101–110 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for clarifying this, it was a source of confusion for me as well. Not to sound elitist, but what is $5k to a software engineer making 120k/year regardless of the cost of living in Seattle. This makes more sense.
$5k is still a lot of money for somebody making $120k/year
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much less than 6 months of a mortgage in Seattle, no? Or have I been spending too much time in New York?
$833/month mortgage gets (I think) about $150k for a 25 year fixed rate loan. It's not impossible to get a home for $150k in Seattle, but your choices are very limited.
http://www.redfin.com/city/16163/WA/Seattle/real-estate#!max...
At my company, I am both the most unmotivated and most productive employee. Where would that leave me? :)
I have to disagree. Something motivates you. If you're highly productive, something is motivating that. The question is what?
My other coworkers are nowhere near as talented and the lack of peers greatly contributes to my frustration (which makes me unmotivated).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That thinking is completely stupid, because even if no where else will offer money for quitting, they are being offered it to quit in their current job. That offer is of zero benefit if they DON'T take it. Staying BECAUSE there's an incentive to quit is perhaps one of the most ridiculous thoughts I've heard. Then again, some people are very stupid. I also don't think that's "classic reverse psychology". (Although I'm…
You're way of calling people stupid is a stupid way of thinking.
The first (and stated) effect of this policy is to weed out the unmotivated employees. However, Dan Ariely has explained that the secondary effect is potentially more powerful. For those that choose to stay, they will forever live with their past action of having turned down lots of money to work there. So, when they're having a crappy day and hating their job, they're probably thinking "why didn't I take the money a…
That is not the only other way to reconcile their thoughts and actions. They can beat themselves up for not taking the money / regret their choice ('I am so stupid for not taking that money, I hate this job'). I know plenty of people who beat themselves up on a regular day to day basis about all sorts of life choices they wish they had made differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much less than 6 months of a mortgage in Seattle, no? Or have I been spending too much time in New York?
$833/month mortgage gets (I think) about $150k for a 25 year fixed rate loan. It's not impossible to get a home for $150k in Seattle, but your choices are very limited.
But people often don't think rationally that way (and definitely not all the time). A large lump sum may seem bigger than it actually is. Which is why sales folks often try to peanut butter the costs over a range ("it's the cost of one coffee a day for a month!")
The first (and stated) effect of this policy is to weed out the unmotivated employees. However, Dan Ariely has explained that the secondary effect is potentially more powerful. For those that choose to stay, they will forever live with their past action of having turned down lots of money to work there. So, when they're having a crappy day and hating their job, they're probably thinking "why didn't I take the money a…
At my company, I am both the most unmotivated and most productive employee. Where would that leave me? :)
I have to disagree. Something motivates you. If you're highly productive, something is motivating that. The question is what?