> Not a single reasonable company will be willing to pay you more that’s bare minimum to keep you to stay.
That's definitely not true. Indeed, I think that's a pretty bad way to think about comp, leading to an adversarial employer/employee relationship.
As examples, consider Netflix, which is widely known for paying above market, or Gravity Payments, which changed their minimum pay to $70k/year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments
I'm just about to post 3 new positions, and I have no interest in squeezing people on cash comp. I want people who are happy, relaxed, and feel like they're being treated well. And I also want a fair salary structure. Could I pressure bad negotiators and naive people and pay less? Absolutely. Will I? Fuck no. Maximizing shareholder value has been called "the world's dumbest idea". I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly up there.
>> As examples, consider Netflix, which is widely known for paying above market
That's not a counterexample of what the post you're replying to is talking about. Netflix feels they need to "overpay" to get the caliber of talent they want, and also to make it harder for it to be tempted to leave. At the end of the day it's what they feel to be the "bare minimum to keep you to stay" for the kind of people they want.
>> I want people who are happy, relaxed, and feel like they're being treated well.
Right, same thing. You want that because that's what strong employees demand and is your strategy for getting sustainable quality output out of them. If you were just a good guy, you'd pay MORE than that :)
I agree with you on Netflix; I have been corrected by you and others. But I disagree with you on the latter. In practice people who believe it's important to pay the "bare minimum to keep you to stay" act very differently.
Netflix is skewing hiring heavily towards very senior people, and is paying all cash, no stock. For the level of skills, total compensation you get from them is pretty much in line with peer big tech in Bay Area market.
You can call maximizing profits maximizing shareholder value, and often they’re aligned. But it’s how businesses were always designed to work, long before stock markets. Is it fair? Most likely not, but it’s business 101, same as me writing reliable production code is engineering 101.
> But it’s how businesses were always designed to work
[citation needed]
As far as I can tell, that's a modern, MBA-ish fantasy about the nature of business. I have small business owners in my family going back generations. Maximizing profit was not the goal. It was making a living and being part of a community. This is definitely not uncommon. See, for example, the writings of the late economist Alison Snow Jones: https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1095.html
Businesses are not necessarily designed to maximize profits. In theory they’re designed to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the owner and keep them busy.
If that involves maximizing profits, then great, but if the owner enjoys doing work with happy, un-stressed people more than he does a few humdred extra dollars in his pocket, it’s clearly not (only) about optimizing profits.
> But it’s how businesses were always designed to work
Who taught you this? If there's a specific historian pushing this narrative I'd love to know who it is, because on the surface this claim sounds absolutely outlandish.
mea culpa! I was thinking about a different company, a smallish law or other professional services company, whose name I don't recall. It wasn't a high minimum wage, rather everyone top to bottom was paid exactly the same amount. was
That's definitely not true. Indeed, I think that's a pretty bad way to think about comp, leading to an adversarial employer/employee relationship.
As examples, consider Netflix, which is widely known for paying above market, or Gravity Payments, which changed their minimum pay to $70k/year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments
I'm just about to post 3 new positions, and I have no interest in squeezing people on cash comp. I want people who are happy, relaxed, and feel like they're being treated well. And I also want a fair salary structure. Could I pressure bad negotiators and naive people and pay less? Absolutely. Will I? Fuck no. Maximizing shareholder value has been called "the world's dumbest idea". I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly up there.