Comment by bscphil | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bscphil | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You think you're making a point here, but there's a mistake in your reasoning. You're thinking that "fair" pay is whatever allows you to beat the market, and since if Mozilla only paid its c-suite $300k-$500k, it would not (you think) be able to compete with other companies with high paid execs, this proves that whatever they're paying the execs now must be fair.

But ... "fair" pay does not mean the same thing as "whatever is financially best for the company to pay its employees". Take the other end of that bargain: is it fair for Mozilla to pay their janitors a reproduction level wage? Most of us (except the hard core right-wing libertarians) say no, that's why we have a minimum wage (which many of us also think is too low).

The elision of the distinction between "fair" and "whatever the market rewards you for doing" isn't an argument, it's just crass market-worship.

Edit: this post is pretty clearly argued, and downvoting without even a comment is exactly the kind of ideological nonsense that this site simultaneously prides itself on not doing (contra Reddit), and yet hilariously symbolizes.

I wish the site would just get rid of downvotes. Your post is constructive and well-written, doesn't say anything egregiously offensive and isn't trolling and doesn't lack effort. The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. Which is bullshit. You can still respect people who don't share your views, and I wish the site cared to foster that kind of community, instead of promoting another echo chamber.

> The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level.

That's not true, I downvoted the past because it complained at being downvoted.

And you're just as much a part of the problem. You're blindly punishing him for pointing out that the system is unfair und his post is not and was not deserving of downvotes. It has nothing to do with the content of his actual comment. You're not contributing positively in any way. You're just reinforcing that anybody who speaks out or has a different point of view isn't welcome here.

Downvoting complaints about downvotes is an attempt not to have to read complaints about downvotes. But here's another: please don't complain about downvotes!

> The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level.

It's a very frustrating thing about this site, because, ironically, most people here think of themselves as nearly perfectly rational and open to new ideas, but in fact the opposite is almost always the case. If I think of myself as perfectly rational, that ironically gives me a way to think that anyone who disagrees with me must be trolling or must be saying something obviously wrong, even if I don't take the time to work out what that might be.

I admittedly added that just to complain, expecting it to trigger another wave of downvotes - because frankly, I don't care about getting downvoted. What I care about is how often this site turns into an ideological echo chamber for one of two popular worldviews, and on some level I wanted to try to call attention to that.

Yes, indeed. If you refresh often enough, you will notice the downvotes for a reasonable post come closest to when it is posted, which makes the post fade and gives the impression that something must be wrong with it. I think there is a very good chance this comes from people wanting to suppress information that does not support their position.

On an individual level the thing to do would be to upvote downvoted posts if they make some sense, they don't have to be great to be upvoted.

Have my upvote. But be aware that the edit at the end will probably trigger the downvote reflex for a number of people here (it did on me too, I just consciously overruled it ;-)

Fair pay is whatever allows you to hire a competent c-suite that will allow the company to fulfill its mission. However, this comes with a whole host of problems. How do you identify those that are likely to be able to do the job? How do you keep them at your company? How do you maximize their effectiveness in their role?

This usually comes down to pay. People who get high compensation offers elsewhere are likely to be good at it, but that means you have to compete with other companies for them. Even if you somehow did manage to find somebody that accepts your below market compensation, what do you do if another company just offers them more? If you pay them near market rate then there's much less incentive for another company to poach them. You're also less likely to end up with somebody that can't do the job.

If we have a minimum wage, couldn't a maximum wage be constructed within the same realm of arguments?

Many non-C-level job positions already have a maximum wage, in the form of salary scales. Although not government-mandated, they are all calibrated to the same market, so these scales are comparable between competing companies.

Minimum wage actually came out of maximum wage laws in England. After a plague there was a shortage of laborers, which increased the costs of hiring them. A law was instituted to discourage people paying too much for laborers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com