Gordon Shumway
Banned
Fucking seriously..unbelievable.
-
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
I'm going to be away most of the day with just my phone. I try to answer any more questions in 8 hours or so when I get back.
To quickly answer one general question: No, the people in the office have not fallen into petty squabble over salary. Right now the office is so busy, we have had to work super hard to keep up and really earn that salary. Even people I would have considered low performers have really increased their work output in response. The people we hire now also have much higher standard than before too. The majority of the people in my department had no industry experience and no degree when hired. Now we are hiring people with 8 years of industry experience, and more schooling. If anything, I'm the one who doesn't qualify for the raise, so I have to work harder to justify it.
To quickly answer one general question: No, the people in the office have not fallen into petty squabble over salary. Right now the office is so busy, we have had to work super hard to keep up and really earn that salary. Even people I would have considered low performers have really increased their work output in response. The people we hire now also have much higher standard than before too. The majority of the people in my department had no industry experience and no degree when hired. Now we are hiring people with 8 years of industry experience, and more schooling. If anything, I'm the one who doesn't qualify for the raise, so I have to work harder to justify it.
I guess the alternative is finding people to fill those administrative and janitorial positions from places like Mexico where they can still somehow survive at minimum wage as New York's cost of living drives out others? Seriously what is wrong with being able to afford to live with a full time job?
Krauser Kat
Member
I think it is awesome what he is doing but it could have been done in a much better way. Why not treat the 70k like 401k vested interest. you start at whatever salary, and get 25% closer to that 70k every year until 70k. That way the employee is trained, has a reason to stay on for all those 5 years, and is now worth while to company.
AzureRonin
Member
That's exactly how it was handled.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
If the new base salary isn't in addition to what the more experienced staff earns then I can understand why they'd leave.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Its like you ignored the whole point of what I said. The point was that if this is about people being able to afford living this isn't going to solve the problem because cost of living will continue to go up. You can't infinitely inflate low level pay until it becomes equivalent to skilled work. Do you think that methodology is actually sustainable?
And besides that, like I said, in higher positions (especially the range of $70-80k where your pay isn't outrageous but your responsibilities are way higher) you have to sacrafice a lot of things and one of the returns is higher income. So why then is it stramge that people who work more hours, had to get themselves trained to get all those skills and have more responsobility feel annoyed when one of the leveraging factors for their hard work (pay) is now given to everyone? This has nothing to do with not wanting people to be able to live. People who only look at it that way are being purposely obtuse of what it takes to evelevate your status through, hard work, dedication and education and experience. Its not as though the boss actually also gave them some sort of pay increase either to say "hey I value you too" amd yeah, when I pull in more skilled work than those lower than me I expect better compensation. You think people go and work 12 hour days with way more stress and responsibility giving up time they could spend on family, friends, self improvement, hell even more sleep just for the fun of it? That's naive.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Nothing, but it shouldn't be something handled by the private sector.
ultratruman
Banned
Big corporations are quick to remind you of their support for lgbt rights and international charities, but even modest changes to the actual structure of business will never be acceptable.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
It shouldn't be their thing to do with anyways.
There is zero reason this should he handled by corporations vs society as a whole through government means.
I bet the same people in here thinking that private business should handle the cost of living problem also want universal health care from the government vs the private sector handling it. Makes no gosh damn fucking sense.
Z..
Member
Are you saying that tightly regulated capitalism is communism? Oo
Why shouldn't someone be rewarded? They ARE being rewarded, silly... Nobody actually deserves million dollar lifestyles, though, the ridiculous financial success of these people comes at the cost of abject misery halfway across the globe, why is this acceptable when it can perfectly be avoided?
This is the crux of the issue, in my mind. Conceptually, I have no problem with the idea of receptionists and janitors getting paid $70,000/yr. But, if I worked at one of those companies, I'd asked to be transferred into one of those positions, so I could go back to a 40 hour work week and enjoy more time with my family, while still being able to live comfortably. The problem is, you can't expect people who are making only marginally more than that, to continue to voluntarily put in extra hours and energy.
Yup. Their interests will never align properly.
Inflation is not tied to the lowest earner's income. If it were, it wouldn't cause the lowest earners to no longer be able to support their family without government assistance.
Inflation is tied to the costs of production/resources going up, which is mostly tied to transportation and energy costs.
I definitely think that based on the skilled work being done salary should be higher. I have no problem with the base salary being higher than it is right now. I have a Masters degree, worked for years moving up the salary ladder; now that I finally get to hire someone, I started them off at a salary 15k higher than I had for the same position years ago (and without a Masters degree). I don't require others to 'pay their dues' just because I had to, and in turn I expect to have a great employee -- and in turn I expect that to help me grow further and faster as well going forward.
Good to hear from an inside perspective.
So it seems like the article was written as something of a hatchet job on the minimum salary issue.
As if to say: Here's one company that's increased their minimum salary to something respectable... and now they're in a world of shit for it.
cpp_is_king
Member
They don't survive at minimum wage because they're from Mexico. What does their race have to do with it? Do Mexicans need less food? Are their bodies more adaptable to temperature extremes so they don't have to run the air conditioner or heater? No, they survive because there are multiple earners in the same household.
Everyone who grew up in the US had opportunities to get a basic level of education enough to learn a livable wage. Unless they have a disability or something. Maybe not top 1%, maybe not even 10%. But everyone can get a basic level of education enough to earn $15/hour. If they squander those opportunities, sorry but thems the brakes.
Live with family members and have multiple incomes. Income inequality exists in every part of the world, it's an inherent part of society, you can't eliminate it. It's been this way for thousands of years. If the minimum wage is $15/hour you think income inequality is magically solved? The definition of "living wage" just shifts up.
In Palo Alto, some years ago Zuckerberg gave all Facebook employees $600/month bonus if they lived closer to work. Within weeks, every single piece of property had increased in rent by $600/month.
This isn't just people asserting that things will happen, it's a fundamental axiom of how societies behave backed up by thousands of years of data about different societies through the ages
I was being sarcastic, check out post 404 right after post 403 which you are criticizing me for.
Do you have any sources for the Facebook story? I couldn't find anything.
entremet
Member
This is why unions in corporations are rare. All in it for me, myself, and I.
phillipgessert
Member
I love the implication that some office worker can just get hired as a janitor. If I'm hiring for a janitor position I'm going to hire a janitor, not someone who has spent the last ten years behind a desk.
ultratruman
Banned
Absolutely.
Relying on the goodwill and rationality of the private sector for everything is what got us into this mess.
cpp_is_king
Member
I will try to dig something up, no promises though. I live in the area and remember lots of people talking about it 6-8 years ago
Thanks! It's an interesting topic and would be good to see what type of ramifications can occur...
cpp_is_king
Member
Here's a couple of articles about it:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/05/facebook-perk-w.html
http://www.cnet.com/news/gossip-is-facebook-cutting-costs-by-axing-perks/
None of them mention the run up in rents immediately after this went into effect, but it was definitely noticed by people who live there.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
All the more reason to tie rent to square footage, rather than leave it up to the market.
cpp_is_king
Member
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? Say I'm paying $5k / month on my mortgage, I have to let the government decide for me that the most I can rent it out for is $3k / month, so I have no choice but to lose money?
I'm sure that will make it *so* easy to find a place to rent, because the market will just be flooded with so many available properties, right?
Honestly, what you're talking about doesn't even exist in the most communist countries. Government deciding for people what price they are allowed to rent their own properties out at? Really not sure if serious.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
You should have the right to force people into poverty? Fuck off
If you can't pay that 5k yourself with out leaching the life from another person or talking the bank into taking the 3k you can charge as rent as your monthly payment, you either got hosed on the deal or you shouldn't have bought the house to begin with.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
They want to raise the minimum? that's great. I want an increase too, if not I'll quit or take the minimum job for a bit less with a shitload less stress.
cpp_is_king
Member
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.
Marty Chinn
Member
Haha, what? What are you talking about? Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.
NobleXenon
Member
The one big thing I learned when it comes to the middle class and the poor, is that it's easy to get them to fight each other while falling down to the bottom. The 99%'s behavior towards each other will only solidify the one-paycheck-away-from-eternal-poverty lifestyle that most peasants live in.
For real. Hard for it to be any other way when you control all public discourse through media.
Equality in pay between two people who aren't equal in terms of who invested more in education/experience doesn't seem fair IMO. Raise the minimum but raise others who worked to be above the minimum. If we're talking about some daddy's boy who inherited hos dad's company, though, then I'd agree with you.
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.
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.
cpp_is_king
Member
Why are you all for higher wages for everyone? Prices are relative to wages. If you increase everyone's salaries by 100x, do you think gas is still going to be $3.50 a gallon, and it will still cost $10-$15 when you go out to eat?
The money would have to come from the top earners and the profits of their companies. Less cash to shareholders and such. But this would entail them not raising costs to the consumer. Fat chance I know. But wages were much higher in the past across the board and prices remained consistent. What's changed since then? The top earners have taken more of the share of wealth.
travisbickle
Member
lol @ "successful" CEO
The one that has had to rent out his home to make ends meet for this stupidity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ms-minimum-wage-at-70000-hits-hard-times.html
Are all the employees he "helped" pitching in to help him out now? Of course not, like this thread proves, most people are greedy as shit and always want more even if they don't deserve it or work for it, but when it comes to helping other people its a dog eat dog world. Hopefully he learned his lesson and pays people what they deserve, not treat peoples lives as a publicity stunt.
Err I never implied anything in my post about IT specifically - except that it's my job as an example. Does IT have more responsibilities than a secretary answering phones? Absolutely, and that's the only comparison I made.
There are jobs that take much more responsibility than mine, and they get paid more to do it. So all is as it should be.
Thanks for sharing what is actually going on in your company so that we have a frame of reference as opposed to subjective conjecture.
Hope you guys continue to do well in spite of the setbacks.
Vicetrailia
Member
Lets not get crazy. They've also tried this before. Recently. It doesn't work, human nature/evolution won't let it.
I just want the 50s-60s- sorta 70s to return. As far as wages, balance, unions, lower prices and so forth are concerned.
Successful in profits so far maybe, but completely out of his mind when it comes to instituting widespread change, which has put the future in doubt.
Don't you watch Star Trek, it'll be fine.
- Status