4 ms·

He probably rightly senses that his boss wouldn't feel the way you hope you would. In fact I don't think most people would offer him a rational incentive at all

by staunch 15y ago

He probably rightly senses that his boss wouldn't feel the way you hope you would. In fact I don't think most people would offer him a rational incentive at all. If he saves the company $1 million a year are you actually going to cut him a $200k+ bonus? I'd be very doubtful of anyone who says they would. Most people would give him $20k if they're especially generous and a pat on the head.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ohashi 15y ago
Or he could simply be replacing himself with no reward. Oh, you've automated it? Thanks. Bye.
- billybob 15y ago
  That's possible, but only if they're stupid. They'd be losing someone who can knows their business and could automate their next manual process. I'd suggest he say this: "hey boss, I think I can automate this process, increasing accuracy and productivity. Would you give me salary X if I can do it?" If the boss says "awesome, yes!", then he's got a better job. If the boss says no or is lukewarm, he could keep doing what he's doing, but actually study programming in the time he's goofing off and start a job search. Either way, he's on a path to getting to program, not having to hide it, and getting properly compensated. The more difficult question is: what if they lay off his coworkers because of his innovation? How should he feel then?
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    > The more difficult question is: what if they lay off his coworkers because of his innovation? How should he feel then? That's a question of how to deal with a broken system. Automation is by definition the destruction of manual work. Most of the time, of boring manual work. This is great. We should automate as much as we can. Oh, but it happens right now: hourly productivity, according to my source[1], more than tripled since the fifties. But, as you point out, sudden increase of productivity mechanically creates unemployment, if you don't have a massive consumption growth to absorb it —not a good idea in the long term, and doesn't happen anyway. There are several solutions out of this dilemma, which you can apply in parallel. The most powerful one is: work less (at the national level). Get nearly everyone to work 32 hours per week (typically 4 days a week) instead of the usual 40. (You can use incentives instead of force if you don't want to appear too communist) If Productivity grows again too much in the next decades, get down to 28, 24, or even less. There. I'm happy to be a programmer, whose main job is to destroy others'. Except the system is broken, and shows no sign of being fixed. Getting back to your difficult question, I don't know what I'd actually do. I'd probably tell no one, given the risks, both for me and my coworkers. I'd feel bad about reaping all the bonuses, though —but I would save them to buy a house or whatever. [1] http://www.roosevelt2012.fr/propdetails?propid=13 http://www.roosevelt2012.fr/propdetails?propid=13 (French, see 3rd chart. Watch out, it seems Wikipedia disagrees —maybe they're not measuring the same thing?)
  - ohashi 15y ago
    Let's do some math. He's saying he gets 90% of the bonus pool and expects many other people only get 100-200. So 5 others, 500-1000 for them, his take home would be 4500-9500 bonus. If there are 10 others, 1000-2000 for them, his take home would be 9500-19500 bonus. We're potentially talking 6 figure bonuses per year. Whose salary level do you think that would put him on? Do you think they will accept the data entry guy becoming as compensated? I doubt it would work politically and financially off some basic napkin math.
16s 15y ago
You'd be surprised. I know several guys who pay regional sales manages 15% of net. No matter how much is sold, they get 15% every month. This encourages them to work hard and allows them to directly influence the income. And yes, if they sell 1 million bucks of goods and services, they get 15% of that.
- staunch 15y ago
  There are quite a few places where people get a % of the money they earn/save. Data entry generally isn't one of them.
stfu 15y ago
This incentive question is really a good one. I personally always viewed these rates as ridiculously low so that people would be fools to think about how to eliminate their own jobs. It would be very interesting to analyze if indeed higher monetary incentives do rise the level of innovation within a company.

by staunch 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ohashi 15y ago

Or he could simply be replacing himself with no reward. Oh, you've automated it? Thanks. Bye.

billybob 15y ago
That's possible, but only if they're stupid. They'd be losing someone who can knows their business and could automate their next manual process. I'd suggest he say this: "hey boss, I think I can automate this process, increasing accuracy and productivity. Would you give me salary X if I can do it?" If the boss says "awesome, yes!", then he's got a better job. If the boss says no or is lukewarm, he could keep doing what he's doing, but actually study programming in the time he's goofing off and start a job search. Either way, he's on a path to getting to program, not having to hide it, and getting properly compensated. The more difficult question is: what if they lay off his coworkers because of his innovation? How should he feel then?
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  > The more difficult question is: what if they lay off his coworkers because of his innovation? How should he feel then? That's a question of how to deal with a broken system. Automation is by definition the destruction of manual work. Most of the time, of boring manual work. This is great. We should automate as much as we can. Oh, but it happens right now: hourly productivity, according to my source[1], more than tripled since the fifties. But, as you point out, sudden increase of productivity mechanically creates unemployment, if you don't have a massive consumption growth to absorb it —not a good idea in the long term, and doesn't happen anyway. There are several solutions out of this dilemma, which you can apply in parallel. The most powerful one is: work less (at the national level). Get nearly everyone to work 32 hours per week (typically 4 days a week) instead of the usual 40. (You can use incentives instead of force if you don't want to appear too communist) If Productivity grows again too much in the next decades, get down to 28, 24, or even less. There. I'm happy to be a programmer, whose main job is to destroy others'. Except the system is broken, and shows no sign of being fixed. Getting back to your difficult question, I don't know what I'd actually do. I'd probably tell no one, given the risks, both for me and my coworkers. I'd feel bad about reaping all the bonuses, though —but I would save them to buy a house or whatever. [1] http://www.roosevelt2012.fr/propdetails?propid=13 http://www.roosevelt2012.fr/propdetails?propid=13 (French, see 3rd chart. Watch out, it seems Wikipedia disagrees —maybe they're not measuring the same thing?)
- ohashi 15y ago
  Let's do some math. He's saying he gets 90% of the bonus pool and expects many other people only get 100-200. So 5 others, 500-1000 for them, his take home would be 4500-9500 bonus. If there are 10 others, 1000-2000 for them, his take home would be 9500-19500 bonus. We're potentially talking 6 figure bonuses per year. Whose salary level do you think that would put him on? Do you think they will accept the data entry guy becoming as compensated? I doubt it would work politically and financially off some basic napkin math.

16s 15y ago

You'd be surprised. I know several guys who pay regional sales manages 15% of net. No matter how much is sold, they get 15% every month. This encourages them to work hard and allows them to directly influence the income. And yes, if they sell 1 million bucks of goods and services, they get 15% of that.

staunch 15y ago
There are quite a few places where people get a % of the money they earn/save. Data entry generally isn't one of them.

stfu 15y ago

This incentive question is really a good one. I personally always viewed these rates as ridiculously low so that people would be fools to think about how to eliminate their own jobs. It would be very interesting to analyze if indeed higher monetary incentives do rise the level of innovation within a company.