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

The boss who put everyone on 70K

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 381 posts

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#121

Post by tehwalrus »

lordnacho wrote: post #110
angarg12 wrote: post #47

> "When money is not at the forefront of your mind when you're doing your job, it allows you to be more passionate about what motivates you," she says. I spent the first several years of my career working in academia for a poverty level wage. I can confirm from my own experience that when you worry about not being able to pay rent and all the bills, it's very difficult to be productive, much less in a job that requir…

Interestingly a fair few famous academics from earlier times were quite wealthy. I think they used to be called "men of letters". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish This guy managed to get a measurement of G (the one from high school physics) in his basement IIRC.

The independent wealth was what allowed them to do science in the first place, nobody else had time or equipment (at least, that's the normal rationalisation).

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#122

Post by alkonaut »

chrisseaton wrote: post #115
alkonaut wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as any professional would be Would call center staff, receptionists etc not be professionals (I.e. is there a use of the term I'm not aware of?). Is it people doing work requiring degrees?

> Would call center staff, receptionists etc not be professionals Are you just asking what a 'professional' is? As in you're not a native speaker? The etymology is from 'someone who has professed vows' and traditionally means someone who's part of some kind of learned society. In the past it was classes like doctors, lawyers, religious ministers. Over the industrial revolution it began to include engineers. Engineers…

> Are you just asking what a 'professional' is? As in you're not a native speaker?

Indeed.

> Are you confusing the term with just 'anyone who works for a living'? That's not what 'professional' means.

That's how it's commonly used in sports, perhaps that's where I got it from. I'd call any athlete who performs their sport for a living "professional", not because they are e.g. part of a specific league, but exactly because they can do it for a living.

But regardless: which people in a typical company would be the professionals? People with protected titles (Lawyers, etc)? How do e.g. Engineers fit in?

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#123

Post by chrisseaton »

alkonaut wrote: post #122
chrisseaton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would call center staff, receptionists etc not be professionals Are you just asking what a 'professional' is? As in you're not a native speaker? The etymology is from 'someone who has professed vows' and traditionally means someone who's part of some kind of learned society. In the past it was classes like doctors, lawyers, religious ministers. Over the industrial revolution it began to include engineers. Engineers…

> Are you just asking what a 'professional' is? As in you're not a native speaker? Indeed. > Are you confusing the term with just 'anyone who works for a living'? That's not what 'professional' means. That's how it's commonly used in sports, perhaps that's where I got it from. I'd call any athlete who performs their sport for a living "professional", not because they are e.g. part of a specific league, but exactly be…

I think the amateur/professional use is a bit different, because nobody is an amateur call centre worker.

> But regardless: which people in a typical company would be the professionals? People with protected titles (Lawyers, etc)? How do e.g. Engineers fit in?

People who's careers would traditionally have been part of learned societies that you had to profess vows to get into, and then careers that have grown up around that.

Lawyers, engineers, HR, marketing (there are learned societies for HR and marketing), etc.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#124

Post by rafaelvasco »

What this guy did is a thing that most people wouldn't even consider. Looking outside of him and caring for other people more than himself, sacrificing himself for others. I won't say that he was right or wrong but that state of consciousness of seeing beyond your own ego and empathize with others like he did is a thing that we as humanity must nurture within ourselves if we want to survive and prosper in the long run. Prosperity and progress is not about power and money, it's about social communion and caring about others as much as we care about ourselves.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#125

Post by smitty1e »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #93
smitty1e wrote: post #56

It's an excellent story. But what works in a group smaller than Dunbar's Number[1] may not quite scale up. Don't let that Politician Obfuscating Near You (PONY) con you into believing otherwise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Indeed. There are roughly three ways to convince people to keep the discipline needed for the collaborative work: force them, interest them economically, or have them believing the cause. Slavery, capitalism, and monastery. Real systems usually are mixes. E.g. Soviet system is largely slavery plus some bits of capitalism and a lot of propaganda to cover the monastery aspect. Or a capitalist company with a visionary l…

My point is that the monastery (or clan) represents roughly the maximum facile size of a voluntary (internally motivated) organization.

Scaling above that starts to require some external management structure (your corporation).

Then there is the military (retired Navy here) where there is an explicit hierarchy and a Uniform Code of Military Justice to as an external driver.

Hence the authoritarian fascination with military terms. If that's your thing, then organizing society like some vast bipedal ant colony seems attractive.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#126

Post by TechBro8615 »

o-__-o wrote: post #104
sokoloff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're 5 and asking "how many months have 28 days?" and insisting the answer is "all of them", you are technically correct. In that extremely limited sense, this headline could also be correct.

today i learned that a lot of people on HN don't have kids. you learn to be very direct in communication to avoid misunderstanding like this (which is very common!)

Mate, most of us don’t even have girlfriends.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#127

Post by bumby »

pritovido wrote: post #73
angarg12 wrote: post #47

> "When money is not at the forefront of your mind when you're doing your job, it allows you to be more passionate about what motivates you," she says. I spent the first several years of my career working in academia for a poverty level wage. I can confirm from my own experience that when you worry about not being able to pay rent and all the bills, it's very difficult to be productive, much less in a job that requir…

That is a consequence of procrastination, which is the consequence of anxiety, which is the consequence of barely meeting ends. Basically in order to be productive under those circumstances you have to ignore reality, which can be problematic for the people around you. But at the same time everything is relative on your perception of reality. We spend today 50-100 times more energy per person that people 100 years ag…

>people 100 years ago, and most of those people were happy.

I’m asking out of general curiosity and not snark, but is there a reliable source to this?

A cursory search on my end didn’t return anything. I often wonder if the obsession with “happiness” is a relatively recent phenomenon borne of our own privilege.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#128

Post by chrisweekly »

pritovido wrote: post #73
angarg12 wrote: post #47

> "When money is not at the forefront of your mind when you're doing your job, it allows you to be more passionate about what motivates you," she says. I spent the first several years of my career working in academia for a poverty level wage. I can confirm from my own experience that when you worry about not being able to pay rent and all the bills, it's very difficult to be productive, much less in a job that requir…

That is a consequence of procrastination, which is the consequence of anxiety, which is the consequence of barely meeting ends. Basically in order to be productive under those circumstances you have to ignore reality, which can be problematic for the people around you. But at the same time everything is relative on your perception of reality. We spend today 50-100 times more energy per person that people 100 years ag…

>"people 100 years ago, and most of those people were happy."

citation?

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#129

Post by leetcrew »

benibela wrote: post #97
angarg12 wrote: post #47

> "When money is not at the forefront of your mind when you're doing your job, it allows you to be more passionate about what motivates you," she says. I spent the first several years of my career working in academia for a poverty level wage. I can confirm from my own experience that when you worry about not being able to pay rent and all the bills, it's very difficult to be productive, much less in a job that requir…

On the other hand, having money makes me less productive, since I spend more time caring about the stock market. Like yesterday alone my long ETF lost 2000€ worth, and I bought a short ETF for balance, which went up 200€. Should have bought the short ETF earlier, but I was at work. Here I am actually losing money by going to work

I don't mean this as a jab, but have you ever compared your overall gains with the s&p over the same period? unless you're really smart/lucky, it's probably not worth the stress.

I also "lost" a lot of money this week, but I'm not leveraged and I have positive monthly cashflow, so it's no big deal. I just bought a little more of my favorite broad market etf than usual and went back to my life.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#130

Post by OJFord »

chrisseaton wrote: post #123
alkonaut wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you just asking what a 'professional' is? As in you're not a native speaker? Indeed. > Are you confusing the term with just 'anyone who works for a living'? That's not what 'professional' means. That's how it's commonly used in sports, perhaps that's where I got it from. I'd call any athlete who performs their sport for a living "professional", not because they are e.g. part of a specific league, but exactly be…

I think the amateur/professional use is a bit different, because nobody is an amateur call centre worker. > But regardless: which people in a typical company would be the professionals? People with protected titles (Lawyers, etc)? How do e.g. Engineers fit in? People who's careers would traditionally have been part of learned societies that you had to profess vows to get into, and then careers that have grown up arou…

Additionally, the other dichotomy (for this use of 'professional') is vocational/professional.

A barber is probably even qualified (which the call centre worker may not be), but it's a vocational qualification; cutting hair is their vocation; it isn't a profession.

Post reply on HN