Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielStraight | Hacker News Reader

It sounds like his employees just need a raise. If I was making $500k a year cleaning toilets, I wouldn't care about a career path. Obviously this example is extreme, but if losing people is a disaster, you should be paying them enough that it would be insane for them to leave unless they were planning a complete career change.

As for more responsibility, just give people more say in how the company is run. If your employers are better at something than you ever see yourself being, they probably have insights that you would never have. Ask them. Implement their ideas.

I don't think people really want to feel overpaid or overextended any more than they want to feel underpaid or underutilized. If employees are asking for more money or more responsibility, it's probably because they feel underpaid or underutilized, not because they want excess.

View on HN

I think a few years at $500k cleaning toilets and you'd have enough money in the bank to think about a career change. Even if it was

a. Running your own toilet cleaning business.

b. Retirement.

What if cleaning toilets is your favorite thing to do in the world? Why start a business (and, ostensibly, pay others to do the thing you love most) when you could just keep on doing it, day after day?

On a recent trip to Vegas, I was briefly in a bathroom at a casino where someone had completely missed the toilet while having a crap. I just don't see that being _anyone's_ favorite thing to do in the world.

My favorite thing in the world is designing & coding software interfaces. I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who look at me the same way you might look at a toilet cleaner :)

>"you should be paying them enough that it would be insane for them to leave unless they were planning a complete career change."

Golden handcuffs are not going to create fulfilled employees. Just look around HN, golden handcuffs create runway and a strong motivation to use it.

Not that compensating employees well is a bad idea - particularly on a production line good wages create stability. The difficulty is that a production line has less outlet for creativity because the schedule is tight and creative time means shutting down the line. Once a company adopts the factory model, their options are limited and regardless of intentions, everyone cannot become a manager - only one or two will.

if losing people is a disaster, you should be paying them enough that it would be insane for them to leave unless they were planning a complete career change.

Not to go against the immediate interests of my fellow workers, but how often have we seen advice to people to build up a fund so they can afford to go off and do what they really want - 6 months in the bank (or whatever) to let them really test a theory and start on their dream project? The better you pay those staff, the quicker they can build up that fund and leave you.

Which isn't to say staff should be underpaid and glad of it! but that salary is only part of what keeps someone working where they are. Pay people fairly for the value they add to your business but treat them well and value their skills and intelligence and they won't need to move on to try out their dream because you'll be providing them a platform where they can test it and you can reap the profits.

I definitely agree, especially with the idea of getting your employees further invested in the company, even if it doesn't mean a job/title change. I don't get compensated the way I might somewhere else, but it's awesome to work somewhere where I have influence and my ideas have a shot at being implemented.

Perhaps give your employees stock or the responsibility of making decisions in their specialty areas. Or, give them something like 20% time where they can be creative. Perhaps they'll create some beautiful, original woodwork that gets you press on your blog. Or, perhaps, it just enriches their lives and keeps them happy.

I doubt that you can afford to pay your employees insane amounts and be competitive in most industries.

You misread. I said pay enough that it would be insane for them to leave without changing careers. If you're in the top 1% of earners for your field, it would be insane to leave your job (at least where money is concerned) unless you were moving to a different career. You aren't going to earn more money somewhere else. If you want employees who are "very, very good," you need to pay them very, very well. They've earned it.

Doesn't that, then, lead to a race-to-the-top method of pay that's ultimately unattainable? You pay them so that they're the top 1% so now other people do the same. Eventually, they're only in the top 10%... top 25%.

Rather than throw money at a problem why not find ways to increase overall satisfaction? If money is a component of that, then great, but it doesn't motivate everyone. Often times people are looking for a better quality of life outside of the workplace: things like more time off to spend with their families mean a lot to some people and, if executed properly, don't hurt your bottom line either.

100% on board with this comment. A dose of humility is something lacking at the top of a lot of companies who wonder why they can't seem to hold onto their talent. Give your employees the feeling that you're counting on them, and your problem will soon be, "Man, I've got so many overachievers."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com