4 ms·

Except if everyone gets paid the same, you're not being rewarded for the value you provide. I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be ti

Except if everyone gets paid the same, you're not being rewarded for the value you provide. I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be tied to experience, ability, and effort.

keepamovin 3y ago
You raise an important point. There's certainly multiple ways to look at it. The egalitarian way where a business can divide the share of revenue that is allocated for salary equally, no matter the role. This makes sense from a philosophy of everybody being a team and contributing equally to the results of the company. It can foster an esprit de corps and and a sense of fairness. On the negative side it could encourage companies to have more burdensome measures of fairness and contribution, and lead to resentment towards colleagues who don't pull their weight. Then there's the other method, where a value-based salary is allocated to each employee taking into account their experience, ability and effort. Crucially, however, this salary is not adjusted for location. That's the case to which I was speaking, specifically, even tho the type used by 0xide is clearly the egalitarian one.
svnt 3y ago
Presumably their equity is not evenly split.
dgb23 3y ago
> I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be tied to experience, ability, and effort. That's the labor theory of value (see: Smith, Marx), which in theory sounds meritocratic but it can't really be measured or assessed. In reality compensation either becomes a function of power, social currency and negotiation skills, which is the general norm in professions, or you have an institutionalized, perhaps even democratic process to determine salaries. Both of these variants generate overhead and are only approximations to what anyone would see as fair. The variant here where everyone gets the same, generous piece of a pie seems refreshingly simple and honest. I would also assume that it attracts the right kind of people, who are intrinsically motivated (at least after the threshold of a very high level of comfort is reached.)
- slibhb 3y ago
  Saying that people should be paid according to experience, ability, and effort is absolutely not the labor theory of value. The idea that contribution "can't really be measured" is a cop-out. Contribution can't be measured perfectly but it can be estimated with some accuracy by people who are involved in day-to-day work. "Some accuracy" is really all that's required: as long as contribution is correlated with compensation to some extent, you have a functioning meritocracy. > The variant here where everyone gets the same, generous piece of a pie seems refreshingly simple and honest. I bet it works great if you have a small team, are extremely picky about hiring, and quickly fire bad hires. Otherwise it will be awful.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > Contribution can't be measured perfectly but it can be estimated with some accuracy by people who are involved in day-to-day work This is handwaving in the extreme. Anyone involved in software development knows that a single line of code can be critical to success or failure, as can a blob of 100k LOC, so product-quantity metrics are of almost no use. The "estimate" you're talking about generally comes down to general "feelings" about who works hard, which have repeatedly been shown to be poor metrics for actual contributions.
    - slibhb 3y ago
      Life is full of handwaving. In almost any workplace, it's very simple to know who's doing the work (and it's usually a shockingly small number of people). It's the idea that we can reduce this to a mathematical formula (the opposite of handwaving) that's odd. > The "estimate" you're talking about generally comes down to general "feelings" about who works hard, which have repeatedly been shown to be poor metrics for actual contributions. How has this been "shown"? Anyway, you're begging the question that there's some way to determine "actual contributions" that we can compare to "feelings". If you actually work with a group of people on a daily basis and can't rank order them in terms of usefulness, I find that astonishing. And remember, rankings don't have to be perfect, they just have to more accurate that random.

Except if everyone gets paid the same, you're not being rewarded for the value you provide. I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be tied to experience, ability, and effort.

keepamovin 3y ago

You raise an important point. There's certainly multiple ways to look at it. The egalitarian way where a business can divide the share of revenue that is allocated for salary equally, no matter the role. This makes sense from a philosophy of everybody being a team and contributing equally to the results of the company. It can foster an esprit de corps and and a sense of fairness. On the negative side it could encourage companies to have more burdensome measures of fairness and contribution, and lead to resentment towards colleagues who don't pull their weight. Then there's the other method, where a value-based salary is allocated to each employee taking into account their experience, ability and effort. Crucially, however, this salary is not adjusted for location. That's the case to which I was speaking, specifically, even tho the type used by 0xide is clearly the egalitarian one.

svnt 3y ago

Presumably their equity is not evenly split.

dgb23 3y ago

> I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be tied to experience, ability, and effort. That's the labor theory of value (see: Smith, Marx), which in theory sounds meritocratic but it can't really be measured or assessed. In reality compensation either becomes a function of power, social currency and negotiation skills, which is the general norm in professions, or you have an institutionalized, perhaps even democratic process to determine salaries. Both of these variants generate overhead and are only approximations to what anyone would see as fair. The variant here where everyone gets the same, generous piece of a pie seems refreshingly simple and honest. I would also assume that it attracts the right kind of people, who are intrinsically motivated (at least after the threshold of a very high level of comfort is reached.)

slibhb 3y ago
Saying that people should be paid according to experience, ability, and effort is absolutely not the labor theory of value. The idea that contribution "can't really be measured" is a cop-out. Contribution can't be measured perfectly but it can be estimated with some accuracy by people who are involved in day-to-day work. "Some accuracy" is really all that's required: as long as contribution is correlated with compensation to some extent, you have a functioning meritocracy. > The variant here where everyone gets the same, generous piece of a pie seems refreshingly simple and honest. I bet it works great if you have a small team, are extremely picky about hiring, and quickly fire bad hires. Otherwise it will be awful.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Contribution can't be measured perfectly but it can be estimated with some accuracy by people who are involved in day-to-day work This is handwaving in the extreme. Anyone involved in software development knows that a single line of code can be critical to success or failure, as can a blob of 100k LOC, so product-quantity metrics are of almost no use. The "estimate" you're talking about generally comes down to general "feelings" about who works hard, which have repeatedly been shown to be poor metrics for actual contributions.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    Life is full of handwaving. In almost any workplace, it's very simple to know who's doing the work (and it's usually a shockingly small number of people). It's the idea that we can reduce this to a mathematical formula (the opposite of handwaving) that's odd. > The "estimate" you're talking about generally comes down to general "feelings" about who works hard, which have repeatedly been shown to be poor metrics for actual contributions. How has this been "shown"? Anyway, you're begging the question that there's some way to determine "actual contributions" that we can compare to "feelings". If you actually work with a group of people on a daily basis and can't rank order them in terms of usefulness, I find that astonishing. And remember, rankings don't have to be perfect, they just have to more accurate that random.