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

A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 280 posts

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

#111

Post by GVIrish »

fokov wrote: post #70
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 :)

It means all of the previous sacrifices the good employees made were for nothing in the eyes of management. Therefore, there is no reason to work hard at all. It is better to go leave for a competitor that knows how to treat their hard working employees.

But if you were getting compensated fairly before, why are you no longer getting compensated fairly because other people got a raise? The most rational action would be simply to match your work output to your peers.

I mean if the market rate for the job you were doing is $70k, and all of a sudden fresh college grads are getting paid that at your company, it doesn't mean that you'll now get $100k elsewhere if you leave. If that is the case, you should have already left.

Now if you were already being underpaid and you were staying at the company for some other reason I could see bailing when others got a pay bump regardless of their contribution.

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

#112

Post by paulhauggis »

buerkle wrote: post #38
paulhauggis wrote: post #11

That's why you shouldn't make foolish and quick decisions like this and at least give it some forethought.

Whether it was foolish is a bit too soon to declare; he already is getting more business. And that's harsh to say "give it some forethought". I didn't read anywhere in the article about how much time he spent thinking over the decision.

Paying everyone this amount of money just isnt practical and wont really help the employee in the long run.

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

#113

Post by jasonlotito »

nocman wrote: post #96
jasonlotito wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poin…

> 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.

Well, yeah. But that assumes you know what other people are getting. As I said, I'm assuming most people don't know or share what they are making (at least in the US) with their coworkers.

So, for the average person, this really comes down to the question I asked as most people don't know what others are making (again, total assumption on my part).

And that all comes down to my last statement in my original comment, which I guess is really just a way of saying "ignorance is bliss." And if you are ignorant of what others are making, the question is really as I put it: 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? Don't assume $115k/year is higher or lower (you don't know).

I'm not pushing an agenda or anything. Just really wondering.

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

#114

Post by EliRivers »

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…

That's kinda the basic premise of socialism - whereby an employee's salary is dissociated from the economic benefit they bring.

The basic premise of socialism is that the means of production are in social ownership. Paying employees based on the economic benefit they bring is not contradictory to socialism.

People call this socialism because, after so long hearing the term bandied about as a catch-all fear word, they simply apply it to anything that doesn't match their view of the one true God's own capitalism.

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

#115

Post by gknoy »

eps wrote: post #72

Do you know what happens when Paul McCartney gives to charity and charity leaks his name? He cancels the donation. That's how you do good deeds when you genuinely want to help people and not pull a little PR on a side. If this guy wanted to help his under-40K employees, there were multiple ways to do it (a) quietly (b) without pissing off other people who worked for him. I don't know if it's a poorly throught through…

> He cancels the donation.

Isn't that literally un-doing a good deed?

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

#117

Post by icebraining »

justinpombrio wrote: post #97
omonra wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relate…

Based, not tied. Specifically, the salary is capped to their value to the company.

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

#118

Post by zorpner »

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…

You have a serious confounding factor in that urban density correlates highly with liberal political views, at least in America.

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

#119

Post by Kalium »

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #106
Kalium wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Austin and San Antonio is an informative comparison. They're both inland cities, but Austin has placed significantly more liberal policy into practice. They have problems with spiking rent.

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

#120

Post by alukima »

eps wrote: post #72

Do you know what happens when Paul McCartney gives to charity and charity leaks his name? He cancels the donation. That's how you do good deeds when you genuinely want to help people and not pull a little PR on a side. If this guy wanted to help his under-40K employees, there were multiple ways to do it (a) quietly (b) without pissing off other people who worked for him. I don't know if it's a poorly throught through…

>I don't know if it's a poorly throught through PR stunt or if it's just a vanity / mid-life crisis thing, but it sure wasn't executed smartly.

Or he just wanted to do what he thought was the right thing. I hire day laborers through a local service on a regular basis. I pay the workers directly and I am supposed to give them $9 an hour. I typically pay them $15-$20hr an hour at the end of the day.

Post reply on HN