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

#241

Post by OliverJones » Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #159

I wish redistribution to the very bottom was a bigger part of the political debate. Our politics is currently focused on redistribution from the very top to the middle class. (Stuff like free college or universal healthcare would primarily benefit the top half, because those folks are the ones who are in a position to be accepted to and attend college, and aren’t already covered by Medicaid.) The math of that is toug…

Maybe, just maybe, the feds and the states (in the US) should pass laws like this: Employers are liable to the government for four times the cost of providing SNAP (f/k/a food stamps), public housing, and other welfare benefits to their employees.

1/3 of any fines collected in this way would be payable to citizens who report the problems.

It's totally unfair for the taxpayers to subsidize businesses by feeding and housing their underpaid employees.

The point of the draconian 4x charge is to make it less expensive for companies to do the right thing and quit with the starvation wages already.

But legislatures work for their donors, not their citizens, so it won't happen.

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

#242

Post by magashna » Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #175

WhompingWindows wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He took action and doubled the pay to 15/hr, then it further increased to 16.50/hr. I didn't think he was stumbling on a new lesson, your reading was a bit more cynical than mine. Simply put, he hadn't realized the plight of those on 7.25/hr until he heard what his employees were going through. How else can we improve things if we don't allow people to change their views? Mocking a CEO for changing his view is the op…

> he hadn't realized the plight of those on 7.25/hr until he heard what his employees were going through. That's the crux of the problem right there. If you need somebody to start living with their kid in a car to get this grand epiphany then you are hilariously mis-prepared to be any kind of a leader. To be a leader, you need a much better [emotional] education than this.

How much is a banana, like $10?

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

#243

Post by yeahitslikethat » Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #222

ThomPete wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing can teach you to be a leader other than leading.

Generally having compassion and not being extremely self-centered is a very good start though.

I'm not sure about the self centered part. It's not the people at work helping everyone who are promoted. Is the ones dishonestly taking credit for all that work who get the praise and promotions.

The self centered ones kiss up, slack off, ask others for "help" etc and don't get fired.

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

#244

Post by ohaideredevs » Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #226

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…

It's more that they are out of touch, IMHO. They have absolutely no concept of how far $7.50/hr goes so they just say their employees need to budget better. Perhaps if senior executives received minimum wage paychecks for two months (and no bonuses), they might gain some empathy.

You can't gain empathy when something is temporary. Most of the stress of being poor comes of worry about how to handle long term problems / the fact that life has no point except slaving away. That cannot be replicated without genuinely taking everything away from a person.

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

#245

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #213

curyous wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your business is only viable when paying people below what they need to live, then your business shouldn't exist. The fact that you can do that now is simply people in power exploiting the weak. Effectively what is happening is that those without power are subsidising the business by supplying them labour below cost. Generally in economics, making a business only viable through subsidies is a bad thing. It is much…

To provide a slight counter example: 1. Employee A produces 20 widgets an hour 2. Employee B produces 100 widgets an hour There is a wage where employee A costs more than the value they create. By mandating a wage that is higher than their productivity they are simply not hired, they do not get a chance to gain experience/knowledge, they loose the chance to be as productive as Employee B. The result is they are now o…

> The result is they are now on welfare/unemployed/etc. They lose the chance to get on the employment ladder. > In general people improve so we you shouldn't be making the low wages for long. But what do we do about people who don't improve - either we push them out of the workforce or we subsidize their lifestyle to meet a minimum threshold.

That's only assuming that the ladder is just that, and not a single rung. Time spent in most minimum wage jobs are hard to sell as giving you a leg up when moving into the higher professional strata.

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

#246

Post by ryhamz » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #226

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…

It's more that they are out of touch, IMHO. They have absolutely no concept of how far $7.50/hr goes so they just say their employees need to budget better. Perhaps if senior executives received minimum wage paychecks for two months (and no bonuses), they might gain some empathy.

I'm nowhere near executive compensation and I would just tap my savings for 2 months.

I think you'd have to limit their usage of previously acquired funds. Once you're rich, you can ride out a 2 month storm like it's nothing.

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

#247

Post by asdff » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #63

turk73 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite where you are wealth-wise but definitely I have had that moment several times recently where I am re-evaluating hiring out work I would have just done myself in the past. I didn't have some big windfall, but pretty much earned and saved my way to wealth. Now it is hard to not do things like fix my own cars as well as bring my own lunch. I do them out of habit now. That's the discipline. Anyways, you don…

“t makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there. ” My theory is that they simply like their work and get satisfaction from it. They get paid a lot but they also work a lot and I can’t imagine anybody doing this to themselves if they didn’t genuinely like it.

If that were the case, most executives would stay put for decades and take pride in their company. Executives are mercenaries, staying for a few years and moving once someone offers a bigger slice of pie. Lots of people are addicted to exponential growth and wealth and blinded by the damage this behavior wreaks on everyone else.

The work argument is bullshit too. I'm convinced with a few months of hands on training, any passionate and competant person can do the job of a CEO. It is really a job that lacks any qualifications beyond managing a small network of people. CEOs don't work 100x as hard as someone working full time and a second job to make 1% a CEOs pay.

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

#248

Post by _1100 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #186

JimBrimble35 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you are identifying as incompetence is, in fact, well-aged malice. The greedy behavior that leads to the kind of inequality faced by today's society is now so well established that it has become hard to recognize for what it truly is. The fact that this article's author seems to find it novel to trickle down the proceeds of the company to the bulk of it's employees is a pretty good indication of that.

> The greedy behavior that leads to the kind of inequality faced by today's society is now so well established that it has become hard to recognize for what it truly is. I know you think you’re arguing against me, but what you described supports my position.

Agreed.

It doesn't matter if it is hard to recognize, if you are unable to understand something then you are by definition incompetent with respect to the task or idea.

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

#249

Post by Infinitesimus » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #192

vishnugupta wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This is a great insight which unfortunately doesn't get much attention in the inequality debate. I'm now rich enough to be in the top 0.5% of the world. The marginal utility/value of money is so low for me that I've begun valuing my time and…

I may eat some downvotes for this but I really need to say it. It's a bit off-topic, too. Please, do not start believing you will be making a difference through charity. I observed rich people in the past that out of some half-conscious guilt started thinking they need to give back in some way. But they don't want to be inconvenienced by doing it personally or by evaluating which people deserve a donation or have an…

Have you ever known poor people for whom money and charity donations actually changes their lives? There are quite a lot of those all over this big world.

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

#250

Post by jakelazaroff » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

csallen wrote: post #233

JimBrimble35 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you are identifying as incompetence is, in fact, well-aged malice. The greedy behavior that leads to the kind of inequality faced by today's society is now so well established that it has become hard to recognize for what it truly is. The fact that this article's author seems to find it novel to trickle down the proceeds of the company to the bulk of it's employees is a pretty good indication of that.

> The greedy behavior that leads to the kind of inequality faced by today's society is now so well established that it has become hard to recognize for what it truly is. So in other words: It no longer requires any malice to pay this way, as it's just a cultural norm in the business world. By the way, it's also a cultural norm in the US to complain about the lack of generosity among those richer than you, and yet spe…

> So in other words: It no longer requires any malice to pay this way, as it's just a cultural norm in the business world.

Sure. But I don't think this is a sufficient defense — at the extremes, cultural norms can result in horrific things even though individual actors may not be motivated by malice.

> By the way, it's also a cultural norm in the US to complain about the lack of generosity among those richer than you, and yet spend almost 100% of your salary helping yourself, when you could just as easily spend it on those less fortunate.

There's definitely an incongruity between people's expectations of those above them and what they contribute themselves. We should all give more! But even if I were to donate 100% of my salary, it would barely dent things for those 500 employees.

When we complain about people above us, we're (usually) not chastising individuals but calling for systemic solutions to these issues. The overarching goal isn't for people to donate more of their resources, but to structure things in a more equitable way so that people don't rely on individual generosity in the first place.