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

101–110 of 226 posts

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

#101

Post by cess11 »

tored wrote: post #91
ornornor wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that this kind of scheme is still possible in our society gives me very little hope we’ll be able to solve any of our major, species threatening problems. But at least some of us will be filthy rich when the party stops.

This scheme was the consequence of radical Swedish politicians, the Socialdemocrats, that tried to take over Kamprad’s own creation by pure theft. https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6ntagarfonder

What do you mean by "own creation"?

Kamprad was a fascist that started IKEA with financing from another fascist, and workers did all the work. What exactly do you imagine he contributed?

And why are you misrepresenting the article you linked? The idea to transfer some of the profits from large corporations into union managed funds came from the largest trade union confederation, not "radical Swedish politicians". Social democrats aren't radical, they're reformists, and the reactionary response to the proposal was arguably much more radical than trying to herd it through parliament.

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

#102

Post by Eric_WVGG »

jamesrom wrote: post #35

Doing stuff that makes people happy makes people happy. In other news, water found to be wet.

Makes you wonder how many pizza parties they sponsored before getting there, though

and what a meatball and smoked salmon pizza would taste like

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

#103

Post by boxed »

lifestyleguru wrote: post #61
LunaSea wrote: post #3

They haven't solved the "not sourcing wood illegally from Romanian primordial forests" yet though. Baby steps.

Sweden has most forests in Europe, yet its IKEA sources wood from Poland and Romania while selling furniture from cardboard. What happens with all this wood?! Unfortunately in Poland and Romania plastic bag of cash and premium German car go very far while Sweden has more climate activists than trees.

Sweden has almost no forests anymore. We have tree plantations. That's a very different thing, and driving around Sweden is absolutely soul crushing for me who grew up running around in the forests during summers.

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

#104

Post by refurb »

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…

Ehhh… better for the kid? Kids can get plenty of social interactions and variety with a stay at home parent.

Plus they get the benefit of time with parents, parents can focus on doing things they think is valuable for the kid.

To somehow claim that childcare comes at no cost for kids is naive.

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

#105

Post by refurb »

Skinney wrote: post #92
cfeduke wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all these "it is better" points, it still doesn't even begin to outweigh the "you get to spend time with your children" point. This is the most important part of child rearing and once they've moved on you'll be thankful you spent your time with them instead of... whatever all that income/societal optimization stuff is. You get to raise your children once.

Who is 'you' in this context? If one parent is working, the other home with the kids, chances are that the one working can't take as much time off or has a harder time setting a healthy work-life balance (increasing your pay requires working harder). Using myself as an example: the only reason I can pick up my kid early from the kindergarten and spend quality time with him is because I can afford to not work 9-5 ever…

Not sure I’d apply your situation to every parent.

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

#106

Post by imp0cat »

switch007 wrote: post #84
Iulioh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of high end ikea stuff is REALLY good, it's not all honeycomb crap. Honestly it's ikea or luxury stuff, anything else does not make sense. You can't beat ikea quality and quality at any price point.

Any specific examples of "really good" high end from their current catalogue?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39712344 Here's my own (sry) post on how to pick the good stuff.

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

#107

Post by dredmorbius »

notpushkin wrote: post #80
ricc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd give the submitter more credit than that. The title was cut for length, retaining the earlier (and presumably more significant) aspects of the original. As I noted in my other comment, wordsmithing title is a challenge, and most people probably aren't fully aware of HN's nuances and preferences in the practice.

And you did do a better job of it, as I also indicated a few minutes ago.

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

#108

Post by mirzap »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #8
LunaSea wrote: post #3

They haven't solved the "not sourcing wood illegally from Romanian primordial forests" yet though. Baby steps.

What is a primordial forest, and why is its wood so easy to break when in the form of a cabinet?

> What is a primordial forest

It is a forest that humans have not touched. There are still a few in Europe, and some are strictly protected. However, in countries where corruption is at a high level, local politicians can be bought to issue concessions for the deforestation of those natural jewels.

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

#109

Post by lifestyleguru »

boxed wrote: post #103
lifestyleguru wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden has most forests in Europe, yet its IKEA sources wood from Poland and Romania while selling furniture from cardboard. What happens with all this wood?! Unfortunately in Poland and Romania plastic bag of cash and premium German car go very far while Sweden has more climate activists than trees.

Sweden has almost no forests anymore. We have tree plantations. That's a very different thing, and driving around Sweden is absolutely soul crushing for me who grew up running around in the forests during summers.

Then again, where all this wood go? Because it's not in IKEA's furniture.

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

#110

Post by KeplerBoy »

amtamt wrote: post #85
jp57 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. I am in favor of flexible work arrangements, and I have no idea if those have costs to the company, or how much more you'd need to pay the workers to accept the less flexible arrangements.

Considered "valued" vs considered "useful" is probably the analogy that should be used here. Subsidizing childcare signals "we value you", while flat increae is signaling "you are useful to us", which can make a lot of impact on moral.

Is there really a perceived difference on the employees side?

If anything subsidized childcare feels like charity and I don't want charity, I want to be paid well for my work, so I can take care of my family.

Post reply on HN