For more thoughts on the matter: https://danluu.com/hiring-lemons/ https://danluu.com/hiring-lemons/
    - TimTheTinker 3y ago
      By that definition, a business has to always pay someone less than what they're worth in order for hiring them to be a value proposition. If I'm paid what I'm "worth" why would a business spend any time/effort interviewing and hiring me -- the best that can happen is they will break even through the deal. It would be like buying a stock you know will flatline at the purchase price for the next 20 years. No monetary loss, but no gain either -- that's almost the definition of opportunity cost.

You're missing the point. OP is generally right. It's a hard world out there, and you have to be educated to succeed at anything more than a trade or service industry job.

achenet 3y ago

> It's a hard world out there, and you have to be educated to succeed at anything more than a trade or service industry job. this is true. The market isn't fair however, nor does it pay everyone what they are worth, and I would rather correct that common falsehood when I see it.

monero-xmr 3y ago
The market pays what their skills are worth given the demand for their skills in that location. That's all. If someone is in India they will not be paid a SF salary for many reasons. But the market sorts all of it into a quantifiable price for labor. If you want to voluntarily pay more than what the market demands, that's more akin to charity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- achenet 3y ago
  this may be a difference in definition of worth that we have. You seem to equate "worth" with "market price"/"business value". I equate "worth" with "how much money they make the business". So in my defintion/worldview, an programmer in India that increases the click through rate on $AD_TECH_GIANT's ads by 1%, raising the ARR from $1 billion to $1 billion, $10 million dollars is worth $10 million, and a programmer in San Fransisco who accomplishes the same is worth the same. In your worldview, how much value they bring to the organisation is irrelevant, and they are worth what the market pays them... which honestly doesn't strike me as a particularly useful mental model if you're trying to get rich, but if it works for you, keep using it. To quote Warren Buffet: "price is what you pay, value is what you get." I try to find things with a good value/price ratio. Using your model, the value of a thing is it's price, so... not really sure how you can make purchase decisions thinking like that, honestly. For more thoughts on the matter: https://danluu.com/hiring-lemons/ https://danluu.com/hiring-lemons/
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
    By that definition, a business has to always pay someone less than what they're worth in order for hiring them to be a value proposition. If I'm paid what I'm "worth" why would a business spend any time/effort interviewing and hiring me -- the best that can happen is they will break even through the deal. It would be like buying a stock you know will flatline at the purchase price for the next 20 years. No monetary loss, but no gain either -- that's almost the definition of opportunity cost.