I don't consider that a normal nor a healthy opinion. I'd choose happiness over money. Sure there is some level of money that's so low I wouldn't be happy but that just again means I'd choose happiness.
Happiness isn't making the most money possible, at least not for most people. Happiness, for most people, is having a life of people, relationships, meaning and a big part of all of that is working with people you love on something you love.
You're likely to spend 80,000hrs working. It would be nice not to just have to endure those 80,000hrs but actually enjoy them.
This is a very individualistic position, to the point of being self-centered. Not everyone sees themselves as the "consumer" of happiness. Sometimes we are in a position where we are producing it for the others. For example, kids can't share the joy of all the interesting projects or cool tech at their parent's job.
But the absence of money or their parent overworking due to low pay can easily affect them.
What does "touchless" mean? Who cleans the place up each day? Who maintains the building? (cleaning the toilets, fixing broken doors and windows, and other general maintenance) Who decides which iof the 95 people who want a booth get one of the 20 available spaces? Who polices that the items sold are safe? etc.. etc..
This is a weird list of FUD for the kind of basic public amenity that even borderline failed states manage to provide.
If this was a missile base or a oil refinery, maybe there'd be something to consider here. But we're talking about one of the oldest forms of public marketplace; plenty of marketplaces don't even have toilets or windows. My local one doesn't.
That reminds me of the difference between Japanese travel guides and US travel guides.
Most travel guides in the US look like Lonely Planet, Frommers, etc. A big book of words, paragraphs of prose describing places.
Most travel guides in Japan look like catalogs. Most pages are full of small pictures with small descriptions, and then an address and map page/id (maps are included in the guide). I personally find the Japanese guides more interesting because I can browse and look for something that catches my eye. With the US ones I have to spend hours reading it.
Note: it's the same with restaurant guides. A western guide will often just be listings with descriptions. A Japanese guide will be full of pictures of the food and/or restaurant. Of course Yelp etc have user pictures now-a-days
How is that evidence it's efficient and incorruptible?
for one, there's a limited number of stalls. It certainly wouldn't be shocking if whoever bribed the government coordinator the most got one of the stalls or if people the coordinators closest friends got priority access to the stalls etc...
I don't know the ideal solution. It might be more fair if there was a raffle for stalls each week. Instead we see the same people in the same stalls. Curious how a new farmer gets in to the market. Do they offer more money than someone already there?
No, I'm only trying to claim that a government run farmers market is not incorruptible nor likely would it be any more fair.
Interestingly the link above is not to a government run farmers market. It's to a a government site that then links to a non-government, non-profit organization. So that farmers market is not government run
Thank goodness you have so energetically attacked the straw man that there is some kind of organization that is incorruptible. We are all richer for it.
I read that as some creative way to use Scrapple for diagrams and went to check out what it was. Imagine my disappointment that it was just some poorly named software and not actually diagrams made from scrapple
Mostly I do. Anyone can be a coal miner. Just show up and start digging. I'm not saying coal miners don't have their expertise and maybe their salary would go up if no one wanted to do the job but "in general" you get paid by how hard it is to find someone qualified to do the job.
All these companies are in layoff mode but because they are trying to be frugal during the recession but none of them actually want to layoff that talent, each of which was one of 100 or of 1000 resumes sent to the company. Google gets 3 million applications a year and still has trouble finding people that can do the jobs they're hiring for.
Queue rant about how the interviewing process sucks.
Maybe it does, but of the people I've interviewed only about 1 in 10 is a clear "yes, this person can code well", 2 are "probably ok" and 7 are "based on the performance/style/etc... from the leetcode question I wouldn't let you near my code base..... maybe you'd rock but you didn't show me you'd rock. You made all kinds of basic mistakes that makes it seem like you don't actually code much or you write lots of bugs. Sorry, I was totally routing for you. I would 100% love to hire you but you failed to show me you can code". That's irrespective of if they "solved it".
> "in general" you get paid by how hard it is to find someone qualified to do the job
weighted by how much people are willing to pay for the work product you create
It's probably really hard to find glassblowers these days. But, people don't want to buy that much handblown glass either.
(and before anybody says "I'd love to drink water out of hand blown glass!", remember opportunity costs: training glassblowers is probably straightforward but the projected value of their work does not support training them to blow glass considering they could train to do something in higher demand, so these potential glassblowers would want a high enough wage that you'd still settle for getting your drinking water glasses from Target)
CEOs general work harder than workers. They're on 24/7. I don't think I'd ever want to be a CEO of a company as big as Google. They have to deal with 100s of teams as well as 100s of outside companies, governments, etc, all over the world. I really doubt they have it "easy"
CEO's job is mostly to convince you of how valuable they are. They set strategy and direction. They contribute 0% to the bottom line, so value is hard to measure due to too many variables
Edit: Think about it. Sometimes a CEO's best move is to not mess something up. Other times, the best move is to take drastic measures. It's a rare blend that makes a good CEO for a given situation. I'm not saying Steve Jobs sucked. He was an outlier.
If you believe that a bad manager can sink a project and a bad CEO can sink a company by making the wrong decisions, then you kinda have to accept the flip side too.
Just off the cuff guessing but 12000 people cost $1.2 to $4.8 billon a year
Google has 180k people, minus 12k = 168k. That means their burn rate is 16.8 to 84 billon a year
I'm speaking out of my ass because I don't know the average salary and overhead of a google employee but the low numbers assume $100k a year no zero overhead.
They're a public company. If you want to know how much they spend, just check their quarterly financial reports. It'll be far more accurate than these guesses.
First, if that is your goal then you really should use the actual available numbers target than make your own guesses that have a ludicrously large range.
Second, it is actually comparatively rare for big companies to have enough capital for years of runway. They plan to pay the salaries with their revenues, not with reserves. If companies really did planning the way you're implying ("big reserves aren't much if you need to keep the company afloat"), most the S&P 500 would be firing half their staff. So when you have a look in the financial reports for how large Google's expenditures are, have a look also at their revenue and operating income.
Third, the narrative you're trying to build is just utter bullshit. I'm sure there are good economic arguments to be made for these layoffs. And there are other companies for which company survival would be a good argument. But in this particular case, the idea that it is about company survival is just completely detached from reality. The company is still, as of the last released numbers, fabulously profitable.
Happiness isn't making the most money possible, at least not for most people. Happiness, for most people, is having a life of people, relationships, meaning and a big part of all of that is working with people you love on something you love.
You're likely to spend 80,000hrs working. It would be nice not to just have to endure those 80,000hrs but actually enjoy them.