Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

What tech company spends millions on training anyone?

It's reframing lost revenue, not talking about literal training cost.

The other comments already explained it, but I'm wondering how you haven't come across this 'saying' before. It's so overused and also cheesy in my opinion.

Lol maybe if people actually did spend millions training their people up front we could do better?

139,995 employees at Google * 1,000,000 = $139,995,000,000

$140 billion dollars. On training.

On the one hand... you know what, I'd love to work in an environment like that. Seriously.

On the other hand... what's the argument you make to the CFO in support of this? Honest question, interested to hear answers.

I work part time in the Army. In the Army when you go from their equivalent of junior to mid-level they take you out of your job for eight months of dedicated personal development, before you start your first mid-level job. When you go to their equivalent of senior they take you out for a year.

I don't know how much that costs all-in, including the salaries, instructors, facilities, but might be starting to approach a million.

That's valuing training!

Some jobs can be learned on the job.

But I'm glad that learning to kill people (military) is not taught that way.

If your job is something like a staff officer in a Brigade, you could learn that on the job, the Google way, because exercising is also 'the job', but they don't get you to do that - instead they take the time to fully pull you out of all work commitments for dedicated personal development. These periods of personal development are about personal skills rather than combat training, which you've already done by this point.

Middle and upper management get there via connections and picking things up on their own. It's unsurprising that they don't want to be subjected to competition with lesser people who can "merely" be trained to do their job as well, or better.

But the army is a cost center! The workers have some money shaved off their salary to pay for an army that allows delinquents and half-disabled to pew-pew guns in the forest, leaving them in peace. It's not comparable to a productive entreprise that needs to build things for people or perish.

For instance, if Google fails and cant profit, it cant just shoot at their client until they pay. Your organisation can.

> It's not comparable to a productive entreprise that needs to build things for people or perish.

Well we had to build an Army to win against fascism in the Second World War or we all would have perished.

And 'perished' means literally dead or subject to fascism, not just going out of business.

WW2 was 70+ years ago. The USSR fell 30+ years ago. Military budgets are still incredibly high. The army as it is today does not need to be that efficient. And even during WW2 times the US did not face a credible threat of invasion. The last time the US faced an invasion on the mainland was during the war of 1812.

> The army as it is today does not need to be that efficient.

You want the Army to be... less efficient? Spend more for less capability?

No I mean that for the US army today the downside to the army being inefficient is that money is wasted. Not great, but not a disaster. For a different country that could mean the country gets invaded or the government collapses (like Afghanistan).

People are born every day. Every day tens of thousands of people will hear about hacker news, the pyramids, Darth Vader being someone's father, for the first time.

It was not meant ill-willed. I was just wondering. Regarding what you said, I think I understand what your point is. On the other hand it makes some difference among whose people you ask - some things are much likelier to be common sense (or at least heard of) than in other places. Whatever.

Someone who just cost their company millions in revenues is gonna be _extremely_ careful not to make the same mistake again. Hence, million-dollsr training.

The GP is a reference to the anecdote about IBM’s Thomas Watson not firing a executive who had made an error costing the company a substantial amount of money.

The implication is that millions were spent training the person who made the mistake when they cost the company millions by making that mistake.

An outage can be pretty expensive but it is training for those whom triggered it and/or those that fixes it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com