Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmccall777 | Hacker News Reader

"Worse in every way than myself." Well, I mean, obviously not in every way.

I saw a sheet of salaries for a random subset of employees. Pre-funding engineering hires were universally paid substantially less than post-funding hires. The way we're structured, there isn't an equity upside which would cover the difference. If this was a one-off, you could chalk it up to hiring error, negotiations, Dunning-Kruger with regards to estimate of my own skills, etc. However, even myself excluded, a few of our best engineers are being paid substantially less than people much worse than people hired later on. It was pretty universal.

We knew what he meant, which was the point of the communication. He is making a general observation about data, not a formal proof.

I think pmccall is alluding to skills such as better negotiating skills, ability to sell one's self, and similar.

That or they literally just started later in the company's lifespan, thus getting a higher salary... c'mon. Occam's razor.

exactly. especially since he alluded to this in the article

Often it's simply dependent on when you were hired. Employers have to stay competitive but won't give you a raise if you don't express discontent. When wages trend upward new hires can often end up making more money.

That's pretty much true, but in the more "responsible" startups an employee who's been around long enough would be compensated with equity (or the equivalent in benefits) to compensate for the difference.

You would be surprised about how few "responsible" startups there are. Most will never be responsible until they're under scrutiny. I've been with a few that actively derided the idea of compensating employees who were underpaid during the initial growth phases. They thought that because they'd agreed to help "build the business" that nothing more was owed in better times.

One of them got a lot of press as a successful startup and landed several new large contracts. Which is why, after a year of executive self-congratulations and bonuses, their lead developer, who had saved several failed projects singlehandedly, left for more realistic pastures. They only brought him up to just below market when he talked about leaving, had no intentions about rewarding him for past underpaid accomplishments (which were obviously investments on his part), and despite their poor compensation packages had an overly strict culture for non-executives. Management compensation was top priority, and retention was assumed - they thought people would just stay despite having better alternatives. Even if he stayed, he'd have to watch other people get screwed. He wasn't the first, and doubtless he won't be the last rat to abandon that ship. I left as well, seeing that they really didn't care about anyone who didn't have ownership and a briefcase.

It's really not that uncommon. Being at the top of a company requires only one of three things: luck, lies ("charisma") or capital. Quite a lot of new business owners get mislead by their own kool-aid. They start believing that their vague "vision" is the most important thing and treat the people who do the real work as replaceable cogs. They give no thought to training costs or productivity and have high turnover rates. Merely treating the staff better could have a huge and positive financial impact. They'd probably know about these management issues if they didn't defensively fire people who voiced dissent. But a fool and his competent staff are soon parted.

I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. However, I think psychologists would disagree with the idea that charisma -> dishonesty, and I think holding such a viewpoint is damaging to long-term success.

Psychopaths are usually both extremely charismatic and extremely dishonest though, so there is some merit to the idea.

All good liars are charismatic != all charismatic people are liars

There's some merit to the idea != all charismatic people are psychopaths.

You're right.

Some employers, anyhow. But I think it requires a certain level of negligence or callousness. You might be able to save a little money on payroll. But I think that ignores the hidden costs in reduced goodwill, lowered trust, and higher turnover.

Personally, I favor the Netflix model. It's part of the employer's job to make sure employees are fairly compensated at all times, whether or not they express discontent: http://www.inc.com/francesca-fenzi/management-ideas-to-steal...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com