Thanks to Push10K now I am on my 160th day of streak and 13,135 pushups (or my own version of equivalents) so far. It is the best thing I did after feeling like Glutton after dinner last Christmas.
Your morning latte costs $4.50.
The author traced every penny through 17 years of coffee industry data, from your local café to farms in Honduras.
The result? Your barista captured $1.67 for 3 minutes of work. The farmer who spent 6 months growing your coffee? They profited $0.04.
That's not a typo. Four cents.
This isn't about individual greed—it's about infrastructure. The entire supply chain is architected to ensure 97% of value is captured before coffee reaches the farm gate.
Yes, what you said exactly happens, but not often enough to negate the value of opening up the otherwise clammed up candidate.
Hopefully, the first part where the human<>human chat happens, the candidate is able to see that the intent is to have a genuine conversation, albeit with a more senior person (aka older) person on the other side.
Where I differ from you is the zero-payoff framing. There have been cases where the candidate put me in my place, rightfully so, and ended up getting hired.
This is subjective territory, but I actually prefer a candidate that spars. It gives me a chance to explain my position as well as hear his/hers.
Been on the hiring side for more than a decade. In addition to other advice in this thread, I would like to add -
I treat the interview as my chance to help the candidate pass the interview. This bent of thought may seem subtle, but makes all the difference in meeting the candidate in their terrain, and seeing the world from their point of view. Consequently, the case studies given explicitly state that if the candidate finds something else that intrigues them, I am happy to take that as a case study instead - gives them something to flaunt and for me to learn about.
Some candidates are shy to open up, or just not comfortable conversing with strangers, or misread the power asymmetry in the interview and get anxious - I spend a fair bit of time just conversing human to human.
For the really uncommunicative candidates, I make a slight of what they built (fake slight) and this gets the conversation going like a star. The good candidates exhibit a great amount of "Builder's Pride" and defend what they built. They really good ones admit to the possibility that there were other better ways to have built, or explain to me the constraints under which they made the choices they did.
I would like to offer an extended view from the wealth accumulation angle. True, equity builds wealth, but in a startup, since there is no floor protection, when the startup becomes worthless (can happen for any number of reasons, and often do), then one wishes one had taken a salary (and reinvested in stocks or as seed investment - ways to gain equity exposure).
One could argue that PowerBI, in this example, gained any traction at all because it benefited from the large customer base and marketing muscle of Microsoft.
To extend further on the point Nojvek makes about how PowerBI moved very little of the topline revenues of the company; this also means that the bonus accrued to the author was because _some other team moved the needle_. This grouping of risk for a mean payoff, could be a desirable outcome as well, if one has better avenues to invest the capital. It all comes down to how one views risk, its mitigation, and wealth accumulation horizon.
In 2012, there were 3.2 million farmers,[19] ranchers and other agricultural managers and an estimated 757,900 agricultural workers were legally employed in the US. Animal breeders accounted for 11,500 of those workers with the rest categorized as miscellaneous agricultural workers. The median pay was $9.12 per hour or $18,970 per year.[20]
From 1999–2009, roughly 50% of hired crop farmworkers in the U.S. were noncitizens working without legal authorization.[23] Large farms rely on new immigrants (such as Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Pakistani, and Mexican) that do not have many other options to work for extremely low wages. The legal status of the worker has been shown to impact the wage received for a job. An agricultural worker with no documentation earns an average of 15% less than one with amnesty or green card.