4 ms·
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
by 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 agoBy 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.