Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

What's the point in taking a $10k a year job in that hypothetical implementation?


sort by: page size:

you wouldn't do it for an extra 10mil a year?

It might be easy to say this, but I believe I would quit if I was asked to implement something like that. But perhaps I'd be different if I were paid $300k a year. (I sure hope not, though)

I think there is an assumption that this enables such a job that otherwise would be unattainable. As an individual, of course you want the $80k job, despite the $60k job "requiring less debt", plus you then get to keep the $80k job after the 2 years.

Would you take that job for 50k/year? I wouldn't. Would you take it for 500k/year? I would. So, it is a question of money at the end of the day.

You'd think this would pay more, to make up for lack of supportive infrastructure and career opportunity.

I imagine it will be simpler to just higher a $10k/yr cheaper alternative than do this all the time, even if that alternative ends up being half as good as the more expensive alternative.

I can't imagine all the interpersonal issues caused by this being requested after every hire!


If i was you it would be the main point of discussion. Now it looks more like a job offer with a hefty sign-up bonus. If the salary is good, why not?

Organizational issues could also be a part, but there exists some number that would attract people. Personally, I wouldn’t give up my lifestyle in the US for a few hundred thousand a year, but make it $500k+ for 4 day workweeks and I might think about. There might be people qualified for the position that will do it for less, but the employer just needs to keep raising the number until people bite.

How about a $10K pay cut?

I'd guess that current hires would be getting significantly less than existing hires. To make really life changing money you'd need to get in a couple of years ago.

But take 1/3 of the salary. Not worth it.

Fundamentally it is a different employment model. The 10k fee is to inspire commitment and weed out non-serious candidates. After that, the new manager is essentially on commission.

This allows CFA to find people who are ambitious irrespective of current wealth.


With a strategy like that how would they justify millions a year in C-level salaries?

And get paid 1/10th the amount of money? Don't forget that.

Not nearly desirable enough to motivate someone to invest the time and resources (which I assume would be non-trivial). 12k for 3 months of work amounts to 4k per month, which is a low salary for someone with the kind of skills this requires.

If someone is offering 50m/year then surely the most qualified candidates would compete for that job and treat the 10m/year offer as a backup plan. Meaning you wouldn’t get the best people. As for governments and non-profits: they don’t get the best people, either, unless those people are personally motivated by the mission in a way that is unlikely in a commercial setting.

You would for 10x the salary.

I still suspect they could get 90% of the performance at half the price by recruiting differently.

And of course, if the return on that extra 10% dwarfs half the salary, of course it makes sense to pay for the extra 10%, too, I suppose.

next

Legal | privacy