[magduf]

>No matter how many companies die a quick and painful death when they lose too much business critical data, the bossmen just can't wrap their heads around spending $100k for what they perceive as no benefit.

Yeah, but what exactly IS the benefit? The business doesn't die if something really bad happens? Is that really important though?

Consider the two alternatives:

1) The business spends $x00k/year on backups. IF something happens, they're saved, and business continues as normal. However, this money comes out of their bottom line, making them less profitable.

2) The business doesn't bother with backups, and has more profit. The management can get bigger bonuses. But IF something bad happens, the company goes under, but then what happens to the managers who made these decisions? They just go on to another job at another company, right?

I'm not sure I see the benefit of backups here.

[FussyZeus]

> Yeah, but what exactly IS the benefit? The business doesn't die if something really bad happens? Is that really important though?

I mean the way management gets on me when we have outages, you'd think that was a significant priority?

[magduf]

They can get more money in the short term by pushing you harder, and there's zero cost to them to go yell at you. If they could get a bigger bonus by ignoring outages, they'd do that, but instead, they can get a bigger bonus by pushing you to reduce outages without any additional resources.

[meko]

You'd be absolutely right but it's still a sad state of affairs.

[softawre]

The managers that make these decisions need to have equity.

[magduf]

Seems like they do just fine with big golden parachutes. Why tie their compensation to the company's performance when they can just have a big payout whenever they leave under any circumstances?