On the first payday after the cancellation of weeks, ByteDance's salary was generally reduced by 17%

this result should be said to be both expected and unexpected.

as expected, it is easy to understand that wool comes from sheep. How to understand this sentence? You can figure out the cost of artificial wages in enterprise operation.

if a small company has a total annual cost of 2 million, half of which is labor cost, that is, 1 million.

So now he takes out 1 million yuan to hire 1 people. How much does each person get? 1 million each.

what is the premise of p>1-person operation? In fact, it is done by overtime, illegal overdraft, and 6 hours or more per week.

So if we now make it mandatory to work no more than 4 hours a week, even if the original paddling part is deducted, it is bound to add people.

if you add two people and 12 people, there will be only 83, left for each person, that is, 17% less on average.

Some people say that this is not right. Why not increase the salary? Why should the salary of the newly added labor be apportioned to the old employees?

if you add two people and increase the labor expenditure to 12 million, won't you maintain the per capita annual salary of one million?

ok, let's see, if the labor expenditure is increased to 12 million, who will pay for the extra 2 million?

consumer payment?

The premise for consumers to pay is that you monopolize the market. If consumers have no second choice but to eat pigs with fur without a butcher, then you can raise the price. After you raise the price, consumers must pay the bill.

if you don't have a monopoly position and you still have competitors, the price increase is no different from giving away the head.

because of your price increase, your competitors will not go up, and consumers will run away as soon as they enter and exit. When consumers run away, once your capital chain is broken, it will be a chain reaction immediately. If the money can't be sent out and the shareholders withdraw their funds, you will belch.

some people may ask, if I raise the price, why should my competitors not? I can't work more than 4 hours a week, and so can they.

if I add employees and pay more, if they add employees and pay less, their average salary will definitely drop, and people's hearts will definitely float. At the same time, if I don't reduce my salary here, my morale will be high, and my advantage will be mine.

this is a theory, which is separated from reality by a hundred thousand miles.

in fact, unless you have enough surplus grain to buy out the relevant talents in the whole market, this kind of play will win.

that's what Huawei did p>2 years ago.

At that time, the number of graduates from the Department of Information and Telecommunications in China was extremely limited, and Huawei's funds could fully absorb the stock of relevant personnel in the market. Therefore, Huawei adopted the recruitment mode of raising people with high salary.

All undergraduate students majoring in information and telecommunications have a monthly salary of 4, yuan, you see, that was more than 2 years ago. The professor is only 3, and the house price is only 2.

Under this routine, Giant China, Dragon, Datang and ZTE found it impossible to recruit people, while Huawei adopted the new barracks model. It may not be necessary to send business to you if you are recruited, but it is cost-effective to keep it like this, even if it is kept for three years.

why is it worthwhile? Because of blocking the way of Dragon, Datang and ZTE, they can grab the market with peace of mind, but those three companies suffer from no one available.

three conditions are essential for this strategy to work.

at that time, the communication industry was just emerging.

the whole market is extremely short of talents.

The market profit is extremely high, which is enough to support Huawei's talent reserve strategy.

do you think these three prerequisites are available in today's internet industry? None, the Internet industry has already entered the second half, and it is inextricably linked to the Red Sea.

In the market, although there is still a shortage of people in the computer industry as a whole, no company has the ability to control the talent market.

therefore, it is foolish to think that people will increase their salaries and I will not reduce them. If you do this, your mobility will soon be exhausted by your manpower strategy.

since the consumer pays the bill, why can't the employer pay the bill?

the reason is the same.

The price of manpower you see is the result of a game, which comes from the game between management and labor, and no one has the final say.

the management wants 1, yuan a person, but the problem is that it can't recruit. The workers want 2 million years, but the problem is that no one wants it.

this game is formed within each industry. Otherwise, you won't see that the salary of the Internet industry is much higher than that of the machinery or chemical industry.

ask the excavator driver. Do you want him to work for 8, yuan a year? He did it right away. The problem is that there is a large supply of talents and a small supply of capital in his industry.

Under such a supply-demand ratio, their annual salary is 1,. Similarly, the annual salary of the internet industry is one million, which is also the result of the game between management and labor.

so whether the money can be paid by the employer depends on how much the employer has.

the number of employers is related to many factors. In a big way, it depends on industry expectations first.

Internet giant, PE was as high as 6 times before. What does it mean? Explain that capital is very keen.

the capital depends on the enterprise, and the expectation is far greater than the status quo. Otherwise, why is the stock price of Amazon, a company that has been losing money all the year round, so high?

In other words, when the PE is particularly high, it means that the capital is very optimistic about the future profitability of your enterprise, at least, it also means that the capital believes that more capital is willing to take over.

by the same token, if you go to see a big Internet company now, the PE is less than 2 times, which shows one thing to a great extent, indicating that capital has insufficient confidence in your future.

when capital confidence is insufficient, can you talk to him about a salary increase?

this truth is easy to understand. When the real estate is booming, an intermediary will show three customers at the same time and buy them all. As a seller, you can start the price on the spot and sell it to whoever adds the most money.

when an intermediary calls 5 times a day and doesn't invite a house-seeker, who will you show it to?

that's why I said, in this situation, it's unrealistic for you to expect capital to pay for the extra 2 million.

what's more, from a small perspective, you are not the only team that can choose capital.

Therefore, if people increase their salaries and reduce their salaries, their salaries will generally drop; Or don't add people, reduce the workload and reduce the salary; Or not to add people, nominally not to reduce the workload, in fact, the workload is reduced, and the salary is generally reduced.

these are all expected, and there is a high probability that they will go this way, and they can only go this way.

then why do you say this is unexpected? Because quite a few people didn't expect this result.

What people really want is that the working hours will be shortened while the salary will be increased. Now I'm a little disappointed to find that what I got was not what I wanted.

I think there is no need to be disappointed, because it is fairer for most people to cancel overtime.

to understand this fairness, you have to jump out of what you want and look at the options of a generation from a global perspective.

For example, when I was young, I liked to work overtime, provided, of course, that I paid for it.

when I say overtime pay, I don't mean 1.5 times the overtime pay, but the current situation of overtime work in some high-income industries.

For example, the company I joined right after graduation is very serious in overtime work, 996, and we don't give overtime pay, but our starting salary is five times that of teachers.

Teachers are relatively idle, right? There are winter and summer vacations without overtime, but the question is, even if we work overtime, can we work five times longer than teachers?

no? It doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

Because my goal at that time was to sell my time, you asked me to be a teacher. When I got off work, even if it was allowed to be a tutor after work, you couldn't make five times the salary.

this is not the idea of one person, it is the idea of quite a few people. Want to make quick money.

when many people think so, the threshold rises. For example, in my first company, even the front desk was a 985 undergraduate and the administration was a 211 master. This is the most advanced degree in the whole company, and the rest basically started with C9.

this shows a problem, indicating that this is the idea of a group of people, not one person.

why do these people have to choose this kind of company instead of being teachers with winter and summer vacations? Are you a bitch? Of course not, everyone wants to make quick money, and everyone needs to complete the original principal accumulation quickly.

Later, some people bought many suites, some started companies, some invested, and all of them needed principal. At an age when you have no capital, you really don't have a good idea to sell your time.

Then the problem comes. These people, who worked hard to work overtime to get money in their early years, did not have a Buddhist system later. After they changed from the labor side to the management side, they became more diligent. They can't even describe diligence, but they can only say fanaticism.

The income from capital has already outperformed the income from labor, and you are so enthusiastic. You have earned all your money. What can people do?

just think about it. Behind some people's step by step, others must be slow step by step.

one thing could have been done by three people, each with a share of money. You insist that one person do the work of three people and get two copies of money. The result must be that this person has completed the primitive accumulation and become the employer, while the other two people have no jobs, or they can't find high-paying jobs, so they can only go to industries with low salaries, such as driving excavators.

As a result, the labor supply in industries with low salaries is more abundant, and the income gap is further widened.

Therefore, forcing everyone not to work overtime is essentially a poor protection ability and a slow running, but also a strong ability. You should take it easy and stop thinking about class crossing and transforming employers.

Everyone slows down. Three people will do three jobs, and each person will do 4 hours a week. Everyone has money to earn, and there is not much difference between them. Everyone is happy.

Of course, I know that people like me when I was young were very unhappy because their ambition was hindered.

but it doesn't matter, what individuals think doesn't matter.