How do I get paid more?
-
You misunderstand, what you are saying is the equivalent of saying to a programmer that at some point they've written enough code and there is no point in writing more. Money is their equivalent of source code.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
What? Pardon me, but that's the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. You don't acquire source code from elsewhere, you create it yourself. If you create money yourself, you will get a vacation in striped clothing. Only someone very selfish would hoard wealth like a friggin squirrel, when a difference in wealth on the magnitude of 10 really doesn't make any difference for them personally. If only more wealthy people could be like Bill Gates. Then I can see justification for hoarding so much of it.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
No, it's one of the crappiest I've ever heard.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
No, it's one of the crappiest I've ever heard.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
160 Million to leave your job For real, I only need 10% of that. Only for one year, then I can retire.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
I think you should ask a project manager, not a bunch of coders. Of course the project manager will tell you, "that it is because you are a coder that you get paid what you are paid, and you need to be a project manager". yada yada yada...
MrPlankton
-
Yeah, you can't do that if you are not already, in some way, valuable to the company. Or they'll just let you go, and if you don't go, then they won't look at you like before. (imo)
Like duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh. He said to be prepared for them to call your bluff. Meaning, it better not be a bluff. Have the offer and be willing to take it if they don't bend your way. I've done this three times, two resulting in significant improvements, and the third resulting in my changing employers. I don't regret changing employers at all. In fact, I was kind of hoping he would say no as I was sick of the other job anyhow.
-
When you can retire instead without the stain of being fired on your record for almost double the money? :)
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
Well the money part would be nice. But if you're retiring, as in not working any longer, who cares about the stain of being fired? Oh sure it would bother me a bit, but with a mere $90 million "parting gift," I'd get over it. :laugh: BDF
-
What? Pardon me, but that's the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. You don't acquire source code from elsewhere, you create it yourself. If you create money yourself, you will get a vacation in striped clothing. Only someone very selfish would hoard wealth like a friggin squirrel, when a difference in wealth on the magnitude of 10 really doesn't make any difference for them personally. If only more wealthy people could be like Bill Gates. Then I can see justification for hoarding so much of it.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Just because you don't like something doesn't excuse being purposefully ignorant about how it works. Let's try this another way, do you live in a house? Do you make more money than a dirt poor farmer in a 3rd world country? It's easy to imagine them saying the same thing about you if your salary and lifestyle were common knowledge to them. Surely you don't need a vehicle, you don't need a television, you don't need food beyond rice and lentils, you don't need haircuts, you don't need 90% of the things you live with every day, why are you selfishly hoarding all your wealth? Those dirt farmers could use some of it. What people choose to do with their hard earned money is entirely up to them. I hold personal freedom to be about as sacred a right as there ever was. Call them selfish if you will, but I think you would be deeply wrong in most cases.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
-
Well the money part would be nice. But if you're retiring, as in not working any longer, who cares about the stain of being fired? Oh sure it would bother me a bit, but with a mere $90 million "parting gift," I'd get over it. :laugh: BDF
Well I think a person who was able to achieve that position in life probably has a bit more pride than that. Plus the difference could mean a lot, they may have a huge family and want to ensure that as many of their descendants as possible are set up in life.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
-
Well I think a person who was able to achieve that position in life probably has a bit more pride than that. Plus the difference could mean a lot, they may have a huge family and want to ensure that as many of their descendants as possible are set up in life.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
Well that's a valid point, with which I agree. I haven't yet reached Mr. O’Neal’s level of accomplishment nor level of avarice. BDF
-
Just because you don't like something doesn't excuse being purposefully ignorant about how it works. Let's try this another way, do you live in a house? Do you make more money than a dirt poor farmer in a 3rd world country? It's easy to imagine them saying the same thing about you if your salary and lifestyle were common knowledge to them. Surely you don't need a vehicle, you don't need a television, you don't need food beyond rice and lentils, you don't need haircuts, you don't need 90% of the things you live with every day, why are you selfishly hoarding all your wealth? Those dirt farmers could use some of it. What people choose to do with their hard earned money is entirely up to them. I hold personal freedom to be about as sacred a right as there ever was. Call them selfish if you will, but I think you would be deeply wrong in most cases.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
Actually, your analogy is not very good. The difference is the that the luxury items that wealthy people spend their money on does not always rate well in its utility. A vehicle has a function, so does good food, haircuts, and other things we use on a daily basis. The T.V. is questionable because it can be used for a purpose that is constructive and beneficial, or not. A 50 million dollar home that is dangling off the side of a mountain is not very utilitarian. There is a case to be made for some of the luxury items that wealthy people spend their money on, such as expensive clothes, but it is the excesses that I think most people have a problem with. I think that, in general, people get paid in proportion to the size of the problem that they solve. While software is everywhere, and the world would be less efficient without it, there are a lot of people that can do it. Far more people than can run a company, especially one that leads an industry. The flip side of that is that people are getting paid even when they run the company into the ground, that is the kind of crap that makes people want to riot. I think it is the double standard that people really have a problem with.
Ben
-
Actually, your analogy is not very good. The difference is the that the luxury items that wealthy people spend their money on does not always rate well in its utility. A vehicle has a function, so does good food, haircuts, and other things we use on a daily basis. The T.V. is questionable because it can be used for a purpose that is constructive and beneficial, or not. A 50 million dollar home that is dangling off the side of a mountain is not very utilitarian. There is a case to be made for some of the luxury items that wealthy people spend their money on, such as expensive clothes, but it is the excesses that I think most people have a problem with. I think that, in general, people get paid in proportion to the size of the problem that they solve. While software is everywhere, and the world would be less efficient without it, there are a lot of people that can do it. Far more people than can run a company, especially one that leads an industry. The flip side of that is that people are getting paid even when they run the company into the ground, that is the kind of crap that makes people want to riot. I think it is the double standard that people really have a problem with.
Ben
I think it's an apt analogy, surely there is little difference between a billionare with a mansion hanging off the side of a mountain to you and I and my fairly humble house by North American standards to a dirt poor villager in Somalia.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
-
I think it's an apt analogy, surely there is little difference between a billionare with a mansion hanging off the side of a mountain to you and I and my fairly humble house by North American standards to a dirt poor villager in Somalia.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
I think you may not have understood my point about an items utility. Your house is probably similar to mine, if so, then our houses have more functionality than the hut in Somalia. For instance, they provide climate control, electricity, a greater resistance to deterioration, and other things. If one had to chose between a hut and a house, it could be justified that the house provides a more functional living environment. This in turn creates a more productive citizen because they can spend more time contributing to society, instead of just trying to sustain their existence. I fail to see how the house on the mountain does that same thing. Maybe, there is something I am missing about the house on the mountain. Perhaps if it were energy independent, then I could see how it could be justified. I am not trying to argue, I just wanted to point out that there was more to the picture that I thought was getting glazed over.
Ben