4 ms·

Was he doing something illegal/immoral? Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? Why does everybody think it is absolute must to max

Was he doing something illegal/immoral? Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? Why does everybody think it is absolute must to maximise the profits? Maybe he was ok with his profits and just didn't care to optimise his business as long as he has comfortable life? Is there something wrong with it. Over the years I have worked as an advisor with many owners and CEOs of various sized companies (up to couple thousand employees). I had many situations when those CEOs would confide in me how disappointed they were in some of the decisions their employees made when it comes to finances. Especially high level leaders, who should know better. As a rather typical example, situation when an ex-Microsoft director hired as new IT director would sign a contract with Snowflake to commit 300k USD over 3 years for a 10% discount. The issue is I calculated if we did not commit, we would actually pay about 500 USD/year. Yes, not 500 thousand, just 500 USD. After that we have instituted a near total ban on commitments as a recognition of the fact that we just can't predict the future. Or people that would start some expensive stuff on AWS and then would just "forget" to turn them off. Or a guy who thought it is ok to pay almost $100k for a marketing stunt where they would livestream with a single webcam a bunch of grazing cows for a week. Yeah, it is kind of easy to waste money when it is not your money.

averageRoyalty 3y ago
Yes. There is something wrong with cheaping out on a critical element of your business them attacking the people who warned you the cheaping out would cause issues when it causes issues. Whilst there's nothing wrong with frugality, there's definitely something wrong with abusing those who try and show you the cause of the problem you're unhappy with. I'm unsure if maybe you misunderstood the article, or if I'm being too narrow lensed here?
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  There's also something wrong with not paying for the server you eventually do buy.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  Some bosses think if it is possible to do something, that they can hire anyone who is competent and yell at them to get it done. They are not sapient enough to calculate the labor cost vs. parts savings.
throw0101b 3y ago
> Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? There are differences between efficient, frugal, and cheap. Article: > The Ferrari-owning boss got wind of this mess and would berate Aaron and his crew whenever the server became unavailable, citing the enormous cost of outages. "Enormous cost". * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  It is hard to know the difference between efficient, frugal and cheap. Your employees will always want to spend more money, you always want to save it. You may not be expert on the topic of servers but you also know you can't completely trust your employees. It is a difficult situation for owners and sometimes they do mistakes.
dukeyukey 3y ago
Executives who own a business cannot be surprised when employees with no equity don't treat company money as their own, because it isn't. It's a different relationship. If they want people to care, give them a real stake in things. Not a no-vote, no liquidation preference exit-only share class either - real, genuine equity. Pay dividends too, even if they're small. Show employees the value of working at a financially responsible business.
- criley2 3y ago
  That sounds like how you build a really strong business, not how you become a really rich executive. I imagine society would be nearing utopia if your average upper management cared about building good businesses instead of getting unreasonably wealthy.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    Thing is, doing exactly that has built strong businesses with rich execs! Silicon Valley's penchant for giving employees equity (even if not quite the terms I described) has created the most dominant businesses the planet has, over the course of a mere 50 years, _and_ minted hundreds of thousands of new millionaires while it did it.
- westhanover 3y ago
  [dead]
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    If someone is hiring idiots that's on them. But giving equity doesn't even mean paying them more; it does mean aligning the incentives of the employee with the business. And it means the goals of the executives becomes the goals of the employees. Less politics, less bickering, more making stuff and selling it for profit.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
nine_zeros 3y ago
There is nothing wrong with the two Ferraris - as long as the boss accepts that they ate resources from the company. They need to be willing to accept the consequences which could range from poor implementation of business ideas, poor maintenance, loss of customers and employees. If the boss comes down on the actual workers for activities that could have been solved by steering the Ferrari money into making the work easier, then there absolutely is something wrong.
CuriousCosmic 3y ago
Yes he very clearly was. The article tries to make it as clear as possible that this guy is a massive scumbag who was fucking others over to save a dime at each opportunity. The clearest example is: > A couple of months later, the ad agency agreed to buy a new file server. A real one. Aaron built the box with a glad heart. > But the agency never paid for it. So he had his company agree to pay for a replacement server but after they procured it he just refused to pay for it and forced the MSP to eat the cost instead. > Why does everybody think it is absolute must to maximise the profits? Maybe he was ok with his profits and just didn't care to optimise his business as long as he has comfortable life? Is there something wrong with it. This clearly isn't the case as the article says quote: > The Ferrari-owning boss got wind of this mess and would berate Aaron and his crew whenever the server became unavailable, citing the enormous cost of outages. So he was penny pinching and refused to do things that would allow the company to save money while harassing the MSP each time his self inflicted problem occurred. This is a trend with a lot of these types where they will not spend a dime to fix a problem in a perceived cost center but then each the problem predictably occurs, they subject said "cost center" with abuse for not fixing the problem despite actively being the reason the problem is unresolved.
kkfx 3y ago
> Was he doing something illegal/immoral? No > Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? Maybe he have little comprehension of his own business so he is unable to evaluate the tool of the trade his business need and as a result he made bad choices... It's not a matter of profit but a matter of understanding that administrative CAN'T BE just "managers" meaning with an economy CV, they must know what the company they manage do, not at the level of understatement of any single technicians but enough to know and make wise decisions helped by their technicians of any fields. Years ago the founder and CEO of a historic mass distribution company was used to visit potential new warehouses with the senior head warehouseman alongside others just as an example of how things works in the recent past. A step at a time when the detachment between the management and the material activity happened China have started to gain ground and we in Europe have started to loose. I imaging the same happen in USA and other countries.
smoldesu 3y ago
> Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? That's almost as wild as suggesting someone hosts their software on a Mac Mini because they're a penny-pincher. Nobody owns two Ferraris as a product of life-long frugality, let alone one.

averageRoyalty 3y ago

Yes. There is something wrong with cheaping out on a critical element of your business them attacking the people who warned you the cheaping out would cause issues when it causes issues. Whilst there's nothing wrong with frugality, there's definitely something wrong with abusing those who try and show you the cause of the problem you're unhappy with. I'm unsure if maybe you misunderstood the article, or if I'm being too narrow lensed here?

andrewflnr 3y ago
There's also something wrong with not paying for the server you eventually do buy.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Some bosses think if it is possible to do something, that they can hire anyone who is competent and yell at them to get it done. They are not sapient enough to calculate the labor cost vs. parts savings.

throw0101b 3y ago

> Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? There are differences between efficient, frugal, and cheap. Article: > The Ferrari-owning boss got wind of this mess and would berate Aaron and his crew whenever the server became unavailable, citing the enormous cost of outages. "Enormous cost". * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
It is hard to know the difference between efficient, frugal and cheap. Your employees will always want to spend more money, you always want to save it. You may not be expert on the topic of servers but you also know you can't completely trust your employees. It is a difficult situation for owners and sometimes they do mistakes.

dukeyukey 3y ago

Executives who own a business cannot be surprised when employees with no equity don't treat company money as their own, because it isn't. It's a different relationship. If they want people to care, give them a real stake in things. Not a no-vote, no liquidation preference exit-only share class either - real, genuine equity. Pay dividends too, even if they're small. Show employees the value of working at a financially responsible business.

criley2 3y ago
That sounds like how you build a really strong business, not how you become a really rich executive. I imagine society would be nearing utopia if your average upper management cared about building good businesses instead of getting unreasonably wealthy.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Thing is, doing exactly that has built strong businesses with rich execs! Silicon Valley's penchant for giving employees equity (even if not quite the terms I described) has created the most dominant businesses the planet has, over the course of a mere 50 years, _and_ minted hundreds of thousands of new millionaires while it did it.
westhanover 3y ago
[dead]
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  If someone is hiring idiots that's on them. But giving equity doesn't even mean paying them more; it does mean aligning the incentives of the employee with the business. And it means the goals of the executives becomes the goals of the employees. Less politics, less bickering, more making stuff and selling it for profit.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]

nine_zeros 3y ago

There is nothing wrong with the two Ferraris - as long as the boss accepts that they ate resources from the company. They need to be willing to accept the consequences which could range from poor implementation of business ideas, poor maintenance, loss of customers and employees. If the boss comes down on the actual workers for activities that could have been solved by steering the Ferrari money into making the work easier, then there absolutely is something wrong.

CuriousCosmic 3y ago

Yes he very clearly was. The article tries to make it as clear as possible that this guy is a massive scumbag who was fucking others over to save a dime at each opportunity. The clearest example is: > A couple of months later, the ad agency agreed to buy a new file server. A real one. Aaron built the box with a glad heart. > But the agency never paid for it. So he had his company agree to pay for a replacement server but after they procured it he just refused to pay for it and forced the MSP to eat the cost instead. > Why does everybody think it is absolute must to maximise the profits? Maybe he was ok with his profits and just didn't care to optimise his business as long as he has comfortable life? Is there something wrong with it. This clearly isn't the case as the article says quote: > The Ferrari-owning boss got wind of this mess and would berate Aaron and his crew whenever the server became unavailable, citing the enormous cost of outages. So he was penny pinching and refused to do things that would allow the company to save money while harassing the MSP each time his self inflicted problem occurred. This is a trend with a lot of these types where they will not spend a dime to fix a problem in a perceived cost center but then each the problem predictably occurs, they subject said "cost center" with abuse for not fixing the problem despite actively being the reason the problem is unresolved.

kkfx 3y ago

> Was he doing something illegal/immoral? No > Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? Maybe he have little comprehension of his own business so he is unable to evaluate the tool of the trade his business need and as a result he made bad choices... It's not a matter of profit but a matter of understanding that administrative CAN'T BE just "managers" meaning with an economy CV, they must know what the company they manage do, not at the level of understatement of any single technicians but enough to know and make wise decisions helped by their technicians of any fields. Years ago the founder and CEO of a historic mass distribution company was used to visit potential new warehouses with the senior head warehouseman alongside others just as an example of how things works in the recent past. A step at a time when the detachment between the management and the material activity happened China have started to gain ground and we in Europe have started to loose. I imaging the same happen in USA and other countries.

smoldesu 3y ago

> Maybe he had two Ferraris because he was frugal with his business? That's almost as wild as suggesting someone hosts their software on a Mac Mini because they're a penny-pincher. Nobody owns two Ferraris as a product of life-long frugality, let alone one.