Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Non-Actuarial Topics
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #291  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:59 PM
Liar's Avatar
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdsafdsa View Post
because they don't and you're full of shit.
Look at tech companies at Silicon Valley.

There is no reason why any company would want an environment where companies poach from each other. All that would lead to is higher wages and lower profits for no extra talent at all.

If no one poached, then wages would stagnate, but talent would remain the same, which aligns with corporations' goals of maximizing profits.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:12 PM
hjacjswo hjacjswo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
College: About to be a super senior
Posts: 1,205
Default

This non-compete and non poaching shit. 99% of us don't need to worry about it. Worry about it after you make partner/principal at a consulting firm. This isn't big law in NYC

I had a non compete, which was pretty much a formality. It wasn't brought up at all when I left the company.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:39 PM
Colonel Smoothie's Avatar
Colonel Smoothie Colonel Smoothie is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
College: Jamba Juice University
Favorite beer: AO Amber Ale
Posts: 47,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjacjswo View Post
This non-compete and non poaching shit. 99% of us don't need to worry about it. Worry about it after you make partner/principal at a consulting firm. This isn't big law in NYC

I had a non compete, which was pretty much a formality. It wasn't brought up at all when I left the company.
I have a non compete

I am a small fry
__________________
Recommended Readings for the EL Actuary || Recommended Readings for the EB Actuary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigmeister General View Post
Don't you even think about sending me your resume. I'll turn it into an origami boulder and return it to you.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:45 PM
Liar's Avatar
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 152
Default

I laugh at you guys who think that your compensation isn't even on corporate's radar.

Companies will fight you over a penny, because that is their legal obligation.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:52 PM
DoctorNo's Avatar
DoctorNo DoctorNo is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver, CO
College: Western Washington, Colorado-Boulder
Posts: 12,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar View Post
I laugh at you guys who think that your compensation isn't even on corporate's radar.

Companies will fight you over a penny, because that is their legal obligation.
You're clearly familiar with all companies. Kudos.
__________________
The opinions of Doctor No do not necessarily represent the opinions of mathematicians or consulting actuaries. Facts cited by Doctor No are not necessarily facts. Find me on Twitter: @NorrisDoug. If you send me a LinkedIn invitation, please let me know who you are (unless it's obvious how I know you).
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 07-21-2018, 01:31 AM
whoanonstop's Avatar
whoanonstop whoanonstop is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Studying for Spark / Scala
College: College of William and Mary
Favorite beer: Orange Juice
Posts: 5,833
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The bigger the market you're in, the less they seem to fight you.

-Riley
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 07-21-2018, 07:56 AM
Kalium Kalium is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar View Post
...Companies will fight you over a penny, because that is their legal obligation.
No it isn't. Their obligation is to maximise shareholder value. If it will cost more than their possible gain, then using your logic their legal obligation is actually NOT to fight you.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 07-21-2018, 08:36 AM
Liar's Avatar
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalium View Post
No it isn't. Their obligation is to maximise shareholder value. If it will cost more than their possible gain, then using your logic their legal obligation is actually NOT to fight you.
They maximize shareholder value by maximizing profits.

Your wage has a negative correlation with profits. It also costs nothing to lower your wage except 2 minutes changing a cell in some spreadsheet.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 07-21-2018, 09:30 AM
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalium View Post
No it isn't. Their obligation is to maximise shareholder value. If it will cost more than their possible gain, then using your logic their legal obligation is actually NOT to fight you.
Principal agent problem applies.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 07-21-2018, 10:59 AM
nonlnear nonlnear is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: May 2010
Favorite beer: Civil Society Fresh IPA
Posts: 29,624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
Principal agent problem applies.
It depends how a certain business unit is perceived, either as a rain maker or a cost center. This distinction is not always fact-based, and the determination is sometimes far from objective. A lot of business management fads feed into what kind of roles are perceived as even being capable of generating surplus value through incremental investment in talent.

When I was working in banking fraud risk a while back, the VP made it a pillar of his career strategy to sell the message to senior management that fraud risk mitigation was actually a revenue generator (by reducing preventable losses) and not merely a cost center. This was a perception that previous generations of senior management simply didn't have. They thought of it as just one of those things you have to do as a bank, but not one where increased investment beyond the minimum requirement could actually boost the bottom line in a meaningful way. That VP's campaign was good for his position (as it recast his role from back of the bus to somewhere int he middle), and it was good for the personnel planning under him. It's the kind of perception change that can change how compensation increases are viewed too.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.45532 seconds with 11 queries