6 ms·

> I'd work my butt off at a place that provides three-a-day healthy, delicious, diverse, vegetarian (for me) meals > Even after breaking down my yearly compens

> I'd work my butt off at a place that provides three-a-day healthy, delicious, diverse, vegetarian (for me) meals > Even after breaking down my yearly compensation to an hourly rate, I bet there will be a marginal difference in the money the company makes by keeping me working the extra hours and the price I'd pay for buying such food everyday Any company providing you multiple meals per day for free is getting the better end of the bargain. Make no mistake about it. It's an arbitrage between the cost of cooking labor + cooking material vs. your labor. In other words, you're getting the short end of the stick. People do not value perks rationally. If they did, they would deny every last one of them.

prostoalex 12y ago
Assumption here being that by refusing corporate food just anybody can go home and whip up a great healthy meal.
shiven 12y ago
In other words, you're getting the short end of the stick. People do not value perks rationally. If they did, they would deny every last one of them. How many people value anything rationally? Ever? As humans we are programmed to be pain averse. I hate foraging for and/or cooking my food. I consider it an utter waste of my time and breath. Yes, I care about my health, but don't have the money to pay an arm and a leg for a personal chef, or even plan meals. In short, I want to eat well (tasty+healthy), but without any direct effort on my part. That is the pain I am averse to. If a company can remove that pain, for me it is a fair exchange, even if in a most superficial manner. Give and Take. Plus, no exchange in life is perfectly equivalent. Is it?
- derefr 12y ago
  A personal chef isn't rational either--there are economies of scale here. But you could pool your and your coworkers' budgets to get an office chef, for an amount from your paycheque much less than the value of the time you're funging against by deciding to work overtime. Fully realized, you could have all the benefits offered (selfishly) by your employing corporation instead provided by an employee's union co-op. Even the building. The corporation would just be thin pipe keeping labor flowing in one direction and money flowing in the other.
  - shiven 12y ago
    Nice concept! Free-agent nation, but with a Marxist twist, heh! I like it! Any place that has successfully implemented this in the US?
    - girvo 12y ago
      Similar concepts to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative There was a company, a big one, that I forget the name of that was run like that through the second half of the 20th century, but I can't remember the name :(
      - bildung 12y ago
        Perhaps it was Mondragon? Mondragon started in 1956 and is now at 80000 workers and an annual revenue of 14 billion. It's still a worker cooperative in the 21st century, though :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
        shiven 12y ago
        Not a US company or established in the US. So not the example I asked for. I am aware of other non-US cooperatives, eg. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amul http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amul
  - 3pt14159 12y ago
    That would be such a whiney pain in the ass. This is like saying an air conditioned office is an irrational perk, it isn't. It is better for everyone. Besides, if you get your work done at Google there is nothing stopping you from reading a book during the one extra hour of overtime you'd have to waste between lunch and dinner.
- hueving 12y ago
  >How many people value anything rationally? Ever? So you admit you are getting a bad deal? >I hate foraging Have you EVER foraged in your life? >I want to eat well (tasty+healthy), but without any direct effort on my part. If you are talking about the meals that Google provides, there is no evidence that their food is any more healthy than alternatives.
  - shiven 12y ago
    So you admit you are getting a bad deal? Personally, quite the opposite actually, if you read my full comment. Have you EVER foraged in your life? You mean, by the dictionary definition of foraging? In the wild? Then, No. But, if you mean gathering edible items that are uncooked or semi-cooked, to be cooked for creating a meal, then, Yes. And I consider it an utter waste of time. So, what's your point? As for the nutrition value of Google meals, perhaps you know more than I do? Are you a (ex)Googler? I'd wait to hear from some current Google employees to get the truth on this point, rather than rush to judgement.
- ghaff 12y ago
  Personally, I like cooking but for someone who wants to eat well/healthily but (strongly) wants it to "just happen," a Google-style company cafeteria actually seems like a pretty good benefit. Even eating out takes effort, especially if you're picky about what you'll eat even within the domain of quality/"healthy" (whatever your parameters are for that).
- jvagner 12y ago
  I'm a bodybuilder, CEO and a parent. Cooking your own healthy meals is so ridiculously easy and cheap (in terms of time).
  - shiven 12y ago
    So is my wife (not the CEO or bodybuilder part, but parent and cooking). More power to the likes of you! I'm sure there are as many folks with your motivations and inclinations as there are with mine.
hug 12y ago
Just because you are getting less out of the deal than they are does not mean you are getting less out of the deal than not having any deal at all. The deal "provide me a decent meal and I'll stay at work another hour or so" is, evaluated rationally, completely 100% fine by me. I'd rather stay at work for an hour than take an hour out of my day to cook & clean, or spend the equivalent of an hour's wage on feeding myself.
- blumkvist 12y ago
  And this is called added value. The product is more valuable than its components simply added together. Something that hipsters who look very hard, every day, for injustices to fix, always seem to miss.
gniv 12y ago
I would argue that if they gave you the money they spend on food in the salary, you would not be able to eat as well (or even half as well). The cost of the food that I get at my company is ridiculously low per person (this might not be true at smaller places, but I am in a 1000+ person office).

prostoalex 12y ago

Assumption here being that by refusing corporate food just anybody can go home and whip up a great healthy meal.

shiven 12y ago

In other words, you're getting the short end of the stick. People do not value perks rationally. If they did, they would deny every last one of them. How many people value anything rationally? Ever? As humans we are programmed to be pain averse. I hate foraging for and/or cooking my food. I consider it an utter waste of my time and breath. Yes, I care about my health, but don't have the money to pay an arm and a leg for a personal chef, or even plan meals. In short, I want to eat well (tasty+healthy), but without any direct effort on my part. That is the pain I am averse to. If a company can remove that pain, for me it is a fair exchange, even if in a most superficial manner. Give and Take. Plus, no exchange in life is perfectly equivalent. Is it?

derefr 12y ago
A personal chef isn't rational either--there are economies of scale here. But you could pool your and your coworkers' budgets to get an office chef, for an amount from your paycheque much less than the value of the time you're funging against by deciding to work overtime. Fully realized, you could have all the benefits offered (selfishly) by your employing corporation instead provided by an employee's union co-op. Even the building. The corporation would just be thin pipe keeping labor flowing in one direction and money flowing in the other.
- shiven 12y ago
  Nice concept! Free-agent nation, but with a Marxist twist, heh! I like it! Any place that has successfully implemented this in the US?
  - girvo 12y ago
    Similar concepts to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative There was a company, a big one, that I forget the name of that was run like that through the second half of the 20th century, but I can't remember the name :(
    - bildung 12y ago
      Perhaps it was Mondragon? Mondragon started in 1956 and is now at 80000 workers and an annual revenue of 14 billion. It's still a worker cooperative in the 21st century, though :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
      - shiven 12y ago
        Not a US company or established in the US. So not the example I asked for. I am aware of other non-US cooperatives, eg. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amul http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amul
- 3pt14159 12y ago
  That would be such a whiney pain in the ass. This is like saying an air conditioned office is an irrational perk, it isn't. It is better for everyone. Besides, if you get your work done at Google there is nothing stopping you from reading a book during the one extra hour of overtime you'd have to waste between lunch and dinner.
hueving 12y ago
>How many people value anything rationally? Ever? So you admit you are getting a bad deal? >I hate foraging Have you EVER foraged in your life? >I want to eat well (tasty+healthy), but without any direct effort on my part. If you are talking about the meals that Google provides, there is no evidence that their food is any more healthy than alternatives.
- shiven 12y ago
  So you admit you are getting a bad deal? Personally, quite the opposite actually, if you read my full comment. Have you EVER foraged in your life? You mean, by the dictionary definition of foraging? In the wild? Then, No. But, if you mean gathering edible items that are uncooked or semi-cooked, to be cooked for creating a meal, then, Yes. And I consider it an utter waste of time. So, what's your point? As for the nutrition value of Google meals, perhaps you know more than I do? Are you a (ex)Googler? I'd wait to hear from some current Google employees to get the truth on this point, rather than rush to judgement.
ghaff 12y ago
Personally, I like cooking but for someone who wants to eat well/healthily but (strongly) wants it to "just happen," a Google-style company cafeteria actually seems like a pretty good benefit. Even eating out takes effort, especially if you're picky about what you'll eat even within the domain of quality/"healthy" (whatever your parameters are for that).
jvagner 12y ago
I'm a bodybuilder, CEO and a parent. Cooking your own healthy meals is so ridiculously easy and cheap (in terms of time).
- shiven 12y ago
  So is my wife (not the CEO or bodybuilder part, but parent and cooking). More power to the likes of you! I'm sure there are as many folks with your motivations and inclinations as there are with mine.

hug 12y ago

Just because you are getting less out of the deal than they are does not mean you are getting less out of the deal than not having any deal at all. The deal "provide me a decent meal and I'll stay at work another hour or so" is, evaluated rationally, completely 100% fine by me. I'd rather stay at work for an hour than take an hour out of my day to cook & clean, or spend the equivalent of an hour's wage on feeding myself.

blumkvist 12y ago
And this is called added value. The product is more valuable than its components simply added together. Something that hipsters who look very hard, every day, for injustices to fix, always seem to miss.

gniv 12y ago

I would argue that if they gave you the money they spend on food in the salary, you would not be able to eat as well (or even half as well). The cost of the food that I get at my company is ridiculously low per person (this might not be true at smaller places, but I am in a 1000+ person office).