Hacker News Reader

Comment by errantspark | Hacker News Reader

This is the all-important point. It would be insane for me to try my best to make money for a company when the effort reward curve is so non linear. The only reason the idea of "doing the best job you can" is propagated is because it allows one to abuse workers. I could see myself working hard at a company with a flat-ish compensation structure tied directly to the revenue of the company.

"If I make a penny my boss makes a dime, that's why I shit on company time."

View on HN

Right—I don't get how not putting in something resembling full effort can be corruption, but a company not paying you as much as they could, rather than what they must, isn't corruption.

What's going on here is that, in theory, both sides of the employer/employee relationship are supposed to have equal or approximately equal negotiating power when it comes to things like wages, hours, and working conditions. But, that's in theory. You know, theory: the place where markets are never supposed to be irrational and there aren't any information asymmetries to exploit.

And, pretty much all of those deviations from theory end up going against workers and in favor of employers. Labor markets aren't truly free because most people can't afford to just quit their job one day, then walk across the street to their former employer's competitor and negotiate a more suitable contract. Health insurance is so expensive that most people probably couldn't afford the amount of coverage they need without the subsidy their employer provides. Meanwhile, employers get away with stuff like union busting, just like Amazon is accused of doing, because "punishable by fine" really means "perfectly legal, as long as you have enough money," so that regulatory fines get treated like just another "cost of doing business."

Is it any wonder the only narrative about the employer/employee relationship we ever hear is the one that's favorable to the more powerful side?

First - 'Doing A Good Job' is not 'Maximal Effort'.

Second - professionals have incredible power and market wages are what they are. Most corporations do not profit in some exceptionally linear way beyond employees.

The 'Giant Lie' is that corporations are some magical entities that collect magic surpluses and shareholders and owners run off or private jets.

The vast majority of companies are not hugely profitable, and most small and mid-sized one's are not. Especially not in some disproportionately 'non linear' way.

Stock prices may be crazy - and those who trade stocks may or may not be making bank - but that's a very odd historical situation we have where shares are trading at absurd levesl relative to profits. That's a market 'dysfunction that may or may not be around for a while that some people managed to make money from, like Bitcoin, it's just a Ponzi-ish thing that has happened.

Corporations are not drowning in profits, and White Collar employees soak up the vast majority of corporate spending.

FYI everything I'm saying applies to mostly white collar professionals, for unskilled labour it's a different story.

And if the revenue tanked would you accept half your salary, say, or would you expect a floor to be applied?

If I burn out for a bit can I go down to working two days a week, or do they expect a floor to be applied?

Absolutely, I didn't mean "tied directly" to mean linearly, but even that caveat being made I would happily weather through months or even years of like 1/2 or even 1/4 salary. If I worked at a company where say the highest paid person did not earn more than say 20X the lowest paid and all salaries were tied to the revenue I feel like on compensation structure alone I would be more likely to work there than most places. I think "the compensation scheme NOT creating a heinous caste system" is actually really high on my list of things I would want in a workplace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com