I'm far more motivated by a sense of achievement than money.
But given two jobs which look like they'll provide roughly comparable levels of achievement, I'll go for the one which offers the most cash. Because I like stuff, and cash provides that.
I do think that people should be rewarded well for things that save the company money - but markets also depend on what the buyer can get for what investment. If the company can get things that save them money for iPods then great. If they'd get _more_ of them by offering larger rewards then they should so so. Proving to them that they would is, of course, tricky.
The person who won the ipod had generated a huge amount of value but the reward wasn't related to the actual value he generated because he's not paid on that scale.
Generating value is a meaningless way to justify senior staff salaries because it's something that doesn't and often can't apply to lower level staff. You're putting them on a different scale.
Saying that my chief executive generates more value than me so that justifies his wage is like saying that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than me so that justifies his salary when compared to my salary at the company I work for. What you're using to measure him is something that doesn't apply to how MY salary is calculated, same with the chief executive.
Senior staff are paid so much simply because that's the kind of salary that you get at that level, not because it's justified. Variations within it and bonuses are justified by the work that is actually done, and I'm fine with that, but the basic off-the-scale and out of proportion high salaries are the bit I object to. Of course, I would expect them to only get a bonus that is related to THEIR performance. If the international sales division does really well that year and bumps up the company's profit.. well, if the Chief Exec didn't actually make any strategic decisions relating to International Sales during that period, why the fuck should he see any reward from it?
If the company can get things that save them money for iPods then great.
This isn't what companies believe at a certain level, hence salary break points.
Someone with exactly the same skills as a graduate, but without a degree, could not get certain jobs. Companies sometimes do not want to offer LESS money because they have an expectation of what people will earn, or what they want someone in a role to be earning.
The graduate thing, I agree, is ridiculous. I've seen people locked out of jobs that they were perfectly capable of doing because of it. Because some people think a degree is a perfect filter, rather than just an indicator.
Amd pf cpirse companies have expectations about what people will earn. But those opinions are based on real market conditions. If you look at someone's experience, abilities, etc. and know that out there there are jobs paying X then you're not going to offer them significantly less than that, because you know s significant number of them will go elsewhere and take it.
Me? I'm mediocre at best. Which puts me in the mid-range for coders (about £33k). I'm good compared to a lot of corporate coders, but nothing like the people at the top end.
You have given the impression on your LJ that money is more important than achievement on occasion, but in a different context. Possibly you meant (on those previous occasions) that other people see money as more important, and I misinterpreted it.
It's like football. Are the top players worth that? Judging by club debts and the amount that is spent on players and the performance of some of them, not really, but that's the price players command so that's what gets paid and everyone else does it too.
Money _can_ be more important than achievement, if it's high enough to allow you to achieve things outside of work that you otherwise couldn't. Offer me a million pound salary to empty bins for a living and I'll do it, because that would allow me to do more outside of my work.
My priorities nowadays are largely to find something that keeps me amused during the day, allows me to pay the mortgage/bills, and leaves some cash over to go to the cinema/buy computer games. (Mortgage has the highest priority, obviously, but "not being bored/stressed" is also very important, because previous experience has shown that when too bored/stressed I do a godawful job).
I don't know if you recall, but I took a £3k pay cut to move to my current employer, because I was fed up with working for companies where I was constantly frustrated by lack of budget, no training, and feeling like I never achieved anything, and thought that a larger company might provide both training and a change of direction that was interesting. As it happens, my pay has gone up significantly since then, but I didn't actually know that the pay scales _went_ this high when I took the job.
It's like football. Are the top players worth that? Judging by club debts and the amount that is spent on players and the performance of some of them, not really, but that's the price players command so that's what gets paid and everyone else does it too.
It's only a price they command because paying it gets you the top players, which gets you the top viewing figures, which gets you the top income. They didn't used to command those salaries - until Sky stepped in, charged viewers to watch the matches, and started pumping lots of money to the clubs that provided said viewers.
True - they overpay, because they're desperate to get into the top few clubs that pull in those viewing figures/cash - but they know that not getting those top players cuts their earning potential, so they need to pay for them. If the players didn't bring in money then they could demand all the cash in the world, and they'd get fuck all.
Money is less of a motivator, and brings less satisfaction, once you get wealthy and add another million to the pile. Steve Jobs is not in it for the money, he's doing it because he's having a blast and is competitive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
But given two jobs which look like they'll provide roughly comparable levels of achievement, I'll go for the one which offers the most cash. Because I like stuff, and cash provides that.
I do think that people should be rewarded well for things that save the company money - but markets also depend on what the buyer can get for what investment. If the company can get things that save them money for iPods then great. If they'd get _more_ of them by offering larger rewards then they should so so. Proving to them that they would is, of course, tricky.
no subject
Generating value is a meaningless way to justify senior staff salaries because it's something that doesn't and often can't apply to lower level staff. You're putting them on a different scale.
Saying that my chief executive generates more value than me so that justifies his wage is like saying that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than me so that justifies his salary when compared to my salary at the company I work for. What you're using to measure him is something that doesn't apply to how MY salary is calculated, same with the chief executive.
Senior staff are paid so much simply because that's the kind of salary that you get at that level, not because it's justified. Variations within it and bonuses are justified by the work that is actually done, and I'm fine with that, but the basic off-the-scale and out of proportion high salaries are the bit I object to. Of course, I would expect them to only get a bonus that is related to THEIR performance. If the international sales division does really well that year and bumps up the company's profit.. well, if the Chief Exec didn't actually make any strategic decisions relating to International Sales during that period, why the fuck should he see any reward from it?
no subject
This isn't what companies believe at a certain level, hence salary break points.
Someone with exactly the same skills as a graduate, but without a degree, could not get certain jobs. Companies sometimes do not want to offer LESS money because they have an expectation of what people will earn, or what they want someone in a role to be earning.
no subject
Amd pf cpirse companies have expectations about what people will earn. But those opinions are based on real market conditions. If you look at someone's experience, abilities, etc. and know that out there there are jobs paying X then you're not going to offer them significantly less than that, because you know s significant number of them will go elsewhere and take it.
no subject
how's your programming skills, mister?
no subject
no subject
It's like football. Are the top players worth that? Judging by club debts and the amount that is spent on players and the performance of some of them, not really, but that's the price players command so that's what gets paid and everyone else does it too.
no subject
My priorities nowadays are largely to find something that keeps me amused during the day, allows me to pay the mortgage/bills, and leaves some cash over to go to the cinema/buy computer games. (Mortgage has the highest priority, obviously, but "not being bored/stressed" is also very important, because previous experience has shown that when too bored/stressed I do a godawful job).
I don't know if you recall, but I took a £3k pay cut to move to my current employer, because I was fed up with working for companies where I was constantly frustrated by lack of budget, no training, and feeling like I never achieved anything, and thought that a larger company might provide both training and a change of direction that was interesting. As it happens, my pay has gone up significantly since then, but I didn't actually know that the pay scales _went_ this high when I took the job.
It's like football. Are the top players worth that? Judging by club debts and the amount that is spent on players and the performance of some of them, not really, but that's the price players command so that's what gets paid and everyone else does it too.
It's only a price they command because paying it gets you the top players, which gets you the top viewing figures, which gets you the top income. They didn't used to command those salaries - until Sky stepped in, charged viewers to watch the matches, and started pumping lots of money to the clubs that provided said viewers.
True - they overpay, because they're desperate to get into the top few clubs that pull in those viewing figures/cash - but they know that not getting those top players cuts their earning potential, so they need to pay for them. If the players didn't bring in money then they could demand all the cash in the world, and they'd get fuck all.
no subject
no subject