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

The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 245 posts

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#91

Post by danbruc »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #66
danbruc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, there are reasons for differing salaries and they have important functions. But at some point those justifications stop to make sense and it is really just about exploiting your position to grab as much as you can for yourself.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#92

Post by stvswn »

The argument that "no one really needs more than $X" is always a flawed one, in my opinion. I don't make $1 M a year, but if I did, I'm absolutely certain I'd prefer $2M a year. I can imagine all sorts of things I'd want -- vacation homes, fancy private schools for children, whatever. At $1 M a year I'd end up doing things that put me in contact with people who make more than me, and I'd think "oh, that's pretty cool, that stuff they have."

OK, OK, before you comment that "I don't need that," well, who said I did? I said I'd prefer it, therefore it would be an easy decision to switch jobs for it, all other things being equal.

So if you disagree, why is the amount _you_ make the defensible amount? Do you need it? Maybe 100k should be the max -- that's twice the median U.S. income, after all? Why do you need more than the median U.S. income, how greedy are you? Etc. etc.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#93

Post by krupan »

n2d4 wrote: post #80
srackey wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A salary cap doesn’t change the market rate! It just obfuscates it. Salaries for public companies locked at 10M/yr? Ok, now firms have to compete on amenities. (Your current firm gives you a free car? Ours gives a jet, a personal Michelin star cook, and complimentary beverages)

Company benefits are also a form of salary. If your company gifts you a free car, they have to tax it as such.

You'd think so, right? Look up why corporations started providing insurance to their employees. Look into why your compensation is not just a salary, but salary, bonuses, stock (options or RSU's), etc.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#94

Post by danbruc »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #89
danbruc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you believe they didn't work for their salaries?

I did not say that they did not work for their salaries.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#95

Post by ZoomerCretin »

TrackerFF wrote: post #73

I've said this before, but the managing director of the Norwegian Pension Fund - which currently sits at a cool $1.56 trillion, has a $657k salary. Nothing more, nothing less. The return for last year was around 25% Some of the fund managers there make more than the managing director, but still, we're talking about a "modest" figure in the $1mm-$2mm range. That's paltry pay compared to the big bucks made in hedge fun…

The talent available for this position far outstrips supply. So the jobs go to the credentialed children of the elite, who of course require hefty compensation.

In the age of index funds outperforming hedge funds, the real question is how long they can keep up the grift.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#96

Post by d--b »

toast0 wrote: post #18

> 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…

I work in finance and know a bunch of people who made more than 10 million a year for a while, and they all tell you exactly that: very quickly, you have way more than what you'll ever need, and having more money has zero impact on your personnal lifestyle.

They already have the house(s) they wanted, the cars they dreamt of, and the kids in the expensive schools. Plus being in finance, these people make more money with the money they already have.

Of course, there's always the dumbass who just bought his 20th ferrari, but that's just something else entirely.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#97

Post by shermantanktop »

lukas099 wrote: post #28
toast0 wrote: post #18

> 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…

Number of millions matters when donating to your favorite charity or political lobby, too.

I'm sure that's important to some people, but I'd be very surprised if that's why most millionaires are still going to work every day.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#98

Post by mfuzzey »

Aqueous wrote: post #19

I guess I'm not sure that there's a practical difference between "It's marketing" and "This is what the market rate is for a CEO." In other words, firms need to pay this much because that's what other firms are paying (at least.) That's not marketing - that's just the unfettered market at work. Which is why it needs to be fettered. I agree with the salary cap idea, because the market will naturally keep raising the p…

How about no salary cap but a maximum difference factor between the highest paid and the lowest paid in any company?

Not sure what the figure should be (x10?, x20?, x50?, x100?). That way companies that want to pay higher saleries to their CEO would have to increase everyone's salary.

But there would need to be a way of stopping companies just using shells and subcontracting all the real work to low pay subsidiaries.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#99

Post by krupan »

TrackerFF wrote: post #73

I've said this before, but the managing director of the Norwegian Pension Fund - which currently sits at a cool $1.56 trillion, has a $657k salary. Nothing more, nothing less. The return for last year was around 25% Some of the fund managers there make more than the managing director, but still, we're talking about a "modest" figure in the $1mm-$2mm range. That's paltry pay compared to the big bucks made in hedge fun…

Is the manager of that fund really "top talent?" How hard is it really to make 25% off of $1.6 trillion? I'll bet you could do it.

Also, that's a very different job than working at a hedge fund. Hedge funds have to attract investors. How do they do that? By saying, "look at the expensive managers we have!" A government pension fund doesn't have to do that.

Re: The myth of big salaries (it's all marketing)

#100

Post by hiq »

This article seems to put a lot of people into its "big salaries", from CEOs to fresh graduate.

I'd argue that, past the million dollars mark, it's hard to claim that n > 0 other people could do the same job for cheaper. Companies don't end up paying these amounts for employees they consider fungible. Their jobs are also more likely to be somewhat unique, somewhat shaped by themselves to a certain extent, such that the company marketing is unlikely to convince them anyway.

More generally and even for employees paid less than that, the compensation and especially its constant part (salary) is the one thing we can trust when we sign. The company and its culture might change, my manager with whom I've had a good relationship might leave, but it's still unlikely they'd decide to reduce my salary (maybe it'd be impossible to come back from when it comes to recruiting new hires, reputation-wise?). There are also many companies that are just not known enough, or have team-dependent cultures, such that when you start, you don't know how it's going to be. The compensation is also the one thing you take with you when you start a new job, as a baseline for negotiations. Good luck saying that your previous job had meals or massages on-site, so your new job should figure out a way to accommodate that for you.

I think that's a big part of this one-axis marketing, how concrete the compensation is in comparison with most other aspects of a job.

Post reply on HN