Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jtsummers | Hacker News Reader

There is no justification except fear of not having enough money. The issue is whether you can meet your peak budget. If you can get by with $x * 0.80 most of the time, but every once in a while you really, really need the full $x then you spend $x/year. Because, if you don't, that extra $x * 0.20 will be cut (possibly even more). This leads to an increasingly tight budget (or it's feared at least) so it's "better" to be wasteful.

View on HN

It's also useful to request a budget 25% -more- than you need, so some manager can "slash your budget" and feel like he won.

And also ask for stuff you don't need, which you can "give up" during the budget allocation process.

Corporate Budgeting is a game. If you need to play, best you first learn the rules.

The filing out your buget so it doesn't get cut part is understandable. What makes less sense is cutting the max budget based on use wihout leaving any overhead to account for unexpected expenses. Why does that seem so common when it makes the incentives so obviously misaligned?

Because there are always more profitable projects than money. If you can liberate some money by cutting budgets elsewhere, you can run more of them.

Having money left over at the end of the budget year is a failure, as that money could have been used in a profitable projects.

Except you are completely disregarding the obvious outcome: others wasting money to not have their buget cut. And the alternative could be even worse: departments running out of money and imploding because of unexpected costs without any budget headroom.

The point is not that investing the company's money wisely doesn't make sense but that looking hat how much each department used and then basing the next budget on that alone is the opposite of wise because those departments are run by humans that will be looking out for themselves first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com