7 ms·

> they have been attracting people who are attracted to money, which is never a good sign for sustaining business, More accurately, it's not a good sign for a

by tomp 12y ago

> they have been attracting people who are attracted to money, which is never a good sign for sustaining business, More accurately, it's not a good sign for a business to attract people not driven by it's primary product. Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, not money-driven people. On the other hand, investment banks have been working quite successfully for decades by attracting money-driven people, but then, their main business is money, so...

somehnreader 12y ago
Have they been successful? They did risky things and pocketed the winnings themselves in good times, with the taxpayer paying the losses when everything came down. I am not saying banks are not needed, and I am not running around with a tinfoil hat, but saying that investment banks are 'working quite successfully' might be a bit of a stretch.
- tomp 12y ago
  Up until the most recent crisis, I would say yes. There are a few very old investment firms, e.g. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, that probably haven't required government help many times in the past. This time, it's different, pretty much every big bank required help, as did other big companies (e.g. auto manufacturers), so you can't really say that it was the money-driven people in banks that were the cause of this issue.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - slayed0 12y ago
    >...you can't really say that it was the money-driven people in banks that were the cause of this issue. Yes you absolutely can. /ot
  - kilburn 12y ago
    >...you can't really say that it was the money-driven people in banks that were the cause of this issue. Yeah... > It was the money-driven people in general that were the cause of this issue. there, fixed it ;)
    - tomp 12y ago
      No, not at all. It was the handful of very greedy politicians that relaxed the laws that allowed this to happen; "ordinary" traders, quants and managers at big banks had essentially nothing to do with the direction in which the world was headed, they were only there for the execution.
      - kilburn 12y ago
        I strongly disagree. > It was the handful of very greedy politicians that relaxed the laws that allowed this to happen This breaks down for two reasons. First, politicians relaxed the laws because they were bribed into it by lobbies. That's at least two handfuls of money-driven people at play here. > "ordinary" traders, quants and managers at big banks had essentially nothing to do with the direction in which the world was headed, they were only there for the execution. That's people who convinced poor and poorly-educated people to buy houses they couldn't afford. They tampered the accounting books. They outright lied to get more sales, and so on and so forth. I don't know about you, but I would need to be extremely desperate (as in I can't feed my children) to resort to those tactics in exchange for money. These people were not in great need, and acted in that manner just because they are more money-driven than others who didn't (many of which lost their jobs because of it). So yes, I honestly think that it was the fault of money-driven people in general from the very top to the street seller.
cynicalkane 12y ago
> Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, not money-driven people Ugh. This sounds like the excuse a boss at EA would give when forcing his employees to work eighty hour weeks. In the real world Silicon Valley companies have been very successful hiring good employees in part by offering massive amounts of compensation. And then there is the other half of Silicon Valley, which feeds off the overworked and undercompensated twentysomethigs following their "passion".
- oddevan 12y ago
  I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You don't want "money-driven people" in the sense that all they care about is doing the least amount of work required to get paid. You want people that are "games-driven" in the sense that they care about putting out a quality product and making a fun game; because of that, they will work harder and should be paid accordingly. You are absolutely correct in that using the "passion" excuse to force 80-hour weeks and/or underpay workers is BS. An employee being passionate makes them more valuable, not less.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    How do you find the passionate employees and separate them from those driven by money? If you advertise a high salary and a 40 hour week you will get applications from both types of people and they will both say at the interview that they are "passionate" because they know that will get them the job. So perhaps the paradox is that you get better employees by offering a lower salary?
    - pm90 12y ago
      Its a hard problem, to be sure. You will never know what their motivations are unless you work with them. The best that once can do seems to be looking at their work experience, at the kind of stuff and places they've worked on before and then... taking a leap of faith in thinking that the person will do well. Passion is highly overrated, I think, and a lot of people define it differently. For some, it means staying at the office for 12 hours everyday including saturday. For others, it means keeping regular hours and contributing good quality work everyday, yet recognizing that one might need to work more (without overtime) when the job demands it. And the manager should know not to make these kind of situations a regular thing and reward the employees accordingly. As to the question of attracting the right kind of people, although it can be faked, the curios ones are usually the best. If the person you're looking at is always asking questions, or making suggestions, not to impress you but to get a genuine understanding of what you do and what you want her to do, that is the best sign of a passionate employee.
exDM69 12y ago
> Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, not money-driven people. You can't really call it a games company any more. Rovio's product is Angry Birds and the income comes mostly from non-game products and selling IP licensing rights. Rovio employs only a few dozen game developers in their in-house studio, most of their game development is outsourced to 3rd party game studios.

by tomp 12y ago

somehnreader 12y ago

Have they been successful? They did risky things and pocketed the winnings themselves in good times, with the taxpayer paying the losses when everything came down. I am not saying banks are not needed, and I am not running around with a tinfoil hat, but saying that investment banks are 'working quite successfully' might be a bit of a stretch.

tomp 12y ago
Up until the most recent crisis, I would say yes. There are a few very old investment firms, e.g. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, that probably haven't required government help many times in the past. This time, it's different, pretty much every big bank required help, as did other big companies (e.g. auto manufacturers), so you can't really say that it was the money-driven people in banks that were the cause of this issue.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- slayed0 12y ago
  >...you can't really say that it was the money-driven people in banks that were the cause of this issue. Yes you absolutely can. /ot
- kilburn 12y ago
  >...you can't really say that it was the money-driven people in banks that were the cause of this issue. Yeah... > It was the money-driven people in general that were the cause of this issue. there, fixed it ;)
  - tomp 12y ago
    No, not at all. It was the handful of very greedy politicians that relaxed the laws that allowed this to happen; "ordinary" traders, quants and managers at big banks had essentially nothing to do with the direction in which the world was headed, they were only there for the execution.
    - kilburn 12y ago
      I strongly disagree. > It was the handful of very greedy politicians that relaxed the laws that allowed this to happen This breaks down for two reasons. First, politicians relaxed the laws because they were bribed into it by lobbies. That's at least two handfuls of money-driven people at play here. > "ordinary" traders, quants and managers at big banks had essentially nothing to do with the direction in which the world was headed, they were only there for the execution. That's people who convinced poor and poorly-educated people to buy houses they couldn't afford. They tampered the accounting books. They outright lied to get more sales, and so on and so forth. I don't know about you, but I would need to be extremely desperate (as in I can't feed my children) to resort to those tactics in exchange for money. These people were not in great need, and acted in that manner just because they are more money-driven than others who didn't (many of which lost their jobs because of it). So yes, I honestly think that it was the fault of money-driven people in general from the very top to the street seller.

cynicalkane 12y ago

> Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, not money-driven people Ugh. This sounds like the excuse a boss at EA would give when forcing his employees to work eighty hour weeks. In the real world Silicon Valley companies have been very successful hiring good employees in part by offering massive amounts of compensation. And then there is the other half of Silicon Valley, which feeds off the overworked and undercompensated twentysomethigs following their "passion".

oddevan 12y ago
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You don't want "money-driven people" in the sense that all they care about is doing the least amount of work required to get paid. You want people that are "games-driven" in the sense that they care about putting out a quality product and making a fun game; because of that, they will work harder and should be paid accordingly. You are absolutely correct in that using the "passion" excuse to force 80-hour weeks and/or underpay workers is BS. An employee being passionate makes them more valuable, not less.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  How do you find the passionate employees and separate them from those driven by money? If you advertise a high salary and a 40 hour week you will get applications from both types of people and they will both say at the interview that they are "passionate" because they know that will get them the job. So perhaps the paradox is that you get better employees by offering a lower salary?
  - pm90 12y ago
    Its a hard problem, to be sure. You will never know what their motivations are unless you work with them. The best that once can do seems to be looking at their work experience, at the kind of stuff and places they've worked on before and then... taking a leap of faith in thinking that the person will do well. Passion is highly overrated, I think, and a lot of people define it differently. For some, it means staying at the office for 12 hours everyday including saturday. For others, it means keeping regular hours and contributing good quality work everyday, yet recognizing that one might need to work more (without overtime) when the job demands it. And the manager should know not to make these kind of situations a regular thing and reward the employees accordingly. As to the question of attracting the right kind of people, although it can be faked, the curios ones are usually the best. If the person you're looking at is always asking questions, or making suggestions, not to impress you but to get a genuine understanding of what you do and what you want her to do, that is the best sign of a passionate employee.

exDM69 12y ago

> Rovio's product is games, so ideally they would attract games-driven people, not money-driven people. You can't really call it a games company any more. Rovio's product is Angry Birds and the income comes mostly from non-game products and selling IP licensing rights. Rovio employs only a few dozen game developers in their in-house studio, most of their game development is outsourced to 3rd party game studios.