[faet]

I have a friend who took a 1099 job over a W2 job because "they offered more money". I tried to explain that because he is now paying a higher payroll tax he's earning less per hour than the other job.

He doesn't get it though. "The other company was offering X. This one is offering 5% more."

He also doesn't have PTO, 401k, or medical insurance.

[luckydude]

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. How can you be a brilliant engineer and make this sort of mistake?

I was trying to hire a very senior guy from Sun and we didn't get him because our salary offer was lower than Sun's but the package was better than Sun's. This guy was a distinguished engineer (equal to a director in the management track). We wanted him for VP of engineering, he was smart, good people person, got stuff done. But couldn't add up all the things in a package.

Just weird.

[Jugurtha]

This is interesting. Can this be thought of as the flip side of matt_s' second point[0]:

>Thinking that pure technical merit of an idea will magically sell it to me (manager) and above.

This, being the flip side, can be formulated as:

"Thinking that pure managerial merit of an idea will magically sell it to me (managéè)[1] and below/lateral".

I'm at my first job. Every time I'm asked to make a presentation I invariably ask: "Who's the audience?". I'm an Electronics Engineer by training, so my eliciting question came because I think of "impedance matching", an expression that's often used but seldom appreciated for what it really is. The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry is clear and concise:

> In electronics, impedance matching is the practice of designing the input impedance of an electrical load or the output impedance of its corresponding signal source to maximize the power transfer or minimize signal reflection from the load.

Controlling the input impedance of the load (my interlocutor) is out of my control as far as I know. Controlling the output impedance of the source (me) is within my control, so this is where I start. It's also wonderful that doing this effort reveals gaping holes in my implementation sometimes.

What's your opinion on that? (that's it the flip side of the same problem of an Engineer who complains management doesn't "get it", as someone who's been in both roles)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15047382

[1]: Not an actual word but I just love how content written in English uses French words with accents in all the wrong places. In case you're wondering about the order, I didn't use èé because it looks like an angry frowning dude and I aimed for dumbfounded, which is exactly what éè looks like.

[luckydude]

I use the phrase "that's an impedance mismatch" all the time. Software guy who has done some hardware stuff. I use it in the context of humans: "Sending $ENGINEER to do that job is an impedance mismatch, they'll screw it up". Stuff like that. Love that phrase, might be misusing it, still love it.

On "is it the flip side of the same problem of an Engineer who complains management doesn't get it" I'm not seeing it. I mean, maybe, but management usually gets it in my experience. It's a much more rare event to see a manager not understand all of the costs of doing something, that's a big part of their job. So maybe it's the flip side but it's just not that common (in my experience, I've had mostly good managers).

Here's maybe why I don't see it: I see good engineers screw up on the money stuff all the time, it's very common. I very rarely see good managers "not get it". In the engineer, it's like a blind spot, it's not because they are stupid. When managers don't get it it is usually a sign they aren't a good manager. So to be the flip side, you'd have to have good managers not getting it and I believe that's uncommon.

[Jugurtha]

> Stuff like that. Love that phrase, might be misusing it, still love it.

Yeah, love those concepts that lend themselves well to other systems (signal to noise ratio, inertia, etc).

What I meant, I may have "packaged" my message clumsily, was the following: is an Engineer's duty, in the context of their job, to package "technical" information for the manager not the flip side of the manager's duty to package "managerial" information for the Engineer.

The Engineer complains that management doesn't get "obvious technical" information the same way management complains an Engineer doesn't get "obvious management" information, which might cause mutual disdain, and ~°we all know°~ it's easier to have disdain for people with questionable hygiene and appearance, so there's that.

I guess an Engineer's struggle with money stuff is really the same as the inability of someone to solve a Physics problem: one needs to have the data in the right dimensions, the laws that apply to them, and know how to apply them. Then practice doing so.

An Engineer's inability to "get money stuff" is one or more of the above missing (cash vs cash flow for figures of the right dimension, for example), knowing the rules to apply to money, and then the practice of applying them.

[luckydude]

I dunno. It seems more weird to me that the engineer, um, "engineer" as in good at math, good at seeing a whole system, doesn't apply those skills to their own compensation package.

It would be a whole lot less weird to me if we were talking about, I dunno, anyone who isn't good at systems/math.

It's just a big blind spot, at least it is in the USA. I don't get it.

[Jugurtha]

It should be the case.. Then again, there's the "conjunction fallacy"[0]. There's the case where the staggering majority of participants who were trained in probability got the test wrong.

Anyway, thanks for the input. Fascinating how we function.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy