28 ms·

You've never replaced the head chef at a restaurant, have you? ;) Edit: A rash decision when replacing this person leads to almost immediate drop in revenue.

You've never replaced the head chef at a restaurant, have you? ;) Edit: A rash decision when replacing this person leads to almost immediate drop in revenue. I'd argue that it's more difficult (and stressful) to replace a head chef than it is a SWE. While replacing the head chef of the company cafeteria doesn't directly reflect revenue like it does at a tip-top restaurant (for which Charlie is obviously qualified), it can have numerous side effects, many difficult to ascertain ahead of time (will the new one remember that a majority of people on staff have an aversion to yellow squash, for a brash and hyperbolic example?)

humanrebar 13y ago
Again, I have no problem with paying an employee $20M if he was worth it. The actual occupation is a distraction, though. Replace chef with the guy that handing out fliers on the street. He's 100% replaceable. Does he deserve a million-dollar payout? Maybe. But I think it's fair to take that into consideration when evaluating compensation. A company could be wrong that the chef is replaceable, but that's an empirical question. As a matter of evaluation, considering the value of the best alternative is 100% fair.
- stephencanon 13y ago
  He wasn’t paid $20M. He was paid a salary plus options which had a good chance of being worth nothing at all, a good chance of being worth a nice european vacation, and a small chance of hitting the jackpot. You don’t get to renegotiate the terms afterwards once you know where on the payout scale your company happened to fall (maybe you can legally, but then you’re an asshole). “The guy who fixes the bug” isn’t worth $20M either. There are plenty of extremely competent engineers who you could hire for $300K that could also “fix the bug”. But you’re not paying him $20M; you’re paying him a smaller salary, plus a small percentage chance of the jackpot.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Again, the actual valuation of the compensation (whatever the form and whenever it is realized) is an empirical question. I actually agree with all of your points here, including the one about retroactively altering compensation. I'm just saying it's fair to take value-over-replacement into consideration when negotiating compensation. And that I can see giving different compensation based on that measure of market rates for labor. Maybe the compensation was fair. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it's important to clarify what counts as being paid. All of those things are really beside my point.

humanrebar 13y ago

Again, I have no problem with paying an employee $20M if he was worth it. The actual occupation is a distraction, though. Replace chef with the guy that handing out fliers on the street. He's 100% replaceable. Does he deserve a million-dollar payout? Maybe. But I think it's fair to take that into consideration when evaluating compensation. A company could be wrong that the chef is replaceable, but that's an empirical question. As a matter of evaluation, considering the value of the best alternative is 100% fair.

stephencanon 13y ago
He wasn’t paid $20M. He was paid a salary plus options which had a good chance of being worth nothing at all, a good chance of being worth a nice european vacation, and a small chance of hitting the jackpot. You don’t get to renegotiate the terms afterwards once you know where on the payout scale your company happened to fall (maybe you can legally, but then you’re an asshole). “The guy who fixes the bug” isn’t worth $20M either. There are plenty of extremely competent engineers who you could hire for $300K that could also “fix the bug”. But you’re not paying him $20M; you’re paying him a smaller salary, plus a small percentage chance of the jackpot.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Again, the actual valuation of the compensation (whatever the form and whenever it is realized) is an empirical question. I actually agree with all of your points here, including the one about retroactively altering compensation. I'm just saying it's fair to take value-over-replacement into consideration when negotiating compensation. And that I can see giving different compensation based on that measure of market rates for labor. Maybe the compensation was fair. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it's important to clarify what counts as being paid. All of those things are really beside my point.