4 ms·

Wow. Colin, are you just trying to win an argument online or are you really that flippant when it comes to firing an employee? Keep in mind that we're talking

by dlitz 11y ago

Wow. Colin, are you just trying to win an argument online or are you really that flippant when it comes to firing an employee? Keep in mind that we're talking about people's livelihoods, here---it's the sort of thing that can stress people out to the point of mental breakdown, even if you're not actively threatening them. Firstly, this isn't a job interview. If someone's been working with you for long enough that they want to discuss a salary adjustment, then shouldn't your assessment of the value that they bring to the table be more informed than looking for "red flags" on the spot? Secondly, developers are generally not familiar with basic statistics. If it's important to your business that they be better-than-average at stats, then budget some time and money for training. Thirdly, in the real world, we make decisions from incomplete and biased information all the time. Sometimes, those decisions turn out to be wrong, but on the whole, it still works out better than pretending that we have no information at all. If you're in management and you have access to more complete information, then the smart thing for an employee to do is to have a conversation with you. It makes no sense to fire someone for that. I have a lot of respect for your technical work, but the management style you're describing so far sounds authoritarian and abusive. I really hope that's not how you'd actually treat your reports, in practice.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago
He has asperger's.
cperciva 11y ago
are you really that flippant when it comes to firing an employee? I don't know; I've never had to fire anyone yet. I'll admit that when writing at 1AM I may have let some hyperbole slip into my comments. It's quite possible that my reaction would be "great, your assignment for the next week is to do a rigorous statistical analysis of this data". On the other hand, as someone else commented, I said "more likely"; and that's probably true. I can't imagine a situation where I'd accept a naive analysis of self-selected self-reporting data as having any substance at all, so I would certainly not give someone a raise based on that. discuss a salary adjustment Discussing salary is fine. My point is that bad statistics is worse than nothing in this context.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > My point is that bad statistics is worse than nothing in this context. Actually, even this point is wrong, IMHO. I can easily imagine situations where you get just one data point and correctly infer from it that you're underpaid. One example is that someone who obviously less competent than you will reveal to you higher salary than you have. Another example is that someone has access to information will tell you that your salary is low, and you have good reason to trust that person. I understand that you as an employer naturally don't think that you are or ever will be biased in this way. But it still may happen in the wild. In any case, I think it was already said, if you still think that bad statistics is worse than none, you should make the information publicly available. It's the similar thing as with rumors.
  - cperciva 11y ago
    I can easily imagine situations where you get just one data point and correctly infer from it that you're underpaid. One data point isn't even bad statistics. It's anecdote. Maybe the other person is being vastly overpaid.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      > Maybe the other person is being vastly overpaid. Maybe; but if you think like that, then no sample can give you that information. Because you won't get any absolute reference point either way. In any case, such situation is a good reason to talk about your salary. So your argument is wrong; the sample size is not important (that doesn't mean it's useless, though!). Either you have some reference point, and then you can judge the fairness of the salary (even from one data point), or you don't have a reference point, and then no sample size will help you get it.
      - cperciva 11y ago
        Let me rephrase that: If you get told that one person is earning far more than you, then you don't know if you're the anomaly or if they're the anomaly. If you get told that a large representative sample of people all get paid far more than you, it suggests that you're the anomaly.

by dlitz 11y ago

lawnchair_larry 11y ago

He has asperger's.

cperciva 11y ago

are you really that flippant when it comes to firing an employee? I don't know; I've never had to fire anyone yet. I'll admit that when writing at 1AM I may have let some hyperbole slip into my comments. It's quite possible that my reaction would be "great, your assignment for the next week is to do a rigorous statistical analysis of this data". On the other hand, as someone else commented, I said "more likely"; and that's probably true. I can't imagine a situation where I'd accept a naive analysis of self-selected self-reporting data as having any substance at all, so I would certainly not give someone a raise based on that. discuss a salary adjustment Discussing salary is fine. My point is that bad statistics is worse than nothing in this context.

asgard1024 11y ago
> My point is that bad statistics is worse than nothing in this context. Actually, even this point is wrong, IMHO. I can easily imagine situations where you get just one data point and correctly infer from it that you're underpaid. One example is that someone who obviously less competent than you will reveal to you higher salary than you have. Another example is that someone has access to information will tell you that your salary is low, and you have good reason to trust that person. I understand that you as an employer naturally don't think that you are or ever will be biased in this way. But it still may happen in the wild. In any case, I think it was already said, if you still think that bad statistics is worse than none, you should make the information publicly available. It's the similar thing as with rumors.
- cperciva 11y ago
  I can easily imagine situations where you get just one data point and correctly infer from it that you're underpaid. One data point isn't even bad statistics. It's anecdote. Maybe the other person is being vastly overpaid.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    > Maybe the other person is being vastly overpaid. Maybe; but if you think like that, then no sample can give you that information. Because you won't get any absolute reference point either way. In any case, such situation is a good reason to talk about your salary. So your argument is wrong; the sample size is not important (that doesn't mean it's useless, though!). Either you have some reference point, and then you can judge the fairness of the salary (even from one data point), or you don't have a reference point, and then no sample size will help you get it.
    - cperciva 11y ago
      Let me rephrase that: If you get told that one person is earning far more than you, then you don't know if you're the anomaly or if they're the anomaly. If you get told that a large representative sample of people all get paid far more than you, it suggests that you're the anomaly.