Hacker News Reader

Comment by nullrouted | Hacker News Reader

Not really...and I apologize if you think that is my meaning. I guess I look at it from a truly business standpoint and any business wants to acquire an "asset" at the lowest possible cost. Whether that be property, IP, other businesses or employees. It would be kind of foolish for a business to go in an say "sure, we will pay the highest cost" in every transaction they do and will likely lead them to bankruptcy.

As a normal worker of course I hope they all pay us great salaries and equal pay for equal work but part of my "job" in the negotiating process is to make sure that happens.

View on HN

> As a normal worker of course I hope they all pay us great salaries and equal pay for equal work but part of my "job" in the negotiating process is to make sure that happens.

So why are you arguing for making your own job harder? In what kind of negotiation does one side insist the other keep all the cards so they can play a shitty hand?

Not a fair one.

>>Not really...and I apologize if you think that is my meaning. I guess I look at it from a truly business standpoint and any business wants to acquire an "asset" at the lowest possible cost. Whether that be property, IP, other businesses or employees.

This is the same type of logic that makes people view Human Resources departments with disdain: viewing people as "resources" as opposed to, you know, people.

The fact that you are comparing and equating employees with other types of assets is especially disturbing. A chair doesn't have dreams, feelings, or a family to feed. So it makes sense to get the "best deal" when you're buying one. But humans have those things, and treating them as fairly and humanly as possible should be the priority.

This may seem like bad business sense to the uninitiated, but companies who follow this practice tend to have a lot of competitive advantage in the sense of fierce employee loyalty. If people know you're treating them fairly and with respect, they will return the favor.

>I guess I look at it from a truly business standpoint and any business wants to acquire an "asset" at the lowest possible cost.

That's not the "truly business standpoint" - that's Stockholm Syndrome.

The "truly business standpoint" would be to understand that you are not operating as a charity and it's your responsibility to maximise your benefits.

As an individual and not a corporation - assuming you're not a contractor - you can choose to trade off salary vs intangible benefits (culture, etc) vs equity vs free time/side projects.

But if you're not valuing yourself realistically, you're giving away value to the employer for no rational economic reason.

Landlords and other businesses certainly won't operate as charities, so why should you?

> any business wants to acquire an "asset" at the lowest possible cost.

In the short term potentially. If the price at which you acquired the asset has knock on effects, on e.g. the effectiveness of that asset, employee turn over, whether you can sleep at night, whether the economy as a whole has enough people earning enough to buy your product, whether you are considered to be fair minded and honourable in contracts and disputes, then you might well want to think about it in a little more depth.

There are many reasons why blindly acquiring an asset at the lowest possible short term cost might not be in your interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com