One Company’s New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year

#51
#51
Cdywolfe said:
Maybe it works out I don't know. With that said, you are insanely naïve if you think the overwhelming majority of those 50 who didn't get a raise are thinking anything even remotely close to "hells yea". Now there may (notice I said may) be one or two who don't care. The rest of them are all at various levels of pissed off. I'm thinking the closer you make it to $70k the more frustrated you probably are.
Click to expand...

This. And it is only one of many problems.

It is as if people think economics is a pretend science.
 
#53
#53
Cdywolfe said:
I couldn't possibly disagree more.
Click to expand...

I'm basing this completely off of them having an easier work load. If you are getting paid 85k and your employees below you are making 70k but easy to manage. Are you really going to take another job for 85k with more work required?

Note: if my employees get a raise and I don't and my work load either status the same or goes up. I'm 100% going to look around. In that sense I agree with you.
 
#54
#54
TNsnyper20 said:
I'm basing this completely off of them having an easier work load. If you are getting paid 85k and your employees below you are making 70k but easy to manage. Are you really going to take another job for 85k with more work required?

Note: if my employees get a raise and I don't and my work load either status the same or goes up. I'm 100% going to look around. In that sense I agree with you.
Click to expand...


You're assuming the best case. In my experience and things I've seen when you give people things they don't deserve or without them earning it they start to become "entitled" and lazy.
 
#55
#55
TNsnyper20 said:
This is a far far cry from welfare.
Click to expand...

It isn't welfare in the sense that it isn't money that is taken from someone else and given to another. It is almsgiving, however. Which, despite being intended as a way to help the beneficiary become happier and healther, has shown a pattern of enabling bad habits and manifesting a sense of entitlement. Go ask any africans from Cairo to Cape Town how well they are doing since the benevolent almsgiving of the relief organizations have taken root. Giving any person something they haven't earned will not make them more worthy of their alms, it always makes them less worthy. The case of the mad scientist CEO may end up being a success story, but if it is, it will be an oddity.
 
#56
#56
SamRebel35 said:
It isn't welfare in the sense that it isn't money that is taken from someone else and given to another. It is almsgiving, however. Which, despite being intended as a way to help the beneficiary become happier and healther, has shown a pattern of enabling bad habits and manifesting a sense of entitlement. Go ask any africans from Cairo to Cape Town how well they are doing since the benevolent almsgiving of the relief organizations have taken root. Giving any person something they haven't earned will not make them more worthy of their alms, it always makes them less worthy. The case of the mad scientist CEO may end up being a success story, but if it is, it will be an oddity.
Click to expand...

What Happens When You Just Give Money To Poor People? : Planet Money : NPR
 
#57
#57
Bigurnge said:
You're assuming the best case. In my experience and things I've seen when you give people things they don't deserve or without them earning it they start to become "entitled" and lazy.
Click to expand...

I've seen it both ways. One would hope that he's seen good in his employees to show they are worth what he is doing. If he's doing this without any Merit at all then it's his own fault.
 
#58
#58
The people making more could leave, they are only going to make market value wherever they go. So why not stay? No matter what our egos tell us, we are all replaceable in a business. They leave, someone will be in their spot shortly, making that 125k and being happy about it.
 
#59
#59
SamRebel35 said:
It isn't welfare in the sense that it isn't money that is taken from someone else and given to another. It is almsgiving, however. Which, despite being intended as a way to help the beneficiary become happier and healther, has shown a pattern of enabling bad habits and manifesting a sense of entitlement. Go ask any africans from Cairo to Cape Town how well they are doing since the benevolent almsgiving of the relief organizations have taken root. Giving any person something they haven't earned will not make them more worthy of their alms, it always makes them less worthy. The case of the mad scientist CEO may end up being a success story, but if it is, it will be an oddity.
Click to expand...

You brought up welfare and then almsgiving of relief organizations. Neither of which are the same as what's going on here. He's not giving 70k to some random person on the street. He's investing it in his current employees. Like I stated above, we're to assume he know his employees and they are worth this merit. This isn't some charity case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
burntorangeVOLffle said:
What Happens When You Just Give Money To Poor People? : Planet Money : NPR
Click to expand...

An interesting experiment. Looking at the detailed description makes it seem a better alternative than "donating" with strings attached, but there isn't a fair comparison to be made with the approach of not giving any aid in the first place. The simple fact is that most countries in Africa are dependent in some way on foreign aid and have been for decades. We need to be comparing these numbers to the numbers when the countries were more reliant on their own production and sustainance.

If you look at the detailed findings, you'll see that the direct donations didn't do anything to help produce more primary income. Basically, their income went up because they were getting free money. Shocker. Glad they didn't waste it on that shatty Tusker beer and cigarettes, but it still didn't do anything to make them less needy.

"Results and Policy Lessons:
Assets and income: Assets and holdings for those who received transfers were 58 percent (US$279, in purchasing power parity, or PPP) higher, primarily in home improvements (such as metal roofs, which are far less costly to maintain), and livestock holdings. The transfers increased income for recipients by 33 percent (US$15 PPP), coming from sources such as livestock and non-agricultural businesses. There is little evidence that cash transfers change the primary source of income for recipients, but they do increase expenditures in non-agricultural enterprises by US$10 PPP per month, with revenues US$11 PPP higher."
 
#61
#61
TNsnyper20 said:
You brought up welfare and then almsgiving of relief organizations. Neither of which are the same as what's going on here. He's not giving 70k to some random person on the street. He's investing it in his current employees. Like I stated above, we're to assume he know his employees and they are worth this merit. This isn't some charity case.
Click to expand...

People that are employed at a net loss to the company are, in effect, receiving charity. Whether you want to see it that way or not is of little consequence. Maybe that won't be the case here. But paying somebody 200% more than their market worth is not typically going to be a wise "investment". When the entire company is being given the same sweet deal, it seems like a sure fire fiasco waiting to be unleashed.
 
#66
#66
SamRebel35 said:
Yeah. Because giving people something that they didn't earn has worked out soooooo well in the past. If they weren't motivated to do a good job before thieir pity raises, they certainly won't be motivated afterward. Want an example of why this is a bad idea? See: welfare.
Click to expand...

Or it's a way for him to tighten the leash and get the absolute best workers. Oh, cleaning guy, you want to rest on your laurels? You can take a $38k pay cut. I'll hire a new person who will be more grateful and do a better job.
 
#67
#67
UTFanForLife said:
The people making more could leave, they are only going to make market value wherever they go. So why not stay? No matter what our egos tell us, we are all replaceable in a business. They leave, someone will be in their spot shortly, making that 125k and being happy about it.
Click to expand...

Exactly...
 
#68
#68
SamRebel35 said:
I think it will be equally interesting to see where his employees are.
Click to expand...

If he actually goes through with it, I can guarantee you there will ultimately be a reduction in the workforce. Anyone leaves or gets fired, they are not going to be replaced at $70,000. Instead, the $30,000 employees now making 70k will be given more responsibility/work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
Bigurnge said:
If you're not the owner then you don't have 800 employees.
Click to expand...

That's pretty faulty logic. I am employed by a publicly traded company. That would make the owners our shareholders. I happen to be a shareholder.

In reality I have 800 people who report to me. Their job status and pay is determined by me. When I terminate one I hire their replacement. And again, if one of them was *****ing that are board decided to give the janitor $70,000 I would tell them to pound sand. Bill the janitors pay has nothing to do with anyone but Bill.
 
#72
#72
volfanhill said:
That's pretty faulty logic. I am employed by a publicly traded company. That would make the owners our shareholders. I happen to be a shareholder.

In reality I have 800 people who report to me. Their job status and pay is determined by me. When I terminate one I hire their replacement. And again, if one of them was *****ing that are board decided to give the janitor $70,000 I would tell them to pound sand. Bill the janitors pay has nothing to do with anyone but Bill.
Click to expand...

Damn fine post. Damn fine.





Crap wrong thread.
 
#74
#74
volfanhill said:
That's pretty faulty logic. I am employed by a publicly traded company. That would make the owners our shareholders. I happen to be a shareholder.

In reality I have 800 people who report to me. Their job status and pay is determined by me. When I terminate one I hire their replacement. And again, if one of them was *****ing that are board decided to give the janitor $70,000 I would tell them to pound sand. Bill the janitors pay has nothing to do with anyone but Bill.
Click to expand...

Pretty faulty logic on your part since a publicly traded company didn't give undeserving people a 200% raise. It was a private company owned by one individual who may or may not regret his knee jerk decision. One thing is fairly certain is that it's doubtful any publicly traded company would ever pull a stunt like this. Who's gonna buy shares of a company just to lose money? Nobody. As for your supervision of 800 people.....if you say so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top