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

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

#101

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:48 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…

For most of my career, my salary has been not only known to my coworkers, but to the public at large via the local newspaper.

The impact? Nothing at all.

The only situation where I would be concerned about it would be a case where the company discriminating against people or aggressively ripping the employees off. I've witnessed both.

The big argument here is that the 10x producers are pissed off about others benefiting. The reality is that most of these "10x" people are mythical, and the ones who are real are either getting screwed anyway or make a salary consistent with their value.

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

#102

Post by mcphage » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:49 PM UTC

jetskindo wrote: post #23

This reminds me of a few months ago when gas price was down to a mere $2.00 . It was wonderful for the public, but all I heard on TV is how bad it was for the economy. We shouldn't let this be the norm, these employees complaining or those who quit are angry that their "inferior" coworkers are getting the same wages.

> a few months ago when gas price was down to a mere $2.00 . It was wonderful for the public, but all I heard on TV is how bad it was for the economy.

That really pissed me off. When the gas prices were high, then the damage to the economy was clear—everyone was paying more, prices for everything across the board were going up, because the cost of doing everything went up.

And then when prices dropped? Suddenly it was "bad for the economy". I'm sure there were companies it was bad for—specifically, the companies that were riding high when prices were gigantic. But for the rest of the economy, it was a breath of fresh air.

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

#103

Post by run4yourlives2 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #25

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?

This is the main argument I hear from people who are against the push to raise the minimum wage to $15. Question to you: how does others who used to earn less than you now earning the same as you affect you?

Ask yourself - If you are making minimum plus x and they raise the minimum to your salary mark, do you consider your worth to be "the minimum" or would you prefer your wage rise in tune with the increase?

My guess is the latter.

The argument against minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well.

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

#104

Post by vlucas » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #25

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?

This is the main argument I hear from people who are against the push to raise the minimum wage to $15. Question to you: how does others who used to earn less than you now earning the same as you affect you?

Answer: It raises prices for everyone, because the vast majority of companies will not simply absorb the hit to profitability, assuming they even have the ability to absorb a cost increase that large at all.

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

#105

Post by netfire » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:55 PM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #25

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?

This is the main argument I hear from people who are against the push to raise the minimum wage to $15. Question to you: how does others who used to earn less than you now earning the same as you affect you?

Whether you support a minimum wage increase or not, to think that it won't affect other people than those that are getting the increase just isn't true. Here's some possible side effects.

- Prices of products or services increase to compensate for the increase in salary.

- Higher paid employees don't get raises since the money that was previously allocated for that is being used to pay for the minimum wage increase. (This seems to be happening in this case, where more experienced workers received little to no increase in compensation).

- Other benefits are removed or reduced to cover the additional cost (health insurance, vacation, sick leave, etc)

- The company can no longer be profitable with the additional costs and reduces the size of their workforce or shuts down completely.

Which of these side effects (if any) occur, depends on the company and its current profits, management and/or investors, as well as how much they are already paying employees.

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

#106

Post by itsdrewmiller » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #69

gohrt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything. But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are…

Liberal here. Yeah, there really is a need to toss "liberal" in there. More liberal dense cities seem to have this problem much worse than dense less-liberal cities. Qualifier: American cities. Some of it tends to be due to liberal reflexes (participatory democracy at all levels, favoring small local groups of activists over people who stand to profit, etc.) that backfire writ large. Add in a distrust of markets, and…

Can you cite some evidence for this? My guess is that it breaks down much more on a coastal/inland basis than a liberal/conservative one.

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

#107

Post by Vexs » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #87

Vexs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an entire economic theory that progress only happens when the older generation dies off. A bit grim, but I can believe it. There's a subdivision near my house that allows only 55+, and anytime anyone wants to do anything it's a massive shitshow. They stalled a much needed bond for a local highschool for two years (during which said highschool got really, really overcrowded) and actually ran insane smear campa…

That seems like it wouldn't work... I mean, a fraction of the 'older generation' dies off every day.... and a few new people join the 'older generation' as they age. Now, I can imagine saying things like "The progress will only happen once all the people who grew up with things being the old way die off," especially with things like interracial or gay marriage, but I don't think that applies to something like housing…

You're absolutely correct; I quoted a gross oversimplification of the theory. It's more to do with per generation than actual old people, and people are always protective of home value.

Consider, however, that when an elderly person dies their assets,in this case houses, are usually sold off, which might be enough for a builder. It's not the core tenant of my argument, but it's something I'd never thought of before.

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

#108

Post by EliRivers » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 8:03 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 follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else.

Certainly not like everything else. The demand for housing is a function of (amongst other things) how easily people can borrow the money to pay for one, how much the interest on that debt is, and what they guess is going to happen to prices in the future. Under simple primary school "supply and demand" economic theory, increasing price leads to a reduction in demand, but it's common to see increases in house prices lead to increases in demand, and vice-versa. To simply say that housing follows supply and demand is such a simplified view that it's more wrong than right.

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

#109

Post by gyc » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #25

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?

This is the main argument I hear from people who are against the push to raise the minimum wage to $15. Question to you: how does others who used to earn less than you now earning the same as you affect you?

It could raise your cost of living (e.g., housing) because now there are more people who could afford to pay a certain price for something than before.

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

#110

Post by mindcrime » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 8:06 PM UTC

buerkle wrote: post #41

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.…

Because it makes a good story in their circle of people who don't know the meaning of socialism. If the CEO of a company is not making 200-300 times their average employee, they think it's socialism.

Because it makes a good story in their circle of people who don't know the meaning of socialism.

The thing is, like most words in English, "socialism" has taken on multiple meanings. Like it or not, there's the "textbook" definition and then then colloquial usage. And in America, "socialism" has come to refer to anything that involves redistributing wealth, providing social safety net(s), or otherwise trying to actively manage social inequality. It's a broader, more expansive definition, and I understand why purists hate seeing words diluted, but what can ya do? You can't put the horse back in barn, that ship has already sailed, can't un-ring a rung bell, etc., etc.