As the line manager is employee herself, the strategy only works, if she is applying it herself, too. Otherwise her salary might not be competitive and you as her sub-employee are risking the most severe of all offenses - asking for more than what your supervisor makes.
> as her sub-employee are risking the most severe of all offenses - asking for more than what your supervisor makes.
This is a flawed philosophy. As a manager I have had a few critical pulling in higher salaries than my own. If you are a superviser who is artificially holding an employee back from reaching their full potential (seeking compensation that matches the demand person's talent in the open market) than you are doing your company (yourself) and that employee a major disservice.
Just because you are a manager doesn't mean you can do what your employee does (and vice versa). Artificially holding a sub-employee back is a sign of fear for one's own ineptitude.
you are argumenting from an optimal-employee-perspective or what you might choose to call it. Fact is - even supervisors are humans and 90% of them will be hesitant to have somebody "under" them while making more or as much money. I fear that's just a fact.
I disagree based on personal experience. I am currently a line manager who is a developer himself and manages 5 other developers and my salary is not the highest and I have absolutely no issue with that. One of the devs has been with the company for 8+ years, has knowledge of literally every corner of the software and has a great work attitude which adds a lot of value by helping other devs to become as productive as possible. This person earns a lot more than me and I have no issue with that, because as a line manager I am more afraid to lose this person than anything else.
EDIT: My main responsibility is to keep the team happy and productive. If this developer would leave the team our productivity would drop and we wouldn't achieve our goals we set for ourselves this year. It would have a direct impact on my bonus as well and it is in my highest interest to keep great people at every possible cost. If I think I don't earn enough then I will have that chat with my line manager, but I will never try to destroy my team based on some personal ego crap.
Agreed. But I think that's why encouraging a servant leadership model in your company is beneficial.
Which is better for the company? (A) Leader acts in such a way to make him or herself 150% effective, or (B) Leader acts in such a way as to make all of his or her direct reports 115% effective?
If a leader can't make their team more effective, then why have them in leadership?
It's true that some supervisors operate in this manner (i.e. oppressing employees based on their own compensation), but those are egregiously sub-optimal supervisors indeed.
Even if they are accepting of you earning more, their own boss and/or Human Resources may well have a different opinion. Woe unto those whose supervisors are also underpaid.
In technical fields it's not uncommon for supervisors to earn less than those whose authority otherwise ranks below them.
It is basically just a question of market forces. If a particular position is sufficiently specialised when the supervisor role is more generalised then you might expect to pay the specialty more than the generalised role - even though the generalised role is more senior.
> People forget that the cost of a new iPhone is almost the same as the average yearly wage in Cambodia.
Good point!
From a thieves perspective it is probably not just the value of the visible goods - it's also about the arrogance such behavior exhibits - people who show off kind of deserve to get a reality check.
that's a pretty bubble-thing to say ... leave your bubble for a while and you'll see that only some young people are better educated - most are terribly educated or not at all.
This assumes that "bachelor's degree" is itself a constant measurement, which out of the context of this particular conversation virtually nobody would agree with. The number of people with "bachelor's degrees" can be going up even as the objective level of education is going down, and even if "the objective level of education" is very difficult to measure.
(There are some people with a "bachelor's degree" that I would consider anti-educated by their college, having gone to school for four years to learn to close their minds with the right invocations of words, despise knowledge, and condemn free inquiry that threatens to upend their ideas. Counting them as "educated" in the statistics doesn't much impress me.)
It's really not. The vast majority of people under the age of 30 have fully completed high school and have at least some college education under their belt.
> The vast majority of people under the age of 30 have fully completed high school and have at least some college education under their belt.
Well, no, the vast majority of people under the age of 30 have not. A majority (not vast, only about 65%) of those 25-29 meet that description, and it's lower as you get younger.
Younger people are substantially more educated than earlier generations were at the same age, but for a number of reasons (older people have had more time for additional education, life expectancy and educational attainment are mutually correlated within an age cohort, etc.) That affect is attenuated when looking at young people vs. older people rather than young people vs. previous generations at the same age.
what you described is essentially a global ponzie scheme. and that's what it is at the bottom line - the growth feeds on itself - no more growth - everything crashes.
is that sustainable or even reasonable by any standard - the answer is an obvious "no". but it benefits the powerful.
It's a documentary about Wolfgang Beltracchi - an artist who made millions forging paintings and eventually went to prison for it. You just have to like the guy.
The flick is currently available on Netflix Germany.
okay - but what if frequency increases to three files and beyond within a year, the file size doubles and the expected latency of processing needs to be reduced?
Also compressing doesn't go well with ad hoc analysis.
Sounds like maybe a Hadoop setup is not the worst idea to be ready for the future.
very good point! just think about it - all the panic and then nothing - but then we are stuck with solar power, more vegetarians, less pollution in the ocean and on and on ... terrible! waiting until the very last moment is the only feasible strategy
