papabrown

Because execution is often the difference between success and failure. There was a social network before Facebook. Actually there were several. MySpace comes to mind as the biggest. Even without Facebook, MySpace was on the way out. The difference? Execution.

I could give the same movie script to 10 different directors and fund the production of 10 different movies and I guarantee you that at least a few of those movies you won't even know if they used the same script. People interpret the same information differently and have different visions based on that information. One might make it a RomCom. Another might decide it's an action movie.

And if one of them makes one that people overwhelmingly prefer and it makes a billion dollars, would you suggest that they give the money back because there should only be so much success afforded to a single person when 10 different people all had the same script?

You seem to imply that there would obviously be an operating system without Gates so why should he become rich? Well, there were several different operating systems, some might even argue superior operating systems, but they failed as businesses.

Coming up with a new or revolutionary idea is hard. What's equally difficult is turning that into a successful business. Microsoft could have easily been a total flop had it hired the wrong people or made the wrong decisions. Google could have ended up as neat little experiment that never quite got off the ground had they not brought in the right people.

But that's not just tech, that's not just business, that's life.

I think you might be looking at it from the wrong angle. Some of the most morally bankrupt people I've ever met are crazy intelligent. You seem to equate being a sociopath with being a moron and that is more often than not a poor assumption.

The other aspect that I think you're overlooking is that people who are wired like this are often incredibly driven people. Sure, someone on /r/entrepreneur might be willing to give up everything to pursue their dream but a sociopath is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want.

While stealing the employee stock options is beyond pale, the real issue is what the working environment must be like there. I was in a similar situation many years ago with a completely corrupt management team. My boss and I got off on the wrong foot when he asked me to lie about another employee he wanted to fire and I refused (which led to him then trying to find people to dish dirt on me so he could fire me).

The CEO and president were fully aware this kind of stuff was going on but looked the other way because he was producing the results they wanted to see (they weren't exactly clean either and several years later were both indicted on criminal charges).

I saw multiple people break down in tears due to the pressure he put on them. Everyone was stressed out all the time. People were constantly in poor health due to the stress. Backstabbing was normal operating procedure just to stay off the hit list. People would doing anything to suck up to the boss so they could keep their job another week, or month, or quarter hoping things would get better.

After I left the company I couldn't believe I put up with that. My health was in the toilet. Mentally I was wasted. I remember at my next job constantly worrying that everyone who was being nice to me was setting me up. I parsed every word people said to me looking for a trap. It took me a full year before I could sleep more than four hours a night.

The ones who have left or were let go are the lucky ones. The stock can't be worth the physical and emotional damage.

I've worked in a lot of high pressure jobs before that one and since then but that place will always stand out as the most damaging period in my life.

By extension you could say that working with a remote office would make them easier to lay off as well.

I'm sure there's some truth to it but I think it all comes down to perceived value. If you're in someone's face everyday reminding them of how valuable you are, it does make it seem you are more valuable. A remote worker or someone working in a satellite office is going to have a more difficult time tooting their own horn.

That said, I work from the main office and we have an additional three offices spread across three different countries and I don't feel that it would be easy to lay off someone in one of those offices anymore than it would be to lay someone off in my office. Each person has a specific skill they're bringing to the table and without them that work wouldn't get done.

Perhaps if there was real or perceived redundancy in job skills, the situation might be different but then you've got redundancy and if times get tough, someone has to go anyway. Now we're just talking about who. If there are 10 people on a team and only one of them works remotely, well, that might be the person who gets cut first but if you have 10 people and 4 of them are working remotely, you're back to the same issue of their perceived value to the organization. Whether working from an office or working remotely, the people who have done the best job at standing out are the least likely to get cut.

I don't believe that to be true. I believe that often ends up happening but I don't believe it to be a sure enough outcome that one can link the two with such certainty.

I hate to sound like an old guy but I do remember when police used to try to resolve issues. Much like many police interactions I've witnessed in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

Police used to try to get everyone to calm down and figure out a solution that did not involve the need to get violent or anyone going to jail.

For instance, in this case, the police could have asked the doctor why he didn't want to deplane. With that knowledge they could have approached the United crew and informed them that this was a doctor who had to be at work tomorrow and imply that getting their four staff to another location seemed to be less important, so maybe they could find another passenger or find another solution.

If United persisted, the police should have gone back to the doctor and said, "Listen, we're on your side. They're being a-holes. But, it's their plane and they're asking you to leave which means you're trespassing and failing to follow the orders of a flight crew. We don't not want to arrest you or have to remove you by force, but we're boxed in a corner here. Just come with us and we'll help you file a complaint."

If your current job pays $400K they are either grossly overpaying or you are in a very narrow band of people in your field and you probably should not be taking too many interviews with people who do not already know what they should be prepared to pay.

People at $400K a year don't apply for a job, they're recruited. Any of the problems mentioned in this thread would likely not apply.

I would rather talk what my salary expectations are rather than my current salary. Not because I'm underpaid but because salary is a very specific term and doesn't take into account many other factors.

For instance, I think the worst bonus I've ever received with my current employer is 15%. Best was 30% or so.

That's not salary. But it's fairly reliable. With the new employer the bonus might not be reliable even if it's comparable percentage-wise. Every company has different criteria they use to fund the bonus pool and it's unheard of for a potential employer to ever disclose that. Everyone at my current employer gets paid out of the same bonus pool as the CEO so I know we're getting paid :-)

Also, equity (at least in my case) plays a huge role. The last few years I've made as much or more in selling vested stock options as I did in salary.

So if someone were to ask me what my current salary is in a employment negotiation I would tell them that I don't think it's relevant and give them a few examples why. I would however, tell them what I thought I was worth and justify it by explaining what value I could bring AND-OR I would tell them what salary range I've already been offered elsewhere recently and ask if they were prepared to make an offer in that range. If they insisted my current salary, I pretty much know that's not the right place for me.

They also routinely share the employers range with candidates.

Believe me, if I told an external recruiter I was looking to make X and they sent me on an interview and I got a job offer at 0.5X, not only would that be the last time we ever spoke but wherever I eventually landed would not be using that recruiter or their firm ever again.

I can't think of a job I've been contacted about in the last 15+ years where I didn't know what the salary range was before I even agreed to have my resume submitted.

Well, it wasn't a waste of time if you gained some experience, which I think was the point. As a manager I've made tons of mistakes. Much of my management style today is based on "Well, I won't do that again." Every mistake I've made has made me a better manager.

I would disagree with what you're saying about companies not having set budgets. They may have a range but it's certainly a set range. The larger the organization the more hard the range likely is due to the fact that the hiring manager doesn't even set the range, HR does based on salary comps.

See Fighting MADD [1]

Don't be put off by the site's domain. There are plenty of other articles that say the same exact thing. In fact, Wikipedia contains several links to articles critical of MADD's mission and fundraising [2]

[1] http://www.drunkard.com/08_02_fighting_madd/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving

In many cities like Los Angeles public transportation is either non-existant or extremely poor, the most common scenario is that someone goes to work and is invited to go have a drink with the office gang after hours. It's not realistic for them to drive an hour home in rush hour traffic and then take Uber back to meet everyone as they'll already be gone. Instead they go have a drink, start thinking, "Geez, I probably should get Uber but then I'm going to have to get Uber in the morning to get to work and then I have to get my car from the parking lot at the bar. I guess I'm not really that drunk I can probably make it home okay."

Elephants too. They've been known to raid villages and steal booze. [1]

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229334/Fifty-drunke...

Let me start off by saying that I don't approve of drunk driving. That said, the laws and how law enforcement treats drunk driving and how alcohol related accidents are reported tell a very distorted picture. After the MADD campaigns picked up sufficient steam and states began taking drunk driving more seriously, numbers dropped. But then they quit dropping. So many states lowered BAC limits from .10 to .08 in order to include more drivers in the impaired category even though there was no evidence to support it. With numbers stagnating again, you see another push for states to lower BAC levels to .05 even though there is zero evidence that this will lead to fewer accidents. All it does is create more criminals on the road which the police can then catch, fine, and profit from.

In the US, more people are arrested for drunk driving than for any other crime. Nearly 1% of all licensed drivers has received a DUI in the last 3 years.

As all of this was happening, the definition of what was alcohol related began to expand. Currently if any party in an accident is under the influence, even if they were not operating a vehicle, it's alcohol related. These inflated statistics then fuel calls for more oppressive crackdowns on drunk driving.

Again, I'm not advocating drunk driving but we have to focus on the right problems. Like, how do you keep the people who are the most dangerous off the road? While the police are out spending resources racking up arrests for people who had a couple of glasses of wine with their meal, a large percentage of accidents are caused by repeat offenders. Nationally, over 33% of people arrested for DUI get another DUI. And people with multiple DUIs are overrepresented in fatal car accidents (4.1x more likely).

Considering the fact that the most common BAC of someone who has been pulled over for suspicion of DUI is .16, continuously lowering the BAC threshold in order to snare more people in DUI convictions is not the answer. They're not the ones getting into accidents.

Believe me, if they changed the laws and made it a crime to serve more than two drinks to someone unless they could prove they had a ride home (other than them driving, of course), the alcohol companies would quickly come up with solutions.

Clearly the government's interests are not aligned with lowering drunk driving. Lowering drunk driving costs money (public transportation options, better city planning, etc). Arresting people for drunk driving generates revenue from fines. If they were successful in lowering drunk drivers on the road they would be decreasing their budgets.

Until you can align motives with profits, you'll never fix the problem. You'll just keep increasing the base of people who are considered criminals.