Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you • Hacker News Board

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#331

Post by WalterBright » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

turdprincess wrote: post #328

WalterBright wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked at Boeing in 1980 or so, there were a lot of contract engineers there. We did the same work. The difference was: 1. full time employees got benefits, contractors did not 2. full time employees got notice before layoffs, contractors could get dismissed at a moment's notice 3. contractors got paid double what full time employees did

The pay is an unequal comparison though. A W2 job gives you: * 5 - 10 paid holidays like Labor Day, 4th of July, etc... * another 10 - 20 paid days off for PTO * 7% less taxes for social security, medicare * 401k match * health insurance So actually, getting paid twice as much hourly might not be too much extra at the end of the day.

At the time, the value of the benefits package was about 45% of the salary (this calculation includes the things you mentioned). The other 55% was for the extra risk the contractor took on.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#332

Post by malfist » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #140

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. It works better for 1% of the population. Everyone else is a health crisis away from bankruptcy. Literally. That's all it takes in the US for everyone who doesn't have an eight-figure-or-more net worth to be staring ruin in the face. Your comment is exactly the mythology that perpetuates the problem. Exploitation is sold as participation. "Well we're paid fairly well so I guess we must be privileged an…

If anything it's the other way around - the 1% are going to be OK pretty much no matter what, it's everyone else that this matters for. Right now the US and most of the developed world does not have workers to spare for weird and potentially pointless speculative work of questionable value to society as a whole - they're struggling to find the workforce needed to supply the things ordinary people need and want, inclu…

Because people are good judges of what is and isn't useful work?

Just like it's useless work to build a search engine when directories work well enough? Or useless to build an email service when ISPs already offered them?

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#333

Post by RhodesianHunter » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 9:41 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #123

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of all of the companies in question here, yes you are wrong. They have significant amounts of free cash flow and cash on hand.

However the also use that equity as compensation. Google without RSUs would not pay much better then any other large company.

The equity used as compensation is purchased during stock buybacks and is wholly divorced from investors buying and selling stocks.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#334

Post by zmxz » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 9:47 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #113

zmxz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Um. Last time I checked So every google interview is for dev position and not other positions? Also, dev interviews depend on the person who interviews and not all people are the same. Plus, the difficulty of interviews means absolutely nothing - checking the ability to solve trigonometry problems using C++ gives literally ZERO insight in how the candidate will be USED, managed, what the interaction with other peop…

I hesitated a little bit, but I will admit you got me curious. The position assumes that you know a better way to assess that viability ( which assumes I accept that framing at face value -- I don't, but I want to get to the bottom of this argument ). Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuance…

> I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuanced findings is difficult precisely, because we tend to crave simple answers.

Generalizing isn't always a bad thing, but this situation really is trivial to observe. There aren't too many possible outcomes.

If (boss + worker) make money, (boss + worker) keep the job.

If (boss + worker) don't make money, someone (or both) lose(s) the job because there's no $$ to pay them.

It's extremely trivial because it all revolves around upkeep. Can you keep up paying thousands of people (pretty large) salaries over an undefined time period? If yes = they keep the job, if not = they don't.

Most things are indeed trivial, especially in IT sector and employee compensation. I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. The whole cause why there's no money, why work isn't optimal or why people aren't managed correctly is a different matter all together and plays a role.

The bad part is that IT workers refuse to accept modicum of responsibility and consequences and are using social media to present the "higher ups" as some kind of scheming, evil people who gather together around Stonehenge once a month and discuss new ways how to spite and hurt people. It's just silly.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#335

Post by cryptonector » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #122

cycomanic wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the people who decide exec salaries are execs in other businesses, so they generally have 1) An inflated view of the impact of execs compared to other employees. This is a well studied psychological phenomena. People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" even in poor luck or even rigged scenarios. (There was a study which gave some subjects a head start in monopoly, i.e. more money, the subjects ten…

Your salary isn't determined by impact. It's more related to your market value. Part of your market value is set by yourself, through negotiation. The other part is the labor market and what the alternative candidates are asking. Of course impact is related, but only as a qualifier. If your impact doesn't justify the salary then that is a problem. But as long as you do enough to justify your salary than other factors…

You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#336

Post by 2devnull » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

potsandpans wrote: post #321

2devnull wrote: post #239

No sympathy for the average American worker, who is impacted even more so by inflation, which robs them of their life savings and job security at their min wage job. Over-entitled and over payed young tech workers who have displaced poorer people and haven’t been astute enough to save their extravagant salaries, spending it instead on $30 door dashed organic salads now want to bleat about how “boo hoo life isn’t fair…

such incredibly devisive rhetoric. it's very clever: tech workers aren't "average" american workers and therefore deserve punishment. the generous interpretation is that you've been so sufficiently propagandized that you can't even realize the absurdity of this dichotomy: that skilled labor is a separate irresponsible class of people, so we should not concern ourselves with their plight.

I don’t have a problem with uneducated people who don’t know what “monetary policy” means. I do have a problem with educated people who don’t want to spend a few minutes to google “Fed’s dual mandate” and consider why that answers their questions about why they lost their job. Not everybody has educational opportunities. Those who do, but are just too lazy to learn high school Econ, get no sympathy from me.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#337

Post by bbzealot » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 10:19 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #319

moe091 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they don't hypocritically claim they care about their employees and only laid them off because they HAD to, doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them and (if possible) use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions. Just because we know corporations only value profit, to the detriment of human quality of life in general, doesn't mean we should accept it

As someone who holds stocks, I see value and appreciate that those corporations work hard to maximize my returns over providing charity employment. Shareholders like me are the ones you have to convince, not some CEO or abstract concept of a corporation. Fair warning, you will have to convince me that it is more important than supporting my children and maximizing my retirement.

I’m pretty sure that if you need some stock to grow in order to support your children, then your influence on a public company is virtually irrelevant.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#338

Post by 2devnull » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 10:20 PM UTC

automatom wrote: post #254

2devnull wrote: post #239

No sympathy for the average American worker, who is impacted even more so by inflation, which robs them of their life savings and job security at their min wage job. Over-entitled and over payed young tech workers who have displaced poorer people and haven’t been astute enough to save their extravagant salaries, spending it instead on $30 door dashed organic salads now want to bleat about how “boo hoo life isn’t fair…

It’s the fed dummies! Why is it that the C-suite folks, who are supposed to understand macroeconomic trends or "Economics 101" as you're calling it, didn't see this coming and didn't make better decisions to not over-hire and mitigate reactionary cost-cutting. These companies have billions of cash on hand, but they choose the easy short term route of slashing labor costs to appease shareholders. I would argue this is…

Because they are not the fed! They don’t make rate decisions. And they can’t guess what the fed will decide with any reliability. Those who have tried over the past couple years got hosed.

Why do you think people pay so much attention to the fomc meetings and the data they use, and minor off the cuff statements by kashkari or Powell, or any of them, will without exception send the market into a tailspin?

The fed controls the value of money, and that controls the employment rate, which is what influences hiring/firing decisions. It’s simple high school economics.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#339

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

bbzealot wrote: post #337

s1artibartfast wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who holds stocks, I see value and appreciate that those corporations work hard to maximize my returns over providing charity employment. Shareholders like me are the ones you have to convince, not some CEO or abstract concept of a corporation. Fair warning, you will have to convince me that it is more important than supporting my children and maximizing my retirement.

I’m pretty sure that if you need some stock to grow in order to support your children, then your influence on a public company is virtually irrelevant.

You have a good point on my individual control of a public company is quite small. Luckily, basically every single other stockholder has the same reason for owning the stock as me- making money.

There is basically no risk that a different group of stockholders with more voting power want to run it as a public works jobs program

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#340

Post by mshake2 » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #66

mshake2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary? Honestly? Because 1) you are very replaceable and 2) you have a very low chance in succeeding at organizing any kind of group/union action. If either of those two facts were different, you would have more leverage. But they aren't so you don't.

Everyone is replaceable, in some way. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates seem to have been replaceable, at least from a stock owner perspective. I'd like to offer a different explanation: Entrenched in-groups and institutions control access to the highest paid jobs. You need to become a part of those to be allowed to participate.

>Entrenched in-groups and institutions control access to the highest paid jobs. You need to become a part of those to be allowed to participate.

That's the same thing as being difficult to replace. You gain "access" by being perceived as difficult to replace. The more difficult you are to replace, the higher your access.