4 ms·
You're last point was well presented. I have never looked at salary based compensation in that way. But it does make a lot of sense now.
by gsmaverick 17y ago
You're last point was well presented. I have never looked at salary based compensation in that way. But it does make a lot of sense now.
- mr_luc 17y agopg wrote an essay about it. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html Subheading "What a Job Is", 5th paragraph down or so: In a company, the work you do is averaged together with a lot of other people's. You may not even be aware you're doing something people want. Your contribution may be indirect. But the company as a whole must be giving people something they want, or they won't make any money. And if they are paying you x dollars a year, then on average you must be contributing at least x dollars a year worth of work, or the company will be spending more than it makes, and will go out of business. And in the next subheading: I think the single biggest problem afflicting large companies is the difficulty of assigning a value to each person's work. For the most part they punt. In a big company you get paid a fairly predictable salary for working fairly hard. .... the company has no way of measuring the value of your work. Salesmen are an exception. It's easy to measure how much revenue they generate, and they're usually paid a percentage of it. If a salesman wants to work harder, he can just start doing it, and he will automatically get paid proportionally more. Gosh, that's a good essay.