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

IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 226 posts

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#71

Post by ako »

RoyalHenOil wrote: post #67
yellow_postit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”

It's not that we as a society devalue childcare. We just don't live in an economy where it is safe for families to put all their eggs in one basket like that. In post-WWII US, it was generally easy for fathers to find stable, lifelong careers with a low risk of layoffs and a low risk of an untimely death, which allowed families to thrive on single incomes. But that was an outlier, not the norm. In most places and in…

In the past extended family would usually live close by, so they could assist the mother inside the home. Today, both parents need to work outside the home, and family is usually too far away to assist.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#72

Post by lucumo »

yellow_postit wrote: post #59
malfist wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing child care often means one parent has to leave the workforce, and that's almost always worse off for everyone than if they were able to afford child care and can contribute

This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”

It is better for everyone, and it does not devalue child-rearing at all.

It is better for the family: - it has more resources - it has more income diversification

It is better for the father: - he doesn't have to carry the weight of income-gathering alone

It is better for the mother: - she doesn't have to carry the weight of child-rearing alone - if things go sour, she can maintain herself and/or the family financially - sha has more choices in life

It is better for the child: - they get a wider variety of experiences - they socialize with other kids earlier, which helps in early school-life - they learn to socialize with more adults too - there are professionals who have seen many children, who will notice problems before the parents will

It is better for the childcare professional: - they have another job choice, helping them pick a job they enjoy

It is good for society: - father, mother and childcare professional can do something that matches their talents, instead of doing something suboptimal for them, thus delivering more value to society

It doesn't devalue child-rearing, it values it more, by having a professional help do it.

I'm always befuddled by that argument. I'm not devaluing plumbing work by hiring a plumber, nor am I devaluing medical work by hiring a doctor. Why would I be devaluing child-rearing by hiring a professional to help?

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#73

Post by notpushkin »

dredmorbius wrote: post #56
misterbwong wrote: post #6

OP's link should really include the full title: Ikea’s boss solved the Swedish retailer’s global ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexible working and subsidizing childcare Cutting it off there just makes it seem like ikea thinks "more money = happy workers" when in reality it is more nuanced than that.

HN has an 80 character title max length. The full original title is 157 characters, nearly double that. The alternatives generally suggested are to shorten the original title, omitting needless descriptives or words (e.g., counts, emotives, etc.) if possible, or barring that, to substitute alternative text, preferably from a subtitle or passage from the article (both to avoid editorialising): dang comment: https://ne…

This one is 75 characters:

> IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules

It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#75

Post by ricc »

notpushkin wrote: post #73
dredmorbius wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has an 80 character title max length. The full original title is 157 characters, nearly double that. The alternatives generally suggested are to shorten the original title, omitting needless descriptives or words (e.g., counts, emotives, etc.) if possible, or barring that, to substitute alternative text, preferably from a subtitle or passage from the article (both to avoid editorialising): dang comment: https://ne…

This one is 75 characters: > IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.

But then there’s this rule to not editorialise headlines, so…

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#76

Post by reaperman »

djbusby wrote: post #68
pembrook wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually they don’t have the money. Retail is notoriously a cutthroat, thin margin business. Walmart is a public company, so you can just look at their profit margins. They’re sub-3%. Amazons margins are only higher because of AWS.

Walmart had a recent profit of like $5B. How is that not having money? https://stock.walmart.com/financials/quarterly-results/defau...

$5B (quarterly profit) is $2,400 per employee, and a 3.2% profit margin on $611B of annual revenue. Yes, an extra $9,600 annual pay for each employee would make a huge difference to many, but how low of a profit will shareholders tolerate below 3.2%? Maybe a better argument would be to find a larger bucket (much larger than $5B/quarter) where Walmart could perhaps reduce spending and redirect that to rank-and-file employees?

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#77

Post by smcin »

tsunamifury wrote: post #63
smcin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting comment, is there any quantitative study or data corroborating regional attitudes in the US?

No obviously not

Anecdotally, do you find it tends to be true?

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#78

Post by callalex »

djbusby wrote: post #68
pembrook wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually they don’t have the money. Retail is notoriously a cutthroat, thin margin business. Walmart is a public company, so you can just look at their profit margins. They’re sub-3%. Amazons margins are only higher because of AWS.

Walmart had a recent profit of like $5B. How is that not having money? https://stock.walmart.com/financials/quarterly-results/defau...

If they distributed that evenly to every single employee it would only work out to $2k/person. Not nothing, but not life changing.

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#79

Post by pton_xd »

lucumo wrote: post #72
yellow_postit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”

It is better for everyone, and it does not devalue child-rearing at all. It is better for the family: - it has more resources - it has more income diversification It is better for the father: - he doesn't have to carry the weight of income-gathering alone It is better for the mother: - she doesn't have to carry the weight of child-rearing alone - if things go sour, she can maintain herself and/or the family financial…

Half those arguments could be made for child labor. After all, if the child works too then the family has more resources, the father and mother don't have to carry all the weight, the child gets a wider variety of experiences, the father and mother can do something that matches their talents while the child picks up the slack. Right?

Who actually cares more about a child's well-being, an employee paid by the hour or their own parents?

Re: IKEA's retailer's solved global 'unhappy worker' crisis by raising salaries

#80

Post by notpushkin »

ricc wrote: post #75
notpushkin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is 75 characters: > IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.

But then there’s this rule to not editorialise headlines, so…

I'd say just cutting out half of the headline is more editorializing than trying to edit it to fit more of it.
Post reply on HN