A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared • Hacker News Board

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#91

Post by tunesmith » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:33 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #82

dopamean wrote: post #2

Am I crazy for thinking it seems naive to not anticipate that current employees may not take kindly to people who earn half as much as them getting bumped up to their salaries?

You are not crazy. My thoughts were that this reaction is totally predictable, no matter how morally absurd.

I think it's great that it elicits that reaction in such a stark way, though - it will make more than a few of them wrestle with it and maybe get past it.

I can totally defend the desire to quit out of not wanting to have golden handcuffs, but quitting because someone "below" you is now not as far "below" you (or is now "shackled" to you, a ridiculous thought) is just spiteful and self-damaging.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#92

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

omonra wrote: post #49

austenallred wrote: post #27

While I have no idea whether this will work (or if it's a good idea), the most interesting part of all of this, to me, is the backlash from people calling it "unbridled Socialism." I'm still not sure how a CEO of a profitable company electing to pay his employees more becomes a political debate. If it fails, perhaps it's a failed experiment in Capitalism? It's not like anyone is forcing the business owner to do this.…

I'll try to explain. People call it socialism because a starting salary of 70k is likely to be uneconomic. Ie the cost of the employee is set above their value to the company. This is done at the expense of other stakeholders (ie management and investors, possibly other employees who would be paid less). That's kinda the basic premise of socialism - whereby an employee's salary is dissociated from the economic benefi…

I think the reason people are upset when this is called socialism is because those same people saying "you are paying those people more than they are worth!" don't call it socialism when other people are paid way more than the value of what they contribute to the company (CEOs of failing companies making millions, board members who don't do anything, etc).

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#93

Post by vwcx » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

kdamken wrote: post #62

Something I hadn't seen discussed with much clarity is what happened to the employees who were already making 70k+? If I was working there making that much, would I see a similar percent increase? If not, then I'd be pretty angry about the situation and would probably leave as well. I think part of it is that what you get paid is mostly based on your experience and skill set, as well as what you bring to the company.…

Some of the comments on the NYT piece touch on this -- that higher-earning, hard-working employees were off-put when their "just-barely-cruising-along" employees were receiving the equivalent of a promotion.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#94

Post by hueving » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

zafka wrote: post #73

The part that bothered me was the fact that the Web developer made 40K to start, and he worried that getting a boost to 70K might make him too satisfied to better himself. I was under the impression that west coast salaries where a bit higher.

In tech companies they tend to be.

It sounds like the dev was inexperienced which is why he was talking about improving skills to work at a tech company.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#95

Post by run4yourlives2 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

jameshush wrote: post #9

dopamean wrote: post #2

Am I crazy for thinking it seems naive to not anticipate that current employees may not take kindly to people who earn half as much as them getting bumped up to their salaries?

I know what you're saying, but I've never understood this logic personally. How does someone else earning more money hurt you? It's not like a person doing better than you is taking your money.

>How does someone else earning more money hurt you?

It's not that simple. The employees were already working under conditions that job/person a was worth 2x and job/person b was worth 3x. That was established and everyone was content (or reasonably so).

All of a sudden, someone declared that job/person a is worth 3x too, with no corresponding change to the output or expectations of either job.

Job/Person b, having been previously told that their value was, at 3x, MORE than job/person a, is now told that their value is now equal.

That's a redefining of the previously established contract of understanding. To expect Job/person b to completely agree to that redefinition is rather naive, to say the least.

I'm more valuable to my company as their key software developer than the receptionist. I've got more knowledge of how the company works, contribute more to the bottom line and am harder to properly replace. I expect my compensation to reflect that.

If you suggest all of a sudden that I'm not any more valuable than the receptionist hired last month, you should rightly expect that I'd be a little pissed.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#96

Post by nocman » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:43 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #65

oh_sigh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tons of studies show that it is not absolute pay, but pay relative to your coworkers which influences your feelings about fairness and your position in the company. Like it or not, that's how it is. Do you not understand the logic of people who feel that way, or do you simply not believe in it yourself? If you were getting paid $35k/year to do the same job as everyone else who was getting paid $115k/year, would you f…

So what you are really saying is the problem is people knowing other people's salaries? Because unless I'm the exception, the norm is not knowing what people are getting paid. So, what you are really asking is: If you were getting paid $115k/year to do a job where $115k/year was the normal competitive salary in your area, would you feel that it was somewhat unfair? I ask this because I wonder what would have happened…

"So, what you are really asking is: If you were getting paid $115k/year to do a job where $115k/year was the normal competitive salary in your area, would you feel that it was somewhat unfair?"

^ How in the world did you come to that conclusion? oh_sigh's whole point was that a person would be upset if they knew they were getting much less compensation than others for the same kind of job.

I'm guessing you had a point there, but I'm not sure how the quoted phrase above is supposed to support whatever the point was.

:-D

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#97

Post by justinpombrio » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

omonra wrote: post #49

austenallred wrote: post #27

While I have no idea whether this will work (or if it's a good idea), the most interesting part of all of this, to me, is the backlash from people calling it "unbridled Socialism." I'm still not sure how a CEO of a profitable company electing to pay his employees more becomes a political debate. If it fails, perhaps it's a failed experiment in Capitalism? It's not like anyone is forcing the business owner to do this.…

I'll try to explain. People call it socialism because a starting salary of 70k is likely to be uneconomic. Ie the cost of the employee is set above their value to the company. This is done at the expense of other stakeholders (ie management and investors, possibly other employees who would be paid less). That's kinda the basic premise of socialism - whereby an employee's salary is dissociated from the economic benefi…

Since when is an employee's salary based on their value to the company? Occasionally that value can be measured, and an employee will be payed by commission, but that seems like a bit of an exception. How do you judge the value of a business's single, extremely necessary, janitor?

I thought employees were generally paid by their market rate, i.e. how much it would cost to replace them, which is not necessarily related to their value to the company.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#98

Post by mcphage » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

moistgorilla wrote: post #83

icebraining wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So some people would get paid more, and you'd switch to a more balanced lifestyle? I'm struggling to see the downsides :)

The downside is for the company

Let the company handle that.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#99

Post by run4yourlives2 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #39

Ensorceled wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody who often makes more than my peers because I work harder and longer hours, I understand this logic perfectly. In some respects they ARE taking my money ... the company now has less money to distribute based upon merit. Also, I would immediately become a 9-5 employee and enjoy my weekends like my now equally paid peers.

So some people would get paid more, and you'd switch to a more balanced lifestyle? I'm struggling to see the downsides :)

The part he left out is he's only doing that until his job search pans out.

Re: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

#100

Post by throwaway1979 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #90

scarmig wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productive people and companies are located in them.

Housing follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else. Cities with lots of jobs draw in migrant workers. Cities that raise minimum wage bring in more workers from neighboring areas with lower wages. Those people need a place to live.

Housing should follow the normal economic laws but it doesn't seem to. Part of it is regulation, and part of it is an odd kind of scarcity. If there were no housing regulations, I'm sure you' get a lot of new housing in the Bay area and people would live in there (despite it being potentially unsafe). Heck .. I was actually entertaining the live-in-a-container option :-p

I'm still struggling to understand the scarcity aspect of housing. Supply of land isn't increasing so you'd think the asset would increase in price over time. That said, population isn't growing that much - prices in a city like Toronto have reached epic proportions fueled by a combination of speculation and foreign investment. To me, the problem lies in the fact that we are living in a highly leveraged economy. Will that ever stop? Doesn't seem like it.