The post is from 2009, and hence shortly after the mortgage derivatives market meltdown.
The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
61–70 of 245 posts
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#621. He keeps saying marketing but salary is actually a pretty good indicator for how good a job is.
2. You pay to retain not to hire. You can hire people at practically any price point. Whether they'll stick around for longer than 6 months is a different matter. I've seen multiple startup founders burnt by this.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#63(2009)
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#64Truly a mindless article. Money attracts talent, doesn't matter what the historical rates have been or what the absolute cost to live is. If a good person can get 50 million instead of 3 million they're going to take it.
For the record, not everyone is like this. And - one hopes - many of the most talented are not. I've pulled out of an interview process for a job paying 3-4x (with upwards potential) the job I took, because I saw more meaning and social value in the latter. The content of the job can be more important than the salary.
I am not arguing that this is how you live and if you find meaning in it, more power to you. I find value in maximizing my salary, I view work as trading life hours for dollars. The more dollars I can extract from each working life hour, the less I need to work and the more things I can do in my non working hours. It also allows me to establish a higher base level future for my kids.
I have no loyalty to a company I work for as they generally have no loyalty to me besides the ROI they get from my work. If they can get a better deal by outsourcing my job to India, they will. We did not create this environment, corporations did so I find myself playing by the rules they created.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#65This post raises a question I'm curious about: is executive pay higher or lower in private firms compared to ones that are public? Adjusting for confounding factors like size and sector.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#66> After a million dollars or so in salary, the absolute amount that a person is paid has no real impact on their life. They can't eat more meals in a day or wear more shoes. What matters to the manager is the relative amount. Sure, nobody needs more than a million dollars in annual compensation (in 2024 dollars), but relative amount gets you to your never need to work again number faster or slower. You might still wo…
Consuming without working for it is immoral, flying privat jets and traveling more is bad for the environment. Those are not reasons in favor of higher salaries.
They are reasons for higher salaries. You just disagree that they justify those salaries.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#67Since it's a 2009 article and there is taxpayers in the text, I think he was upset because the great recession bayouts and even with all world crumbling at the moment, large bonuses to C-Level.
Now it's 2024 and I expect lower profits in the middle term to companies that pays anyone more than they give in return.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point still stands. Beyond some amount the absolute amount of money really stops to matter
> Beyond some amount the absolute amount of money really stops to matter At national monetary scales, sure, because more spending would be inflationary thereby decreasing one’s spending power. So call it a trillion dollars or so. Not a practically relevant cap.
AFAICT, the most expensive yacht is the History Supreme, which is only 100ft but is built from, among other things, 10 tons of gold and platinum. $4.8B.
Then there's the 155m Streets of Monaco concept (https://archive.curbed.com/2013/7/15/10219720/inside-streets...) which I would not touch with a 40ft motor lifeboat. $1.1B.
Elon Musk famously found a way to spend $44B on Twitter, which pretty impressive.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#69After aging I'm starting to have new views on large salaries: 1. The money is just going to be saved. Net gain to the person is they're probably going to live for the rest of their life off dividends. Net gain to society, is any money taken out of circulation fights inflation. 2. If you pay someone a lot of money they will, essentially, spend it on other people. Either through salary or just buying shit. The richest…
I’d say there are many examples of higher salaries being zero sum or negative sum.
I’ve noticed from people I’ve visited in the US with large salaries that there’s many who buy homes with swimming pools they don’t necessarily use much. It’s kind of something you just have to have, especially if you plan to sell the home one day.
The European model might involve smaller homes, higher taxes, and thus lower salary. But the taxes will often go to public infrastructure, and since housing is denser, that infrastructure is potentially in walking/biking distance. So you get public pools with more amenities (even a big slide if you’re lucky) for less money.
I was struck by a side comment in Linus from Linus Tech Tips that he felt his family needed to spend some of the summer at home to justify the huge investment in the swimming pool in their new home. Seems kinda crazy to me.
The mega yachts that seem popular with the ultra wealthy also seem to me like such a huge waste. So many people employed building those big money sinks who could have been building infrastructure.
In the case where the gains on capital or large salaries is used as new capital for new ventures, I agree it’s not zero sum. But if that’s what we want more of, there can be ways to encourage that money is managed that way more often. Doesn’t feel like there’s enough effort on those kinds of policies.
Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)
#70After aging I'm starting to have new views on large salaries: 1. The money is just going to be saved. Net gain to the person is they're probably going to live for the rest of their life off dividends. Net gain to society, is any money taken out of circulation fights inflation. 2. If you pay someone a lot of money they will, essentially, spend it on other people. Either through salary or just buying shit. The richest…
The neat part about it is that if my friend's buddy, Bubba (Yeah. He's an electrician.) goes to see a congressman, governor, or the president and says he wants something done, he'll get a big shit-eating grin and a "Sure, buddy, we'll work on that!" with a hearty handshake. If I go to them, I'll get offered a cup of coffee and possibly a few minutes to make my case. If the guy making $50,000,000 per year does it, the…
The main problem here, in my opinion,is that we have artifically capped the number of congress critters at an absurdly low amount. We should have almost twice the number of representatives. You should basically be able to walk to your reps house assuming you live in a somewhat dense city or small town. You should know what church they go to. Where they go to the gym, etc. By limiting the supply of congress people we've given disproportionate weight to the richest in their district. If every neighborhood had a congressperson, there would be less of this, because they'd have to compete with votes for the (likely average) people who live there.
That being said, for me personally, I've had great luck calling my state congresspeople, because like what I said above, I do know where they live and their habits, because they're a known neighbor. Note, I completely disagree with her politics, but in terms of constituent services and getting things done, I can't criticize at all.