Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

271–280 of 325 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you noticed the behavior of markets, especially big companies? The only things they seem to be doing voluntarily are those that help increase their profits. CEOs are getting paid tens of millions of dollars while laying off thousands of people and closing factories. Companies do every dirty little trick to avoid paying for healthcare/pension. And so on. We have already tried the "markets will fix things, markets…

A company cleaning up their own spill isn't news worthy and so you never hear about it. When I started here the first thing they sent me to a mandatory class: 2 hours to say (in different ways) "All the drains outside go directly to the river, so if you see a chemical going towards a drain you are to find the cover near to the drain (a sticker) and block that drain, then call maintenance to figure out what it is". Th…

That was not a great example, because EPA enforcement actually is fairly effective and large companies do police themselves to some extent either out of fear of enforcement or as a result of a settlement caused by past enforcement.

It's useful to remember, though, what the world looked like before climate regulation. Rivers in industrialized cities were once choked with toxic effluent from tanneries and heavy industry. Even in Silicon Valley semiconductor manufacturers dumped heavy metals down the drain, contaminating groundwater and causing many billions of dollars of damage to be cleaned up by the taxpayer.

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

#272
> last year we broadened profit sharing to all levels of the company

So... do executives think this means something to people? This incentive seems comically out-of-touch. I guess because CEOs live and breathe stock valuation-based bonuses they naturally assume that everyone gets motivated the same way. But it seems like a stretch that strains credulity to think that someone making $15/hr and getting a microscopic slice of revenue would develop a sense of motivation from the fact that their personal call-center interactions might maybe increase their share of revenue by a few pennies a week through slightly happier customers.

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

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In economic theory, this is what’s known as an efficiency wage. If you pay more, there’s more competition for your openings and you attract a better class of employee. As other comments have pointed out, simply raising the minimum wage doesn’t accomplish the same thing. Instead, all those people who were marginal at $7-8/hour simply don’t get hired, and employers use automation or forego the opportunities that additi…

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…

The first sentence is the "how do we want society to work" and it is the right one.

Businesses are a thing we've invented to shuffle resources around; there's currently enough resources for everyone in the world to be fat and happy (the world produces 3,500 calories per capita per day), it's just so very unequally distributed that 1 in 10 working Americans faces food insecurity, and 1 in 8 Americans overall lives in poverty.

Anyone working a full-time job should be able to live comfortably, and if you can't work full-time, society should take care of you anyway.

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

#274
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Cashiers helping one customer at a time are a bottleneck in a fast food restaurant. It's not that those jobs are eliminated, food still needs to be cooked and served. Kiosks allow up to 2, 3, 4 times the number of customers to order food at the same time (this also includes food delivery services who can order remotely). Kiosks are just the last part of efficiency that fast food restaurants have been developing over…

Increasingly surprised how we need all these various ipads/terminals in businesses. Seems by now technology should be able to push something to the customer's phone when they walk into the store and have them complete their order on their phone without having to install apps.

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

#275

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs See also: https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp...

What a find! There are a lot of jobs that are complete bullshit, especially in finance and tech. That hot new app or device isn't a necessity, its decoration. Things got done before slack existed, so why are some brilliant people wasting their time and life working tirelessly to optimize slack? People might get promoted and pat themselves on the back for reworking some aspect of the snapchat back end, for instance, but are you gonna put that accomplishment on your tombstone? Will your project ever come up in university CS lectures, or even see the light of day to be cited by other researchers? The iPhone Xs doesn't do anything fundamentally different than the first iPhone, and people buy new ones every year to do the same emailing, texting and calling, and web surfing they've always done since their first smartphone. There are people who are striving daily to make missiles more lethal, advertising more addictive, consumption more rampant, the environment more polluted, and shareholder profit more exponential.

A lack of fulfillment in the majority of straight out of undergrad private sector career paths is what got me interested in grad school, to spend my time and effort working on a topic that's explicitly not bullshit.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But even if I were to donate 100% of my salary, it would barely dent things for those 500 employees. There's a lot more people like you than billionares in the world, though.

_but the billionaire's have MOST of the money_ ............ THAT'S THE PROBLEM

I'm sorry? This seems rather incoherent. Most income in the US does not in fact go to the 1%. (A greatly disproportionate amount does, of course - about 20% - as expected from an exponential distribution)

And if you're talking about wealth... Well, having all the world's billionares give up their money at once wouldn't have much of a positive impact either. (The 1% in the US - not exactly billionaires, $10,000,000 puts you there - had about 35% of US wealth in 2007)

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

#277
I really hate articles like this. The company provides home health visits, requiring a nurse. Nurses don't work for $7.50 hour. Reading closely, it was for entry-level positions, probably in a certain department. Skilled positions would require market rates.

Translation: in an economic down turn they killed the bonus, raised the pay for customer service reps, and are now claiming a moral victory as if the growth was caused by paying people more.

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

#278

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…

> Unless you're at the bottom, you're also at the top as far as people less fortunate than you are concerned.

Analyzing this situation in terms of a qualitatively homogeneous property differing between people only in magnitude (income or wealth) is a mistake, in my opinion. (And so is taking a psychological approach.)

The most important thing the people at the ‘top’ have here is not any particular amount of money or income, but a radically different relationship to labor and the workplace than the mass of people who work under them. They have special powers (e.g., the power to set wages) and their income comes not only from producing things or providing services using their brains and muscles, but through owning and managing capital. At the very peak of the top, there are owners of capital of whom virtually no management at all is required.

It's because there are people, and of necessity a minority of them, in such a position at all, that the interests of society (as well as its privileges) are divided in such a way as to produce the inequality we have.

When wage laborers _do_ have control or input over things like wages, we _don't_ see the same enormous gaps between the highest and lowest paid employees at those firms. And in the case of that more agreeable outcome, too, the cause is not psychological— it's not that wage laborers are kinder or more generous people than executives, but that their position entails certain interests which are different from those of executives, and given the chance they will guide the firms they work at accordingly.

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

#279
post #55

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'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…

> It makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there.

I expect a large number of middle/upper-middle class people would already be made for life if they just moved to a low cost area/country and simplified their lifestyle.

But we carry on because we want more.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company cleaning up their own spill isn't news worthy and so you never hear about it. When I started here the first thing they sent me to a mandatory class: 2 hours to say (in different ways) "All the drains outside go directly to the river, so if you see a chemical going towards a drain you are to find the cover near to the drain (a sticker) and block that drain, then call maintenance to figure out what it is". Th…

That was not a great example, because EPA enforcement actually is fairly effective and large companies do police themselves to some extent either out of fear of enforcement or as a result of a settlement caused by past enforcement. It's useful to remember, though, what the world looked like before climate regulation. Rivers in industrialized cities were once choked with toxic effluent from tanneries and heavy industr…

We don't know how much the EPA affected anything. In the past people didn't realize how bad pollution was so they didn't see why to care: people have been dumping trash in rivers for thousands of years to no noticeable ill effect (such trash was mostly organic matter that the fish could eat and in small quantities until the very end of that). Companies are directed by people, and they started caring: they did two things in parallel: start the EPA and clean up their act. We can only guess how things would be different if the EPA had been ruled unconstitutional (I can't even think how you could construct a parallel universe where the people running a company didn't care but the EPA existed and had teeth).

I do know the EPA fines are a cost of doing business to some. A few of them have decided that the public relations problems were getting too bad and cleaned up their act.

Post reply on HN