I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by toss1 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:05 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was watching a sitcom called Superstore a little while ago, features the employees in a Wal-Mart like store, and the protagonist got a promotion to the head of the store. There was a whole plot line about how her wage was now in the 6 figures, and I was incredulous until I did a bit of research - Wal-Mart store managers can absolutely make that much money while their employees live in poverty. How you could make th…

Supposes employer A chooses to pay their employees more than other employers. Employer B chooses to pay their employees less. Both employers are selling products or services that the purchaser finds the same, i.e. they have no preference for who they buy it from. Employer B takes the money they save by paying employees less, and invests in newer, better facilities or R&D or whatever. Now employer B is selling a bette…

True, but Employer-B now has employees who DGAF about anything in the business, and often have an adversarial, even 'eff them! attitude to the business.

Employer-B's customer service and general care of its facilities & inventory will suck, and they will have much higher turnover costs, even if they have better products.

So, what is the relative advantage?

Moreover, the article was specifically about the tradeoff in executive pay vs low-end pay, and how a small sacrifice at the top made huge differences both for the low-level employees and for profits overall

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

#112

Post by username444 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #107

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposes employer A chooses to pay their employees more than other employers. Employer B chooses to pay their employees less. Both employers are selling products or services that the purchaser finds the same, i.e. they have no preference for who they buy it from. Employer B takes the money they save by paying employees less, and invests in newer, better facilities or R&D or whatever. Now employer B is selling a bette…

Sounds like a great argument to increase the federal minimum wage so everyone is forced to pay their employees more.

Great idea.

Until you realize that no level on minimum wage is adequate in SF, while $10/hr is livable in rural Arkansas.

It's not a silver bullet even with COL factored in. Higher staff costs? Replace them with automation. You can see the largest employers of minimum wage employees (eg. Mcdonalds) hedging against a rising minimum wage with kiosks to replace cashiers. At $15/hr for labor, those capital investments start looking like a mighty fine ROI.

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

#113

Post by toasterlovin » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #109

It's amazing this article even needs to be written. You'd think the executives pulling in these crazy salaries would be competent enough to know that paying their "team members" next to nothing is going to result in high turnover and be a bad business decision in the long run. This article frames his choice to actually pay his employees as some big discovery, but it's not. The fact is, execs already know, but they pu…

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. Lots of things persist because “that’s the way it’s always been done”. Probably what’s going on here, in my opinion.

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

#114

Post by ap3 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #88

allworknoplay wrote: post #85

This is insane -- paying a $7.25/hr minimum wage to people you call "teammates" and expecting them to stick around is preposterous. In anything but a terrible economic downturn, minimum wage says to employees that you just want a body doing a job right at this moment, but aren't willing to invest any further in them. Why would anyone stick around, or care to do more than the most basic job requirements? These jobs ar…

I was watching a sitcom called Superstore a little while ago, features the employees in a Wal-Mart like store, and the protagonist got a promotion to the head of the store. There was a whole plot line about how her wage was now in the 6 figures, and I was incredulous until I did a bit of research - Wal-Mart store managers can absolutely make that much money while their employees live in poverty. How you could make th…

Why do you think anyone expects “loyalty and sacrifice” for minimum wage at Walmart!

sacrifice? c’mon

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

#115

Post by acct1771 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

kthejoker2 wrote: post #48

slv77 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some ideas for the US investor. Invest the money with a payday lender to loan it out to your under-paid employees so you can grab even more of their paycheck! Buy a block of housing that houses your under-paid employees and raise rents so you can get even more of their paycheck! Invest in sub-prime auto loans so that your underpaid employees can get to work. Make money on them while the commute! Of course make sure t…

The return of the company store ...

...return?

Walmart, Amazon.

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

#116

Post by setr » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #107

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposes employer A chooses to pay their employees more than other employers. Employer B chooses to pay their employees less. Both employers are selling products or services that the purchaser finds the same, i.e. they have no preference for who they buy it from. Employer B takes the money they save by paying employees less, and invests in newer, better facilities or R&D or whatever. Now employer B is selling a bette…

Sounds like a great argument to increase the federal minimum wage so everyone is forced to pay their employees more.

One interesting result of that is it becomes more viable to look for strategies that eliminate the employees altogether, eg the food-ordering terminals that are going up everywhere, as the relative cost diminishes with wage increase.

In such situations, it becomes an irreversible effect, as the cost to transition was mainly up front.

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

#117

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #111

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposes employer A chooses to pay their employees more than other employers. Employer B chooses to pay their employees less. Both employers are selling products or services that the purchaser finds the same, i.e. they have no preference for who they buy it from. Employer B takes the money they save by paying employees less, and invests in newer, better facilities or R&D or whatever. Now employer B is selling a bette…

True, but Employer-B now has employees who DGAF about anything in the business, and often have an adversarial, even 'eff them! attitude to the business. Employer-B's customer service and general care of its facilities & inventory will suck, and they will have much higher turnover costs, even if they have better products. So, what is the relative advantage? Moreover, the article was specifically about the tradeoff in…

For some reason in these scenarios the workers, who literally construct the product, are always framed as the adversary, and a sunk cost that needs to be avoided if at all possible. Workers are keeping the business from being as successful as it could be by being a monetary drain on the business instead of, in fact, being the business.

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

#118

Post by c0vfefe » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #106

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposes employer A chooses to pay their employees more than other employers. Employer B chooses to pay their employees less. Both employers are selling products or services that the purchaser finds the same, i.e. they have no preference for who they buy it from. Employer B takes the money they save by paying employees less, and invests in newer, better facilities or R&D or whatever. Now employer B is selling a bette…

But employer B also can now remove employees due to the investments they made in automation - if they can remove the workers entirely they'll have even more money to invest in making a better product to edge out employer A. At the end of the day the worker always loses.

> At the end of the day the worker always loses.

Rise up comrades, and shake off the bourgeoisie! /s

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

#119

Post by close04 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #106

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposes employer A chooses to pay their employees more than other employers. Employer B chooses to pay their employees less. Both employers are selling products or services that the purchaser finds the same, i.e. they have no preference for who they buy it from. Employer B takes the money they save by paying employees less, and invests in newer, better facilities or R&D or whatever. Now employer B is selling a bette…

But employer B also can now remove employees due to the investments they made in automation - if they can remove the workers entirely they'll have even more money to invest in making a better product to edge out employer A. At the end of the day the worker always loses.

That’s a bit oversimplified. Automation doesn’t fix everything, it may not be a useful option regardless of how much money you just saved.

It’s more likely the best employees will move towards the company that pays more, along with their experience and know how, probably producing a better product. On one side you’ll have the best people and on the other side you’ll have ones that may be good but also very upset about the disparity.

I would still question if saving on personnel brings the most benefit in most cases. It’s short term benefit, enough for an executive to get the bonus. It may also be long term if everyone is doing it so an employee has no option.

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

#120

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, May 16, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

ap3 wrote: post #114

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was watching a sitcom called Superstore a little while ago, features the employees in a Wal-Mart like store, and the protagonist got a promotion to the head of the store. There was a whole plot line about how her wage was now in the 6 figures, and I was incredulous until I did a bit of research - Wal-Mart store managers can absolutely make that much money while their employees live in poverty. How you could make th…

Why do you think anyone expects “loyalty and sacrifice” for minimum wage at Walmart! sacrifice? c’mon

They will always ask you to work harder, put on more responsibilities, maybe stay a little late after you clock out to tidy up, always.