4 ms·

Aren’t you doing the exact same non-rigorous thing here? The issue is productivity is ludicrously hard to measure in the best case scenario, and all this flux i

Aren’t you doing the exact same non-rigorous thing here? The issue is productivity is ludicrously hard to measure in the best case scenario, and all this flux is making it pretty much impossible. Meanwhile, the “it’ll take a few years to wash out” and “it’ll be obvious to the people in the environment before then” are both correct and both applicable to either side of this argument, thus you get the fairly invested/high-conviction but “low rigor” argumentation.

gipp 3y ago
Yes, I am, but I'm claiming a lack of firm knowledge, not that I have "more proof" of one particular explanation.
addicted 3y ago
The OP is doing the exact opposite. They’re saying we don’t yet know, as opposed to a lot of people who are claiming we know one way or the other.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I personally don’t see much of that on this site on this topic. I see a whole lot of people talking about their personal experiences, the few structural things we do know (e.g. office spend), and people making broad factual claims on either side getting reliably downvoted and “citation needed”’d But obviously the “what do you see here” discussion is pointless.
- dventimihasura 3y ago
  No, the OP says explicitly that some people do know: "OTOH it's likely to be obvious to people actually in the environment long before it has a measurable impact on any kind of balance sheet."
acuozzo 3y ago
> The issue is productivity is ludicrously hard to measure And with any luck it will remain so for years and years to come. This difficulty is what levels the playing field in the office. It's what enables untalented-but-hardworking employees to still have a seat even though they have to burn the midnight oil to do so. True meritocracy is a slippery slope I pray we never have to travel down.
- mrangle 3y ago
  There's an expanse of gradation in policies that embrace "untalented yet hardworking" and "true meritocracy". It's not a binary choice. What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary.
  - acuozzo 3y ago
    > It's not a binary choice. Which I acknowledged by describing it as a slippery slope. > What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? One does not exist AFAICT and, with any luck, one will never exist. > What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. By untalented I did not necessarily mean stupid. I meant non-"rockstar" or whatever the mythical 10X programmer is called nowadays.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented, employers make profits on their work as well. Just look at salaries compared to profits. If a talented worker makes her company a profit of 10 million dollars just because of her work, she'll be lucky to get 100 000 dollars out of that. So there's plenty of money left for paying the untalented. And they are sure to also get less than they deserve.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      > In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented What? If you earn $1000 and then you go buy a TV for $990, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all," since you now have $10? If you get a free TV, but you have to drive 8 hours one way to pick it up then 8 hours back the other way, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all?"
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Let's say a talented employee makes his company 10 000 dollars of profit each month, while costing 1000 dollars in salary. An untalented employee might however only make the company 5000 dollars of profit each month, while costing the same 1000 salary. The company still makes money on the untalented employee, so it's not right to talk about cost. This is how things work in most companies.
bordercases 3y ago
He’s being marginally more rational about risk where the counterparty is marginally more rational about evidence due to availability bias.

gipp 3y ago

Yes, I am, but I'm claiming a lack of firm knowledge, not that I have "more proof" of one particular explanation.

addicted 3y ago

The OP is doing the exact opposite. They’re saying we don’t yet know, as opposed to a lot of people who are claiming we know one way or the other.

ethanbond 3y ago
I personally don’t see much of that on this site on this topic. I see a whole lot of people talking about their personal experiences, the few structural things we do know (e.g. office spend), and people making broad factual claims on either side getting reliably downvoted and “citation needed”’d But obviously the “what do you see here” discussion is pointless.
dventimihasura 3y ago
No, the OP says explicitly that some people do know: "OTOH it's likely to be obvious to people actually in the environment long before it has a measurable impact on any kind of balance sheet."

acuozzo 3y ago

> The issue is productivity is ludicrously hard to measure And with any luck it will remain so for years and years to come. This difficulty is what levels the playing field in the office. It's what enables untalented-but-hardworking employees to still have a seat even though they have to burn the midnight oil to do so. True meritocracy is a slippery slope I pray we never have to travel down.

mrangle 3y ago
There's an expanse of gradation in policies that embrace "untalented yet hardworking" and "true meritocracy". It's not a binary choice. What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary.
- acuozzo 3y ago
  > It's not a binary choice. Which I acknowledged by describing it as a slippery slope. > What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? One does not exist AFAICT and, with any luck, one will never exist. > What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. By untalented I did not necessarily mean stupid. I meant non-"rockstar" or whatever the mythical 10X programmer is called nowadays.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented, employers make profits on their work as well. Just look at salaries compared to profits. If a talented worker makes her company a profit of 10 million dollars just because of her work, she'll be lucky to get 100 000 dollars out of that. So there's plenty of money left for paying the untalented. And they are sure to also get less than they deserve.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    > In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented What? If you earn $1000 and then you go buy a TV for $990, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all," since you now have $10? If you get a free TV, but you have to drive 8 hours one way to pick it up then 8 hours back the other way, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all?"
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Let's say a talented employee makes his company 10 000 dollars of profit each month, while costing 1000 dollars in salary. An untalented employee might however only make the company 5000 dollars of profit each month, while costing the same 1000 salary. The company still makes money on the untalented employee, so it's not right to talk about cost. This is how things work in most companies.

bordercases 3y ago

He’s being marginally more rational about risk where the counterparty is marginally more rational about evidence due to availability bias.