5 ms·

Maybe this works for Joel. I find it funny though how performance does not get included in his calculation. Some employees are more productive that other emplo

by dawie 18y ago

Maybe this works for Joel. I find it funny though how performance does not get included in his calculation. Some employees are more productive that other employees and get more done therefore they should be payed more. An employee with less skills can still be more productive that an emloyee with more skills. The reasons CEOs make millions is because their performance is directly measurable in how well their company did that year.

run4yourlives 18y ago
I'm pretty sure he mentions that bonuses are something he still uses, among other things.
sangaya 18y ago
"The reasons CEOs make millions is because their performance is directly measurable in how well their company did that year." They make millions because they negotiate a contract that says so, irregardless of performance. They're able to get that contract due to the perception that with them leading, the company will make more money than if they weren't. It's essentially a bet the company is making on the CEO, because even if the CEO drives the company into the ground the contract is still in place.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  They make millions because the people determining their pay are CEOs of other corporations with a vested interest in keeping the average CEO salary as high as possible.
  - mkramlich 18y ago
    Agreed. I think there are multiple factors but I'm positive that is the largest single factor. Basically they get that much because they can. I actually have a more complex and subtle theory to explain it involving a system to keep feudal aristocracy alive in the modern age, but I'm afraid it is too involved to describe in the tiny page margin space I have remaining. (Only half-joking!)
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  They make millions because the market price for a CEO's services are very high.
- dawie 18y ago
  The point I want to make is that I think it's rediculous to not negotiate for raises and salaries. That is what a free market does. The link captures what Paul said 5 years ago and it's the point I was trying to make. That some people are more productive than other people and that they should be payed accordingly. http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html In the United States, the CEO of a large public company makes about 100 times as much as the average person. [3] Basketball players make about 128 times as much, and baseball players 72 times as much. Editorials quote this kind of statistic with horror. But I have no trouble imagining that one person could be 100 times as productive as another.
rgoddard 18y ago
You have to consider what being more productive translates to. In this case, since we are talking about software, lets assume that being more productive means that you can implement more features of a similar complexity at the same level of quality compared to the guy sitting next to you. Assuming everything else equal between you two, you would expect that you would be paid more. In Joel's model, the only way for this to be accounted for is scope. Since you can produce more features you are now responsible for more features. Assuming that this increase of scope is enough to move you up to the next grade, you would have a higher salary. Otherwise, it could be accounted for with your bonus. But what if you could implement twice as much features, but you required additional over site to manage those features. You have just created additional work for someone else. Before your additional productivity can be utilized, someone else has to help you convert it to something more usable. Depending how needed that other person is, your increase in productivity could result in a net lose of productivity for the team as a whole. When talking about productivity, you need to be specific in what you mean, because productivity is hard to measure and quantify.

by dawie 18y ago

run4yourlives 18y ago

I'm pretty sure he mentions that bonuses are something he still uses, among other things.

sangaya 18y ago

"The reasons CEOs make millions is because their performance is directly measurable in how well their company did that year." They make millions because they negotiate a contract that says so, irregardless of performance. They're able to get that contract due to the perception that with them leading, the company will make more money than if they weren't. It's essentially a bet the company is making on the CEO, because even if the CEO drives the company into the ground the contract is still in place.

jimbokun 18y ago
They make millions because the people determining their pay are CEOs of other corporations with a vested interest in keeping the average CEO salary as high as possible.
- mkramlich 18y ago
  Agreed. I think there are multiple factors but I'm positive that is the largest single factor. Basically they get that much because they can. I actually have a more complex and subtle theory to explain it involving a system to keep feudal aristocracy alive in the modern age, but I'm afraid it is too involved to describe in the tiny page margin space I have remaining. (Only half-joking!)
jacoblyles 18y ago
They make millions because the market price for a CEO's services are very high.
dawie 18y ago
The point I want to make is that I think it's rediculous to not negotiate for raises and salaries. That is what a free market does. The link captures what Paul said 5 years ago and it's the point I was trying to make. That some people are more productive than other people and that they should be payed accordingly. http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html In the United States, the CEO of a large public company makes about 100 times as much as the average person. [3] Basketball players make about 128 times as much, and baseball players 72 times as much. Editorials quote this kind of statistic with horror. But I have no trouble imagining that one person could be 100 times as productive as another.

rgoddard 18y ago

You have to consider what being more productive translates to. In this case, since we are talking about software, lets assume that being more productive means that you can implement more features of a similar complexity at the same level of quality compared to the guy sitting next to you. Assuming everything else equal between you two, you would expect that you would be paid more. In Joel's model, the only way for this to be accounted for is scope. Since you can produce more features you are now responsible for more features. Assuming that this increase of scope is enough to move you up to the next grade, you would have a higher salary. Otherwise, it could be accounted for with your bonus. But what if you could implement twice as much features, but you required additional over site to manage those features. You have just created additional work for someone else. Before your additional productivity can be utilized, someone else has to help you convert it to something more usable. Depending how needed that other person is, your increase in productivity could result in a net lose of productivity for the team as a whole. When talking about productivity, you need to be specific in what you mean, because productivity is hard to measure and quantify.