Support NeoGAF

[Z..]

Haven't bothered to read the thread, but I'm sure it's full of lifetime underachievers and lazy people wondering why people who strive for more and earned their pay are upset that they now have to watch shitty workers get equal pay because the CEO wanted some attention.

I'm sure it's also full of people who are pretending $70k is all of a sudden the bare minimum needed to survive. It's the new poverty level.

EDIT: Skimmed first two pages...yep, sounds about right.

Hey, it's you again! I'm starting to think you must be a character. If you're pulling a Stephen Colbert-meets-Easton Ellis stunt to satirize the delusional, overcompensating close minded capitalist douchebag alpha male, I declare you a genius, for you have absolutely nailed it.
I actually mean all of the above. I truly believe you are trolling us. Don't be alarmed, though, as if so, I love it.

If, however, your MVP persona is not a bizarro catcher in the rye pastiche of post Reagan Americana but simply who you are, you're making the world an even scarier place than I thought it was.

Whatever the case, I wholeheartedly applaud your platform. Wether it's true nature is purposely sardonic or accidentaly tragic, the punch it provides demands attention.

 

[PopeReal]

Looking at the emotional response we have seen just from one company paying better has shown just how much people care about what others make. Americans do not like other people getting raises. No one here even knows these people or does business with the company but are still hoping they fail.

 

[Neo C.]

The American society has a very toxic relationship to salary as it is tied too strong to social class.

I would be okay with higher minimum salary, because my work is still more interesting than that of a janitor.

 

[alstein]

The issue here isn't the wage- as much as it is the CEO's fault that he didn't properly reward higher performing employees afterwards.

He did the cause more harm than good despite his intentions.

 

[sometimes i game]

Looking at the emotional response we have seen just from one company paying better has shown just how much people care about what others make. Americans do not like other people getting raises. No one here even knows these people or does business with the company but are still hoping they fail.

I love to see people succeed around me. I love when people I work with get promotions. I do not love when the secretary who gets to leave four hours before I do and who does work that isn't skills based and who does not have my education or my amount of student loans makes 70k or only, for example, 10 or 20k less than I do at the same company.

It simply shows the company has no idea how to promote growth and manage people with any brain power. A skilled role and a secretary should not be within the same realm of salary. Period the end.

It makes sense that higher up people and more skilled roles would leave this company as reported.

Damn some people can't grasp this concept.

 

[lednerg]

All this has really proved is that yours and others' incomes should be kept confidential. The CEO announcing it all to the world is the real issue, not the actual salary hikes themselves. He should've maintained anonymity.

 

[bigmit3737]

I wish those in the higher up position gave it some time before quitting. I assume once things got more stable they would have been better compensated. I assume he spoke with them beforehand . How much were they being paid $100k-120k? If so were thy really bothered by someone lower than then making $70k? This was an interesting experiment that could have been really successfully with maybe some patience.

The company seems to be getting a lot more clients than it's losing and needs to expand, so the publicity did help them in a way.

The lawsuit seems to be the big problem though .

 

[bigmit3737]

I love to see people succeed around me. I love when people I work with get promotions. I do not love when the secretary who gets to leave four hours before I do and who does work that isn't skills based and who does not have my education or my amount of student loans makes 70k or only, for example, 10 or 20k less than I do at the same company.

It simply shows the company has no idea how to promote growth and manage people with any brain power. A skilled role and a secretary should not be within the same realm of salary. Period the end.

It makes sense that higher up people and more skilled roles would leave this company as reported.

Damn some people can't grasp this concept.

But this whole thing was an experiment. The CEO was trying something new. He's well aware of how things work in a normal company. Plus it's not like those in the higher positions were getting less than market value. You will make the same if you go to another company. It was bringing good publicity to the company.

 

[kinggroin]

Americans do not like other people getting raises

Bullshit.

Why are so many seeing only side of this and then extrapolate immediately that it's purely a malicious attitude?

Many Americans simply want hard work and time to be fairly rewarded.

 

[bomb]

Looking at the emotional response we have seen just from one company paying better has shown just how much people care about what others make. Americans do not like other people getting raises. No one here even knows these people or does business with the company but are still hoping they fail.

Well you only have the information of this article. What if an old guard 80k salary salesman does 2 million a year in sales. While another salesman who was being paid 35K now makes 70k for 500k in sales and a lot of the salesmen see him as a lazy fluff.

You are telling me that you wouldn't be bitter due to being a far more efficient and harder working salesman?

 

[i_am_ben]

Well you only have the information of this article. What if an old guard 80k salary salesman does 2 million a year in sales while another salesman who was being paid 35K now makes 70k for 500k in sales and a lot of the salesmen see him as a lazy fluff.

You are telling me that you wouldn't be bitter due to being a far more efficient and harder working salesman?

from what I've seen people will grumble but that's about it.

 

[2MF]

It's so absurd how much weight people put into other people getting money. I think the saying "Money doesn't make you happy, unless you're knowingly making more than others" holds true.

It's all about the perception of fairness.

If you're an experienced and critical worker who has given a lot to the firm and suddenly any random person that enters the firm for any position is making almost as much money as you... let's just say that it's hard to believe there is fairness in pay.

 

[Theonik]

Bullshit.

Why are so many seeing only side of this and then extrapolate immediately that it's purely a malicious attitude?

Many Americans simply want hard work and time to be fairly rewarded.

And it is. Unless a) You think the work of others are worth less than yours or b) You reckon you'd be paid better working somewhere else.

 

[Cagey]

Bullshit.

Why are so many seeing only side of this and then extrapolate immediately that it's purely a malicious attitude?

Many Americans simply want hard work and time to be fairly rewarded.

Because, per usual on GAF, an argument needs to be framed not in any rational way but in morality and character terms so posters can declare themselves morally superior and others who disagree with them morally deficient.

It's transparent and gross.

 

[Stet]

But this whole thing was an experiment. The CEO was trying something new. He's well aware of how things work in a normal company. Plus it's not like those in the higher positions were getting less than market value. You will make the same if you go to another company. It was bringing good publicity to the company.

You do not experiment with people's livelihoods. That is the mark of a delusional and unqualified CEO and I'm not surprised people started leaving.

 

[Mazdaspeed]

Well you only have the information of this article. What if an old guard 80k salary salesman does 2 million a year in sales. While another salesman who was being paid 35K now makes 70k for 500k in sales and a lot of the salesmen see him as a lazy fluff.

You are telling me that you wouldn't be bitter due to being a far more efficient and harder working salesman?

At least first place would still get the Cadillac

 

[travisbickle]

You do not experiment with people's livelihoods. That is the mark of a delusional and unqualified CEO and I'm not surprised people started leaving.

Any way that people are paid for the work they do is experimentation. Do you think "market value of a worker" that's been stated by others here is a natural occurring phenomena?

 

[Stet]

Any way that people are paid for the work they do is experimentation. Do you think "market value of a worker" that's been stated by others here is a natural occurring phenomena?

No, you don't understand. A sudden announcement of a wage increase based on no research and with no staffing plan for the future is an experiment that could destroy a business and ruin the careers of everyone who works there. It's not noble. It's maniacal.

The spirit of the change is great. The way the CEO went about it is absurd and that's why the business is facing so many new and "unexpected" challenges.

Any proper business leader would not have allowed those challenges to be unexpected.

 

[Chococat]

But if the work I do is more stressful, while taking on a lot more responsibility and requires a lot of experience, I would definitely want to be compensated a lot.

Not direct specifically at you, but why do people assume the higher you go in rank, jobs are immediately more stressful than those below? Every worker has responsibilities and deadlines. A janitor may be unskilled, but he is still under stress and pressure to do his job in a limited amount of time a day. He still has to interact with numerous people who can order him around and change job requirement day to day. He still has responsibility, laws and goals to follow.

My point is more education/experience doesn't automatically mean the job is more stressful than a unskilled job. More required education does mean the job is automatically harder, it is just that the job requires certain knowledge. Yes, knowledge and skill should be compensated in pay, but doesn't assume janitors, cooks, secretaries, ditch diggers, field hands, line workers, construction worker, etc are working less a harder and have less stress than a "skilled person".

 

[Marty Chinn]

And it is. Unless a) You think the work of others are worth less than yours or b) You reckon you'd be paid better working somewhere else.

The work of others is worth less or worth more. Not all work is measured to be the same worth hence the difference in salary.

 

[Loki]

Some real pie in the sky idealists/naive folks/communists on this board lol. And I'm all about more equitable pay.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Looking at the emotional response we have seen just from one company paying better has shown just how much people care about what others make. Americans do not like other people getting raises. No one here even knows these people or does business with the company but are still hoping they fail.

The company I work for has a very merit-oriented growth system. Probably moreso than any other company I've worked at, and I daresay moreso than most companies in America. A while back some of my co-workers' salaries were leaked. Some made more, some made less. A few of those people who made more went up for promotion and asked for my feedback. I was overwhelmingly supportive, because I look at those peoples' contributions to the company. I look at the value they add to the company, and I can see it. I can see that there are a handful of people in the entire world that can do what they do.

That's what I want to reward. I want to reward people who push themselves, who have an active life goal of making themselves better, of being better than everyone else. Some of those people now make significantly more than me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, because they earned it.

But I absolutely do not like to see people get raises who did not earn it. And if I see it happen in my company, I will try to do something about it. And if it becomes endemic, I will absolutely quit and find another company where people are rewarded for their skills and their effort

Ask any rich person if money makes them happy. Most will say no. So by just randomly increasing someone's pay, it's not going to make them happy or content. It's not going to make them work harder and improve themselves in ways that they weren't already doing. Maybe for a while until the honeymoon period wears off, and then it's back to taking everything for granted. You have to do it the other way around. You can't just reward everyone and hope they perform well. You wait for them to perform well, and then you reward them.

 

[cpp_is_king]

And it is. Unless a) You think the work of others are worth less than yours or b) You reckon you'd be paid better working somewhere else.

Of course the work of some is worth less than the work of others. The CFO prepares a companies financial statements, files reports with the SEC, prepares shareholder briefings. If they fuck up, it could cost the company billions of dollars. And if they perform well, it could make the company billions of dollars.

If I fuck up (or perform well), my impact on the company is from 500k - 1.5 million. How is my work worth the same as the CFO's?

Maybe I misinterpreted your post though, and you aren't actually saying that you think all peoples' work are worth the same.

 

[LosDaddie]

Not direct specifically at you, but why do people assume the higher you go in rank, jobs are immediately more stressful than those below?

Because, as you said, the higher you go in rank with a company directly correlates to more responsibility/stress for a job. That's why compensation also goes up.

In engineering, the PE is responsible for far more than his/her assistant/drafter working under him. So while both parties are under "stress" to get a project out for a deadline, it's the PE who is responsible for the project after that.

 

[sono]

Inspirational idea, shame that a lot of folk dont think so.

 

[Theonik]

Of course the work of some is worth less than the work of others. The CFO prepares a companies financial statements, files reports with the SEC, prepares shareholder briefings. If they fuck up, it could cost the company billions of dollars. And if they perform well, it could make the company billions of dollars.

If I fuck up (or perform well), my impact on the company is from 500k - 1.5 million. How is my work worth the same as the CFO's?

Maybe I misinterpreted your post though, and you aren't actually saying that you think all peoples' work are worth the same.

I am not saying work of everyone is the same, but any complaint about you not receiving higher pay than others stems from you looking down on other people's work, inherently. In the first place, increasing minimum income to be livable, doesn't stop you to pursue higher pay for yourself. If they feel they should be paid more, they should ask for more. Asking for other people to be paid less to keep their sense of order and hierarchy is a laughable concept and frankly I'd welcome employees fucking off if they feel that way and go somewhere else to be paid much less. The people who stay will still be making more hell, maybe even the janitors of their last workplace will be making more but at least they will be rewarded for their work right? (lol)

 

[Marty Chinn]

I am not saying work of everyone is the same, but any complaint about you not receiving higher pay than others stems from you looking down on other people's work, inherently. In the first place, increasing minimum income to be livable, doesn't stop you to pursue higher pay for yourself. If they feel they should be paid more, they should ask for more. Asking for other people to be paid less to keep their sense of order and hierarchy is a laughable concept and frankly I'd welcome employees fucking off if they feel that way and go somewhere else to be paid much less. The people who stay will still be making more hell, maybe even the janitors of their last workplace will be making more but at least they will be rewarded for their work right? (lol)

You're talkng contradictory nonsense.

 

[Chococat]

Because, as you said, the higher you go in rank with a company directly correlates to more responsibility/stress for a job. That's why compensation also goes up.

That is not what I said at all. Just because it is a management job doesn't automatically more responsibility and stress. The sources of those two may change, but it doesn't mean it is greater. It is different. Also the higher the title does not necessary correspond with training, skill, and experience.

 

[Nabbis]

You do not experiment with people's livelihoods. That is the mark of a delusional and unqualified CEO and I'm not surprised people started leaving.

Pretty sure Goldman and it's buddy companies got bailed out and people literally die of exhaustion to work there. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/21/bank-intern-death-working-hours

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

This thread is honestly funny, in a disturbing way. Greedy fucks should just admit to being greedy instead of covering behind moral arguments in a glass castle.

 

[LosDaddie]

That is not what I said at all. Just because it is a management job doesn't automatically more responsibility and stress. The sources of those two may change, but it doesn't mean it is greater. It is different. Also the higher the title does not necessary correspond with training, skill, and experience.

Not necessarily, as in, each and every single case. Sure.
But generally, yes, a "higher" title within a company does in fact correspond with more responsibilities/stress, training, skills and experience. This is why management positions command a higher grade of pay.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This employer doesn't appear to have implemented his idea fairly well, but, assuming we more and more approach something like a post-scarcity economy, in which every human can reasonably expect a minimum standard of living and freedom to pursue personal interests and development, this problem of motivation (or lack thereof) relative to others is going to become a more widespread problem throughout society.

 

[Z..]

generally, yes, a "higher" title within a company does in fact correspond with more responsibilities/stress, training, skills and experience. This is why management positions command a higher grade of pay.

Because????
My job demands more responsability, training and experience than that of a construction worker, yet his is much much harder. I think it's ridiculous that he gets paid minimum wage while working an exhausting job while I get paid handsomely for sitting on my ass and making sure my customers are satisfied. These ideas that training, skills, experience or responsabiliy should in any way be correlated to higher compensation are just the result of the megalomania and narcissism that is so prevalent within educated environments. This mentality that it is possible to be superior to others is corrosive and decadent.

The training part is my favourite. I have a degree, but I hate this idea that I'm somehow supposed to be better than someone who's had to start working at a younger age than me because I spent a few years studying something I enjoyed while mostly relaxing and hanging around with friends. Meanwhile, the "inferior" people were already working their asses off to support themselves and the reward they get for being industrious and humble is to be treated like second class citizens by everyone else. The least we could do is reward them accordingly, but no, educated egos are too fragile and addicted to feelings of false superiority to ever allow this to come true.

There is nothing wrong with a hierarchical organization of society, meritocracy should lead to better leadership. But the fact that higher sums of money are even considered as part of the equation is precisely why society is so corrupted. Selfish sharks rise to the top and seek only to maximize profits, instead of maximizing efficiancy and accessibility.

This is why capitalism without heavy regulation will never EVER work. The world will remain a corrupted mess for as long as we allow money and merit to intertwine.

 

[Stet]

Pretty sure Goldman and it's buddy companies got bailed out and people literally die of exhaustion to work there. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/21/bank-intern-death-working-hours

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

This thread is honestly funny, in a disturbing way. Greedy fucks should just admit to being greedy instead of covering behind moral arguments in a glass castle.

So are we saying that this company is better or worse than Goldman Sachs, one of the worst places to work in the United States?

 

[mr jones]

Wow, some of you really need to do a bit of research before commenting. Seriously.

First off, how many of you have worked in the credit card industry? Working with clients that will use your services to process credit cards or credit accounts? Do you know how much some of these accounts managers can make? How much their bonuses can be? In a major city like Seattle?

This isn't about the janitorial company that is hired to clean the bathrooms and vacuum the cubicals. This is about the sales agents, the project managers and account and finance teams that make the company run. The company I worked with didn't hire anyone without a college education, and experience in the industry.

The fact that the MINIMUM these folks were making was going to be 70k, means that his top earners are making significantly more than that. It means that his management team is earning more than that. If you're a sales agent, and you're threatened that you've been there for years, and a new agent is now making a few thousand less than you are, then go elsewhere (which they did).

We have no idea what kind of numbers his employees made. The fact that he could do a financial forecast, and figure out that his company could be profitable while having all of his employees sustaining a $70,000 minimum salary is awesome.

WTF about it "devalues their experience and achievements." If they go to a different market, and they make less based on that market, does that devalue their experience? What if a new sales agent rocks it taking on new business, and makes MORE than the veteran who's been there 5+ years? Are they devalued?

The CEO values his employees enough that he's paying them a minimum that gives them a higher standard of living. Had people not freaked out about it, he would still be pulling a profit, and probably pioneering a different business model.

 

[PopeReal]

I love to see people succeed around me. I love when people I work with get promotions. I do not love when the secretary who gets to leave four hours before I do and who does work that isn't skills based and who does not have my education or my amount of student loans makes 70k or only, for example, 10 or 20k less than I do at the same company.

It simply shows the company has no idea how to promote growth and manage people with any brain power. A skilled role and a secretary should not be within the same realm of salary. Period the end.

It makes sense that higher up people and more skilled roles would leave this company as reported.

Damn some people can't grasp this concept.

Again, how does this company setting a 70k min affect you?

 

[LosDaddie]

Because????

Because of the reasons listed in the sentence preceding the line you bolded.

I really enjoyed the rest of your post though.

 

[Z..]

Because of the reasons listed in the sentence preceding the line you bolded.

Which have no intrinsic value whatsoever and are merely a cultural heritage with no inherent worth. That's your justification?

 

[Arnie7]

Greed will devour you all.

 

[LosDaddie]

Which have no intrinsic value whatsoever and are merely a cultural heritage with no inherent worth. That's your justification?

Hey, if you say so, then it must be true.

In the real world, more education, training and experience actually do have worth.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Hey, if you say so, then it must be true.

In the real world, more education, training and experience actually do have worth.

It's a point of semantics. They don't have monetary worth, but their value is to demonstrate your competency to fill a position, which has the real worth for an employer.

 

[Theonik]

You're talkng contradictory nonsense.

No. There is actually many ways you can approach the question. In the first place it is entirely dependent on context and your perspective.

Are they getting non-competitive wages for their position as a result? Are other employers willing to pay them more?

But if you leave a job that pays you well, to get something that will probably pay less because you are offended that the new recruits only earn a few thousand dollars less than you do now as opposed to orders of magnitude, you are a fool. Especially when you aren't even paying their salaries. In the first place, if you are working there and are as happy as you claim you are, being a valuable over-achiever in your firm, your job wouldn't be any less rewarding. Why would it?

 

[FoxSpirit]

I love to see people succeed around me. I love when people I work with get promotions. I do not love when the secretary who gets to leave four hours before I do and who does work that isn't skills based and who does not have my education or my amount of student loans makes 70k or only, for example, 10 or 20k less than I do at the same company.

It simply shows the company has no idea how to promote growth and manage people with any brain power. A skilled role and a secretary should not be within the same realm of salary. Period the end.

It makes sense that higher up people and more skilled roles would leave this company as reported.

Damn some people can't grasp this concept.

And you have to understand that maybe a company can not afford the slary gap people want while providing a good base income.
A good income is a good income, if you simply value yourself vs how much others make you have an ego problem.
A good base income is paramount for everyone, even the sanitary cleaning woman. We don't employ her out of mercy but because our visitors mess up the place. And I don't think it's fair to pay her so little the most she can afford is the cheapest food from the worst places. It's hard, consistent work. She gets tired, she gets worn out, she gets back pain. She gets pushed around a lot. That demands fair compensation.

Damn, some people can't grasp this concept.

 

[DocSeuss]

protip: hard workers like to be rewarded

if you reward everyone equally, you'll lose hard workers

it's pretty basic human nature.

 

[Stet]

The CEO values his employees enough that he's paying them a minimum that gives them a higher standard of living. Had people not freaked out about it, he would still be pulling a profit, and probably pioneering a different business model.

This is not how you pioneer a different business model. Hence why he's not still as profitable.

 

[Valnen]

lol. Now that's just hilarious. So I buy a house, and I want to rent it out. I'm not even allowed to determine the price I rent it out at?

Absolutely not. That system is punishes the fuck out of poor people just for being poor. If you're rich enough to buy houses just to rent them out, you're rich enough period and can live without the extra income.

 

[John Dunbar]

You don't get it. In that scenario, I just don't rent out the house. No houses on the market, where are you going to live now?

The things people say, man I couldn't even make up something as wacky as what you're suggesting. No country in the world forces people to rent out their own private property at government determined prices. Not even the communist ones.

Closest thing you have is rent control, which is only in effect as long as the person doesn't move. And as soon as the person moves and you get a new tenant, you can raise the rent to market value.

that could be fixed by a highly punitive tax on houses and apartments that are not rented out yet remain without permanent tenants.

and why would you choose to have no money instead of some money?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Because????
My job demands more responsability, training and experience than that of a construction worker, yet his is much much harder. I think it's ridiculous that he gets paid minimum wage while working an exhausting job while I get paid handsomely for sitting on my ass and making sure my customers are satisfied. These ideas that training, skills, experience or responsabiliy should in any way be correlated to higher compensation are just the result of the megalomania and narcissism that is so prevalent within educated environments. This mentality that it is possible to be superior to others is corrosive and decadent.

The training part is my favourite. I have a degree, but I hate this idea that I'm somehow supposed to be better than someone who's had to start working at a younger age than me because I spent a few years studying something I enjoyed while mostly relaxing and hanging around with friends. Meanwhile, the "inferior" people were already working their asses off to support themselves and the reward they get for being industrious and humble is to be treated like second class citizens by everyone else. The least we could do is reward them accordingly, but no, educated egos are too fragile and addicted to feelings of false superiority to ever allow this to come true.

There is nothing wrong with a hierarchical organization of society, meritocracy should lead to better leadership. But the fact that higher sums of money are even considered as part of the equation is precisely why society is so corrupted. Selfish sharks rise to the top and seek only to maximize profits, instead of maximizing efficiancy and accessibility.

This is why capitalism without heavy regulation will never EVER work. The world will remain a corrupted mess for as long as we allow money and merit to intertwine.

Regulation won't fix it, though. Money is considered meritorious because it grants access to both the showy external things and the free time to cultivate the pleasant inner things that we seem hardwired to appreciate as metrics of merit. It's only once access to those things has become truly egalitarian that higher forms of merit will gain sway.

 

[Shaneus]

Ha. Where is that guy now?

Somehow, this wasn't difficult to find out at all. Just searching for the guy's name came up with this. I think he has the same glasses, too.

 

[slit]

It was never going to work and I saw that a mile away and, yes, it's because of the pettiness of humans but that's the way it is. Maybe one day people will be ready but we are far away from that day. A change that sudden and drastic is bound to fail when meritocracy is such a huge component of society.

 

[cpp_is_king]

that could be fixed by a highly punitive tax on houses and apartments that are not rented out yet remain without permanent tenants.

and why would you choose to have no money instead of some money?

I could occupy the home myself, or sell the house instead of rent it.

How would that tax work out in undesirable places to live -- say Detroit -- where you can't even give property away sometimes?