3 ms·

The value you add to the company is not based on how many customers were gained from your completion of task X or similar metrics. If you decrease hosting costs

The value you add to the company is not based on how many customers were gained from your completion of task X or similar metrics. If you decrease hosting costs by $15k per month and only get paid $5k per month but dozens of others would do the job for $3k, you aren't in a good position to ask for a raise. Your value to the company is how much it would cost, in time, effort, and money, to find a replacement(s).

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Time effort money multiplied by risk of getting less value That's the important component - the volatility of performance has a major impact on price of an option !
- jasonwocky 12y ago
  Well, to be fair, there's also a chance of getting more value.
  - gaius 12y ago
    Well, you are talking about risk adjusted return there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_%28investment%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_%28investment%29
    - jasonwocky 12y ago
      Sure, I just thought that the parent was only presenting one side of the math.
      - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
        Mostly I was - and I suspect that is fair too. Let's imagine we are Board of BigCo. Our CEO just took home fifty mil for what is at best a lacklustre performance. We could fire his ass, but who do we replace him with? We could get pretty much anyone here on HN to do the job, for just one tenth of the cost. But if we hire say that lifeisstillgood, the inevitable PR disasters will wipe more than fifty mil off our stock / revenue. But if we hire (insert your name here), a clearly brilliant HN member, they will discover that being CEO of a major company means very little power or influence - these things are like oil tankers and do not turn for anything. So getting an even better CEO than our guy will not manage to bring in much upside. So unless there is a massive upheaval in the market meaning plenty of opportunity, then replacing a CEO is always a bad idea - the downside is huge, the upside is minimal. Maybe that's risk adjusted returns - but I prefer cynicism.
        eru 12y ago
        Oh, there's also power dynamics at play. In practice most companies are run for the benefit of top management, not shareholders. Some economist did a rather macabre study of share prices of companies as their CEO's died in various accidents. (Ie removal of the CEO controlled by factors outside corporate politics.)

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Time effort money multiplied by risk of getting less value That's the important component - the volatility of performance has a major impact on price of an option !

jasonwocky 12y ago
Well, to be fair, there's also a chance of getting more value.
- gaius 12y ago
  Well, you are talking about risk adjusted return there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_%28investment%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_%28investment%29
  - jasonwocky 12y ago
    Sure, I just thought that the parent was only presenting one side of the math.
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      Mostly I was - and I suspect that is fair too. Let's imagine we are Board of BigCo. Our CEO just took home fifty mil for what is at best a lacklustre performance. We could fire his ass, but who do we replace him with? We could get pretty much anyone here on HN to do the job, for just one tenth of the cost. But if we hire say that lifeisstillgood, the inevitable PR disasters will wipe more than fifty mil off our stock / revenue. But if we hire (insert your name here), a clearly brilliant HN member, they will discover that being CEO of a major company means very little power or influence - these things are like oil tankers and do not turn for anything. So getting an even better CEO than our guy will not manage to bring in much upside. So unless there is a massive upheaval in the market meaning plenty of opportunity, then replacing a CEO is always a bad idea - the downside is huge, the upside is minimal. Maybe that's risk adjusted returns - but I prefer cynicism.
      - eru 12y ago
        Oh, there's also power dynamics at play. In practice most companies are run for the benefit of top management, not shareholders. Some economist did a rather macabre study of share prices of companies as their CEO's died in various accidents. (Ie removal of the CEO controlled by factors outside corporate politics.)