Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 325 posts

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#31

Post by neffy »

adrianN wrote: post #20
hedonic_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Give someone earning $7.50/hour more money and it gets spent and put back into the economy like you said. Give someone earning a base salary of say 500k more money and it gets put into a bank to earn them even more money, taking it out of the equation.

I don't support trickle down economics, but it's not the case that money in banks is just sitting around in a vault. The banks actually do stuff with the money. For example it's loaned out to real world businesses.

No it's not - banks are statistical multiplexers.

They don't take money and lend it out. They create money, lend that, and then remove that money as the capital (loan amount) is repaid - or when the loan goes into default.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#32

Post by skohan »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #24
hedonic_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Give someone earning $7.50/hour more money and it gets spent and put back into the economy like you said. Give someone earning a base salary of say 500k more money and it gets put into a bank to earn them even more money, taking it out of the equation.

Hypothetically here you would invest the 500k which is putting money into the economy. Your right that socially its better for society for a lower paid person to have the $ how ever certainly in the UK some of that increase would get clawed back by reduction in benefits.

As far as investments, I'm no economist, but I'm skeptical that the money spent purchasing securities has an equal impact as someone buying goods and services locally. It seems like a disproportionate amount would go right back to other members of the investor class, who are going to use it on other securities, or else high-margin luxury items, and very little of that is actually going to escape that bubble.

I think you could argue that replacing benefits with direct income is still a "win" for society. If they're able, it's more efficient for people to meet their own needs than to be provided for through a bureaucratic process with lots of administrative overhead.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#33

Post by bigred100 »

locklock wrote: post #8
petercooper wrote: post #6

I was thinking the math didn't work out, but it does. If you ignore taxes and say a raise of +7.50 an hour for a working week comes to around $14500 extra a year, over 500 employees that's about $7.3m. If that were split into 20 executive bonuses, that'd be $365K each.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

Yeah indeed. I wonder why more rich Americans don’t feel shame and embarrassment at such purchases.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#34

Post by kprjo »

johnchristopher wrote: post #13
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

Isn't money used to buy luxury things supposed to stimulate the economy that would then stimulate the job markets and then trickle down to people ? /s edit: forgot the /s

At this point every time I read the "trickle down" argument I just think the person is trolling.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#35

Post by rakoo »

locklock wrote: post #8
petercooper wrote: post #6

I was thinking the math didn't work out, but it does. If you ignore taxes and say a raise of +7.50 an hour for a working week comes to around $14500 extra a year, over 500 employees that's about $7.3m. If that were split into 20 executive bonuses, that'd be $365K each.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

If it even goes into luxury buying, rather than to an investment account that will only enrich them and whoever is managing the account.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#36

Post by tinus_hn »

johnchristopher wrote: post #13
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

Isn't money used to buy luxury things supposed to stimulate the economy that would then stimulate the job markets and then trickle down to people ? /s edit: forgot the /s

‘Trickle down’ theory is obviously just a bullshit excuse for people enriching themselves but companies can’t exist without investors.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#37

Post by taneq »

rakoo wrote: post #35
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

If it even goes into luxury buying, rather than to an investment account that will only enrich them and whoever is managing the account.

That's the thing, once you reach a certain level of net worth it's actually relatively hard to become poor again. You have to actively make really poor financial decisions over a long period of time.

Buy a boat for $100,000 and it'll cost you money to maintain and run.

Buy a boat for $100 million and it'll earn you money if you lease it out or take passengers during the 11 months of the year that you're not using it.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#38

Post by formercoder »

ForHackernews wrote: post #25
C1sc0cat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetically here you would invest the 500k which is putting money into the economy. Your right that socially its better for society for a lower paid person to have the $ how ever certainly in the UK some of that increase would get clawed back by reduction in benefits.

How does buying $500k worth of stock ("investing the money") stimulate the economy? Haven't I just purchased a paper asset from the seller? I guess you could argue that the seller who liquidated their position is now free to spend that cash on something productive.

That’s the argument for buybacks and dividends. If companies don’t have any NPV positive projects to take then the cash must go out to shareholders who do.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#39

Post by agent008t »

rakoo wrote: post #35
locklock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're getting a $365k bonus you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not. I wonder if you could apply this to the rest of American society...

If it even goes into luxury buying, rather than to an investment account that will only enrich them and whoever is managing the account.

You seem confused. It is much, much better for the world if the money is invested than if it is spent on frivolous personal consumption.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#40

Post by sheeshkebab »

agent008t wrote: post #39
rakoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it even goes into luxury buying, rather than to an investment account that will only enrich them and whoever is managing the account.

You seem confused. It is much, much better for the world if the money is invested than if it is spent on frivolous personal consumption.

The money went to people who couldn’t afford even their own rent, you rich moron.
Post reply on HN