Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 417 posts

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#331

Post by crazygringo »

kajaktum wrote: post #320
crazygringo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying there's something "wrong" with it. But tech salaries are just based on supply and demand. If there were more good coders in supply, salaries would go down. So what exactly does "out of step" mean? Everybody's free to try to learn how to code and get those salaries. And so it's not clear what Wikimedia is doing wrong with salaries, if it's paying what's required to get programmers of the needed…

It is entirely possible to work in tech for a company that does not make any profit for years but still receive big pay checks. I used to work for a company that is at a loss, but we have the "potential" to turn around and i still get paid quite well. How does that work?

It works because supply and demand in the labor market has nothing whatsoever to do with the profitability of a firm.

It's like how the price of strawberries this week in the supermarket is determined by the supply of strawberries, demand from customers, and the price at neighboring supermarkets. It's not set by anything to do with the supermarket's profitability.

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#332

Post by tptacek »

patrec wrote: post #328
tptacek wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it won't make it so, true. And yet, it is so.

Are the universities fine after the decades long algae bloom of administrators? Has admission become more merit based, tuition more affordable, inquiry freer, and the pace of scientific breakthroughs faster?

Wikimedia, as you may have noticed, is not a university.

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#333

Post by fatherzine »

grumple wrote: post #327
noobermin wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, this more highlights how far out of step tech salaries are with...well everyone else.

If a company is making 1 million per employee, why shouldn't the employee get a substantial part of that? I was personally responsible for easily 2 million / year in income at my previous job (and possibly just as much or more at my current job).

I have a hard time tracking income of a software product to specific employee contribution, unless it's a solo enterprise, which is rare and fraught with its own issues. Who's responsible for a piece of income? The original software author? The maintenance SWE? The SRE? The PM that identified the market opportunity? The exec that signed off the funds for the whole thing?

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#334

Post by medellin »

kajaktum wrote: post #320
crazygringo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying there's something "wrong" with it. But tech salaries are just based on supply and demand. If there were more good coders in supply, salaries would go down. So what exactly does "out of step" mean? Everybody's free to try to learn how to code and get those salaries. And so it's not clear what Wikimedia is doing wrong with salaries, if it's paying what's required to get programmers of the needed…

It is entirely possible to work in tech for a company that does not make any profit for years but still receive big pay checks. I used to work for a company that is at a loss, but we have the "potential" to turn around and i still get paid quite well. How does that work?

Normally by convincing VCs that the company is worth the money of your inflated salaries and after X years they will make it back. Not many people out here are investing out of good will.

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#335

Post by crazygringo »

zacmps wrote: post #317
crazygringo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying there's something "wrong" with it. But tech salaries are just based on supply and demand. If there were more good coders in supply, salaries would go down. So what exactly does "out of step" mean? Everybody's free to try to learn how to code and get those salaries. And so it's not clear what Wikimedia is doing wrong with salaries, if it's paying what's required to get programmers of the needed…

IMO there's absolutely something wrong with it, while millions of people don't have access to food or clean water. Supply & demand is an explanation , not an excuse , and it is a problem that can be fixed (if there's political will).

Well yes, we tried once "fixing" it with communism, which simply dictated values for things like salaries and forcibly assigned jobs. And communist economies fell apart because of the horrific inefficiencies and inflexibilities.

If you want to fix it, I'd ask you this: suppose there are 20 million people who know how to code worldwide. But that if coders were paid the same as bus drivers, there would be 100 million coding positions available worldwide. How do you decide which one-fifth of companies get coders, and which four-fifths go without?

Currently we allocate the fifth to the companies who want to pay the most*, because we've decided that's where they're most helpful in general, because those are the companies building the most potentially profitable products that provide the most economic efficiency (lower prices and/or higher value for consumers). And this is why coders are paid more than bus drivers.

So what's the alternative allocation you're suggesting? To achieve what alternative goal? Because it's not helpful to say "it is a problem that can be fixed" if you don't also provide the fix.

----

* There can also be non-monetary factors (nice office environment, purposeful mission, good vibe with team) but they can be converted into estimated monetary values for purposes of comparison -- it doesn't change the argument

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#336

Post by thomastjeffery »

grumple wrote: post #329
thomastjeffery wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as if someone who has already been making several hundred grand is in dire need of financial stability between employment opportunities.

You could say the same about any professional. You do it because it's the right thing to do, and if you don't do it, people are more likely not to work for you in the future.

> You could say the same about any professional.

False.

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#337

Post by superchroma »

bhickey wrote: post #35
superchroma wrote: post #2

Utterly unacceptable for a nonprofit allegedly serving the greater good. Disgusting to beg for "just even a single dollar" as they do on meraphorical hands and knees, with plea after tortured, heartfelt plea from Jimmy Wales whilst doing this on the back-end. I already knew about how flush for cash the Wikimedia Foundation was, but this really is astonishing behavior.

They beg for a single dollar to satisfy the public support test. This requires that a third of their funding must come from small dollar donors. I wouldn't give Wikimedia a dollar (mission creep, etc.) asking for piddling amounts isn't necessarily pleading poverty.

Every year, wikipedia hits users with an even larger, ballsier banner begging for donations. The last one covered the entire screen, and button to dismiss it was hidden. Fuck them.

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#338

Post by int_19h »

lesuorac wrote: post #198
kevviiinn wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but your ideal scenario is not our current reality

The reality is that the US Federal government currently has elected members belonging to neither the Democratic nor Republican party [1] [2] (Sinema doesn't count since she changed her party after being elected). This has been true for the majority of the US's short existence. There is no reason to make long-term decisions based on the current short-term circumstances of a two party dominance. [1]: https://en.wikiped…

Two-party dominance has been a feature of the American political scene since before the Civil War - that is, for most of its existence. I wouldn't call that "current short-term circumstances".

It's also very hard to change because both major parties benefit from the existing system and are protective of it, knowing full well that proportional representation would cost them a lot of votes. Republicans usually trot out the old "but small states!" canard, while Democrats are getting creative and claiming that IRV and RCV are racist because e.g. "majority voting may seem innocuous, but if the vote is racially polarized, “runoffs discriminate against Blacks because they are a minority of the voters.”"

Given that Congress has the final say on how federal elections are run, I find it rather unlikely that this is going to change anytime soon - at least, not as long as federal politics is consumed almost entirely by polarization and voting against rather than for.

Re: Severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

#339

Post by dragonwriter »

int_19h wrote: post #338
lesuorac wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the US Federal government currently has elected members belonging to neither the Democratic nor Republican party [1] [2] (Sinema doesn't count since she changed her party after being elected). This has been true for the majority of the US's short existence. There is no reason to make long-term decisions based on the current short-term circumstances of a two party dominance. [1]: https://en.wikiped…

Two-party dominance has been a feature of the American political scene since before the Civil War - that is, for most of its existence. I wouldn't call that "current short-term circumstances". It's also very hard to change because both major parties benefit from the existing system and are protective of it, knowing full well that proportional representation would cost them a lot of votes. Republicans usually trot out…

> Two-party dominance has been a feature of the American political scene since before the Civil War

Really, since America had a meaningful national government with the Constitution rather than being a loose federation of states under the AoC.

The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans both were establisged, as was their duopoly, by 1792.

Post reply on HN