3 ms·

How else can an employer decide who to give a raise to or not? What prevents everyone from asking for a raise? I think the employer-employee relationship, espe

How else can an employer decide who to give a raise to or not? What prevents everyone from asking for a raise? I think the employer-employee relationship, especially when it comes to salary, is inherently antagonistic because our interests are basically 100% oppositely aligned. An employee always wants to be paid more; an employer always wants to pay less.

zmgsabst 3y ago
> an employer wants to pay less Your dark triad mentality is showing through: An employer doesn’t have an inherent reason to pay less — they have an inherent reason to increase value of the company. That people conflate the two goals of the company is purely a result of unchecked dark triad thinking in HR — and the preference of exploitation over growth. This is a Day 2 failure mode because the substitution of your real goal (“make more money”) for a dark triad goal (“maximally exploit my workers”) leads to self-defeating behavior on the primary goal: you make less money by exploiting your workers. However, as it satisfies the desire to abuse from unhealthy people, we tend towards that defective behavior when dark triad behavior isn’t regulated appropriately.
- somsak2 3y ago
  I wouldn't necessarily say that wanting to pay an employee less is "exploitive," just as I wouldn't label an employee's desire to make more an attempt to exploit the company either. I'm just saying that those are opposing goals that are going to make it difficult to build a fully aligned relationship between the two parties. Not sure I really understand how this position relates to the Dark Triad concept. I thought that these days DT was really only bandied about by people in the pick-up community with something to sell to frustrated men.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    I would call attempting to earn more than a fair share of the value you create “exploiting the company”. You’re the one creating a false impression by insisting that those are the only goals one could have in this situation: You can interact in modalities besides trying to maximally exploit your partner — and game theoretically, those cooperative modalities are dominant. The mistake you’re making, due to viewing the world through a Machiavellian lens, is supposing that’s the only or even optimal strategy — when empirically and theoretically it’s not. That you closed out with a lame insult (“muh incels!”) shows perhaps my comment struck closer to home than you’re comfortable with.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rcbdev 3y ago
  I have worked for two big American companies (global headcount ~300-400k) and two big companies from Europe (global headcount ~50-70k - hard to find any bigger that have their HQ here). These "dark triad" corporate failure modes you describe I've always suspected are a distinctly US-American phenomenon and I have always avoided companies headquartered in the US because of this. We do have exploitative companies founded here as well of course but their practices pale in comparison to what I've seen people go through at the American counterparts.

zmgsabst 3y ago

> an employer wants to pay less Your dark triad mentality is showing through: An employer doesn’t have an inherent reason to pay less — they have an inherent reason to increase value of the company. That people conflate the two goals of the company is purely a result of unchecked dark triad thinking in HR — and the preference of exploitation over growth. This is a Day 2 failure mode because the substitution of your real goal (“make more money”) for a dark triad goal (“maximally exploit my workers”) leads to self-defeating behavior on the primary goal: you make less money by exploiting your workers. However, as it satisfies the desire to abuse from unhealthy people, we tend towards that defective behavior when dark triad behavior isn’t regulated appropriately.

somsak2 3y ago
I wouldn't necessarily say that wanting to pay an employee less is "exploitive," just as I wouldn't label an employee's desire to make more an attempt to exploit the company either. I'm just saying that those are opposing goals that are going to make it difficult to build a fully aligned relationship between the two parties. Not sure I really understand how this position relates to the Dark Triad concept. I thought that these days DT was really only bandied about by people in the pick-up community with something to sell to frustrated men.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I would call attempting to earn more than a fair share of the value you create “exploiting the company”. You’re the one creating a false impression by insisting that those are the only goals one could have in this situation: You can interact in modalities besides trying to maximally exploit your partner — and game theoretically, those cooperative modalities are dominant. The mistake you’re making, due to viewing the world through a Machiavellian lens, is supposing that’s the only or even optimal strategy — when empirically and theoretically it’s not. That you closed out with a lame insult (“muh incels!”) shows perhaps my comment struck closer to home than you’re comfortable with.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rcbdev 3y ago
I have worked for two big American companies (global headcount ~300-400k) and two big companies from Europe (global headcount ~50-70k - hard to find any bigger that have their HQ here). These "dark triad" corporate failure modes you describe I've always suspected are a distinctly US-American phenomenon and I have always avoided companies headquartered in the US because of this. We do have exploitative companies founded here as well of course but their practices pale in comparison to what I've seen people go through at the American counterparts.