[wisdomoftheages]

"Competitive" company cultures are an enormous red flag for me, almost always a mechanism to help executives drain employees to a lifeless husk without having to actually pay for the privilege.

In my experience, companies have three ways to motivate employees.

One is to compensate them at a level commensurate with what is expected of them (too few companies do this, even in tech).

One is to make them feel like they have a genuine stake in the performance of the company, either because they believe in the company's mission (usually impossible for a for-profit enterprise, except among the more gullible employees) or they actually have an ownership stake in the business (virtually impossible with the VC model, papier-mache stock options not withstanding)

The third is to build an artificial "competitive culture", so everyone is so busy pushing themselves to the limit in competition with their coworkers that they never stop to realize that the only prize is more money in the bank account of their investors (who may peel a bills off the top and toss it to them in the form of a 'performance bonus')

[thaumasiotes]

> One is to compensate them at a level commensurate with what is expected of them (too few companies do this, even in tech).

Companies don't do this because it's not a coherent concept. No two people see the same workload in the same way.

Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do.

[wisdomoftheages]

Companies pay the lowest amount that workers accept. Some employers can hold down wages because their workers have no other options. Ours have to resort to marginally more sophisticated stratagems.

[fsloth]

"Payment is based on what it would cost to replace you, not on what you do."

I would perhaps rephraze this as 'payment is based on the market rate'. It has more into it than just cost of replacement. The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere.

[consp]

>> The replacement cost becomes a key metric when presenting a counter offer to an employee who got a better offer elsewhere.

Do not forget that replacement cost the first few months to about half year is quite high. You are far less profitable to a company if you are new as you take time of others and are less up-to-speed. But that never gets taken into account when dealing with pay increases for retained employees. E.g. you should get significantly more than a new hire if you are with the company for longer as it usually a benefit. Though there are counter examples to this statement, so it is various shades of gray between new hires and paying retained employees more.

[lotsofpulp]

Similarly, the replacement cost of a new employer is also high for an employee if they have a family and don’t want to move and/or can’t gamble on the conditions at a new employer. I would say thaumasiotes is correct in saying an employee is paid what it would cost to replace them, in 99.9% of cases. Of course the buyer takes risks such as not finding as good of an employee, cost of training, legal risks of terminating or hiring, and the cost of the message it sends to others, but it’s still the same concept.

No buyer wants to pay more than they have to, hence when the value an employee adds is commoditized, you see that they get paid exactly what it costs to replace them, hence the minuscule pay and terrible work conditions of retail, restaurants, and hotels.

[thaumasiotes]

The market rate is the cost to replace you. An employer paying more is making a mistake. An employee taking less is making a mistake. It's the only steady state.

[fsloth]

Sure, avoiding the word 'replacement' is mostly about semantics as it guides the mind to think in closed and not in open mode.