YEAH!
I'm an owner of a 350 MILLION DOLLAR business and I know I don't want any of that SOCIALISM.
What the fuck people, you do know they don't have any iPhones or refrigerators in NORTH-KOREA.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYT: $70K minimum salary company copes with backlash
- Thread starter backflip10019
- Start date
- Status
YEAH!
I'm an owner of a 350 MILLION DOLLAR business and I know I don't want any of that SOCIALISM.
What the fuck people, you do know they don't have any iPhones or refrigerators in NORTH-KOREA.
If you make good money, you make good money. People think this is unfair treatment? Your ego is bruised?
Boy, some people should for once in their life really hit rock-bottom hard and learn some humility.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Your main narrative makes sense, but then this last bit doesn't follow. Firstly, the market doesn't dictate you make sacrifices. I gave the example before of a 10-week course netting employees as much as their 4-year education. The sacrifice in the former seems negligible compared with the latter.
Secondly, your point seems to be that you underwent a lot of effort, over a long period of time, and you deserve to be compensated accordingly. Even if I were to agree with this assertion, the fact that someone makes as much as you doesn't mean you are all of a sudden "unfairly" compensated. If you define value as a result of your sacrifices, your coworker being overly compensated, that still doesn't affect you. You're still being compensated (in your view) based on your experience.
I really don't think I'm "holier" and I'm sorry if that's the impression I'm giving off. I'm actually arguing against using "morality," "justice" or whatever as a metric for value. I'm trying to be as pragmatic as possible.
I think its pretty obvious what happened here.
This company was probably underpaying their top employees. (Probably why they could make enough profit to over pay their lowest employees)
This publicity stunt probably alerted their top employees that they might be under payed and caused them to research what they're really worth. You don't just quit a 70K job (min they'll be paid) without some other job lined up. This other job probably pays more. Its amazing how some extremely valuably talented people get underpaid just because they get comfortable at a workplace.
This company was probably underpaying their top employees. (Probably why they could make enough profit to over pay their lowest employees)
This publicity stunt probably alerted their top employees that they might be under payed and caused them to research what they're really worth. You don't just quit a 70K job (min they'll be paid) without some other job lined up. This other job probably pays more. Its amazing how some extremely valuably talented people get underpaid just because they get comfortable at a workplace.
Either you're misinterpreting the article or I am. The way I read it, he slashed his pay to accommodate the $70k for others. He didn't slash it all the way down to $70k for himself. If the two workers were actually getting paid more than he was, my reaction would be vastly different.
The janitor has a shitty as job, you're doing something meaningful. Thinking making more money is the biggest differential between a good and a shitty job is capitalist propaganda. We all think like that because we were told to think like that.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Well, at least he got traded from the Tigers and has a shot at a pennant race.
Edit: nm, misread, his name is actually Dan.
Edit: nm, misread, his name is actually Dan.
Perfectly put.
Theonik
Member
To be fair, as it stands, money holds value precisely because most people are poor. It's all about hierarchies and proving you are at the top of the foodchain.
Can you still afford your bills? Can you still afford to eat? Can you still afford the conveniences and entertainment your job brings? If the answer to all of that is yes, you have no room to complain about anything.
Your reward for getting an education should be a job you enjoy doing, not "everyone below me gets to suffer while I lord over them" as it is now.
As if he would associate with someone who only makes 70k a year!
Marauder Shields
Member
For real.
Not everyone enjoys their job.
Yeah, most people making crappy pay don't enjoy life AND their job. At least someone who gets an education generally has the money to enjoy life when away from their job.
exmachina64
Banned
I like this post.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
It's odd, as this caused some similar problems at Wally World with minimum hire wage.
This is a good thing that these movements happen despite this, as the living wage is growing daily, but salaries barely uptick.
Not correct. Stop using Koch media and their antithesis' terminology.
This is a good thing that these movements happen despite this, as the living wage is growing daily, but salaries barely uptick.
Not correct. Stop using Koch media and their antithesis' terminology.
ShadowKingpin
Member
Isn't America great? /s
Settle down McCarthy. Customers and employees can spend their time and money in what ways they please. It has no impact on you.
Honestly, I think I'd just still be happy I didn't have the janitor's job. He can get paid that much, and I don't have to clean other people's crap up.
(Yes, you probably could have used a different example and I wouldn't say teh same thing. But really, I think janitors probably should get paid more for what they do. I certainly don't want to do it and would only do so if that was my only option or paid a decent amount better than what I get now <- not hard, I work retail. For all I know maybe most janitors do get paid more than me
).And less people will get an education if they can get the same pay (and therefore enjoyment outside of the job) without bothering to get the education. So while I support higher minimums, the middle-level incomes need to increase to incentivize people to get educated.
dantevsninjas
Member
Wow. The ability for people to be short-sighted, selfish assholes; even if it's to their own detriment; truly knows no bounds.
Why? If you are already getting paid really well and was happy with it and you're getting paid what you'd get paid by anyone else, why do you care if some one else in the same company gets close to what you get? It's not like they brought your salary down lower than what you would get elsewhere.
It's stupid to compare what you are getting paid to what other people in different jobs in teh same company are getting paid. you're better off comparing yourself to what people in your position elsewhere get paid. Especially if you are already getting paid well for that position. So you'd quit that position then for the chance to get paid less elsewhere just cause elsewhere they pay less wages to other positions? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I can't believe I am saying this but I agree on all your points 100%.
tearsintherain
Member
If I was a customer of his company I would immediately terminate the contract as well. Not for any political reasons, its just goddamn stupid for the owner of a CREDIT CARD processing company to make political maneuvers, whether liberal or conservative.
Now he is in the news, has a target on his company. If some 15 year old hacker who just read Ayn Rand decided he is a commie and launches a Lizard Squad style 30 day DDOS attack on all his servers, there is very little he could do. Or if someone hacks into his servers and publishes all the credit card transactions. etc.
Now he is in the news, has a target on his company. If some 15 year old hacker who just read Ayn Rand decided he is a commie and launches a Lizard Squad style 30 day DDOS attack on all his servers, there is very little he could do. Or if someone hacks into his servers and publishes all the credit card transactions. etc.
ShadowKingpin
Member
If we could make college tuition-free, more people would go, but most can't afford it, so it pits the poor against those who can go and it's very unfortunate America is this far behind in the world.
Well the arguments some people making here are straight-up communism, not just socialism. And communism doesn't work. Socialism does.
Agreed and I support free college education.
This is a pretty fucking stupid reason. Anyone can be hacked at anytime, I think we are behind this now. If you make decisions like this, you would never leave your house.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I just don't really agree. The course of 4 weeks is a sacrafice becauae no one wants to do it. That's why the position pays so much, if everyone wants to do it it saturates the market and those skills lose value. They are willing to pay more to get skills no one has. What you are arguing is purely a market perspective which is fine but you are trying to poke holes in my process by taking everything I am saying so literally. I understand supply and demand, I understand pay vs career path, I understand experience vs career path. None of what you are arguing applies to an engineer and their assistant (unless you also happen to be an engineer with an assistant and have an opposite experience to me or anyone I know).
My argument really has nothing to do with morality either or hard work. Because my assistant is being over compensated I am being undercompensated "In this company" because I have all the necessary skills and experience to do my assistants job but the reverse is not true. I am being paod at market value but to get to the position I am at in the company O had to get more schooling, dedicate more of my time, take more responsibility and work more hours that could be spent on other things like time with family and friends. If I am going to be responsible for someone and sacrafice all those other things, why does it make sense (in this company) for me to be compensated the same as my direct inferior (in a job structure sense)? And forget rather why from a skills sense, from a social sense because that was my original point, why is it unreasonable someone may be annoyed at that regardless of whether you agree or not?
Not gonna lie, you kind of had a higher than thou thing going on. Granted everyone here inplying I'ma be miserable were much worse lol. Ultimately if the market is still that I can't get higher for my education I would accept it as a one off situation and be like w/e but I wouldn't respect my boss at all.
Freedom means freedom from the government telling you that you can't do it. Not freedom from consequences for your actions.
Raising the minimum pay is not necessarily communism, it could just be socialism. And lots of people are fine with that, me included.
Not raising other salaries in a proportionate manner to reward the time invested in education/experience while raising the minimum is heading toward communism, yes. And that is the part many here object to, me included.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I dunno if you get this but my assistant is directly under and I have the skills and capacity to do everything they can. That's why they "assist" me. And yeah, at that point I would look into other jobs because they owner of the company that I generate all this profit for using all my hard earned skills and years of work has just given new hire with none of the experience or education I have equal pay to me while not giving me any sort of pay increase for what I have contrivute and the inherent worth I add to the company by nature of all the skills I bring. If I can't find any better position where the gains out way the losses obviously I'll stay. I won't ever hold it against my peers but I would not respect my boss. All he said was "all these new hires and unsklilled positions, you are going to get this money because I can give it to you, gotdatmoney, you'll make the same because that is what you are worth". I am not gonna be happy about that. Sry.
This right here is why democratic socialism will never take off here. People aren't happy about what they're making - they just want to make sure that the people below them stay down where they belong. Selfish people, all of them.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
No your equating and the job market with the fact that you obviously feel everyone regardless of who they are by the very fact that they are human have value.
Which is why you should be for a guaranteed income across the board for everyone.
Instead your fighting this other fucking battle about working and schooling and wages.
No. Democratic socialism doesn't mean everyone gets paid the same amount. That's communism. Democratic socialism means that the bottom rung has enough to live comfortably. It doesn't mean refusing to reward higher rungs for doing what it takes to get to higher rungs.
exmachina64
Banned
No, it isn't. You're complaining about the management style or views of the CEO. Socialism and communism are centered upon actions or rules enforced by the state.
We don't suddenly live in a "communist" dystopia if an organization separate from the state decides to pay its employees equally.
Edit:
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia said:
You, or we as a society, need to get past using catch-all terms to refer to ideas, actions or policies we don't like. I don't care if you think a company deciding to pay all of its employees equally (which is not the scenario in the OP) is "communist," you need to find another word for it.
You're being obtuse. We're discussing the principles, not the technical definition. And if you haven't noticed, the discussion has evolved to be about more than just the company in the OP.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I might agree with you if every engineer made some extreme amount of money. But it takes a shit ton of work and dedication to make $70,000k as a starting or junior engineer. If people with no education are going to make that kind of money I do feel I deserve to be compensated based on all the shit and extra responsibility I have and all the debt I had to incur to get the skills (which are not low demand skills either).
What I find funny is all these people implying I'm selfish or would be miserable do not even know how I view wealth inequality or distribution. Just because I dumped fuck tons of assets and money and took on shit tons of debt to get an education, it does not mean I want people to fucking be poor. I don't think an education or a particular skill justifies making 1000 times what your lower employees make. Some of yall got some 0 to 100 ideas of people.
Would you though? Janitors work hard too. You really want to scrub toilets for a living?
exmachina64
Banned
And you need to get past using words like communism and socialism to describe things that fall under the broader purview of a mixed economy.
If most companies started paying its employees equally as part of a broader social movement, but without government impetus, we still wouldn't be living under communism.
Thelonelykoopa
Member
I guess if you hate your job enough that cleaning toilets for the same amount sounds like a better career choice.
You proved my point about being obtuse.
Great question! I'd personally go with the option number 2, and have an office secretary with a great work ethic without most of the financial stress and related issues I'd face with option number 1.
I am probably in the minority, going by the general sentiment on this board?
Save 60,000 dollars in education costs and the 280,000 missed during 4 years college? Fuck yeah I'd clean toilets for 70k a year.
Depends on the circumstances to led to the scenarios
If in #2 the Secretary was given a raise from $25k to $70k and I wasn't given a raise at all, I would feel like my work isn't being appreciated. I'd walk and go to either #1 or some company that is in a #2 situation as described below:
If in #2 the Secretary was making that from the start then I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't feel like I was being left out of anything. I'd stay with #2.
- Status