4 ms·
That's the rub though, 240k may be a lot to you, but what if that data scientist is delivering 100 times that value to the company? Who's to say that person sh
by GVIrish 13y ago
That's the rub though, 240k may be a lot to you, but what if that data scientist is delivering 100 times that value to the company? Who's to say that person shouldn't be paid $500k or $1 million a year.
The Yahoo COO who just got let go was paid $109 million in two years. He got a $29 million severance package. Would it be too crazy to suggest that maybe a brilliant engineer who was a major contributor to the success of a problem is worth more than $100-250k a year?
- mnglkhn2 13y agoIt can be tricky and getting murkier quick: what if Google comes back with an argument that that data scientist would not have been able to produce those $2-3 mil without the resources and the infrastructure made available by Google? Would that employee be as productive anywhere else? If the answer is yes, then that employee deserves a larger share of the pie. If the answer is unclear or no, then the employee will receive whatever the market will bear. This is why traders and IT devs on Wall Street get better compensated: it is way easier to see the exact impact and it is very likely that those guys would be able to easily replicate it in any other firm.
- frandroid 13y agoYou compare Apple to Orange. First you ask if the employee could generate this revenue on her own, and then you compare that to a trader that could generate the same revenue at another firm. Are you comparing employee productivity with and without company resources, or employee productivity between companies A and B?