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

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

#151

Post by morgante » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:24 AM 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 :)

> you'd switch to a more balanced lifestyle?

Don't force your value system on others.

I personally am happiest when I'm working 70-80 hours a week and appreciate being compensated for my hard work. Just because that doesn't describe you doesn't mean I should be forced to attain an artificial "balance."

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

#152

Post by elektromekatron » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:27 AM UTC

a3voices wrote: post #40

goldenchrome wrote: post #30

I think this is half the problem for the backlash: "“What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Ms. Brajcich said they asked." It relies on the assumption that the only motivation people would have to work, is that they will be homeless if they don't. I think the idea that you can work towards something bigger than you is a foreign concept to the majority of people.

Also some people like to work mainly for lifestyle reasons, not for some greater purpose.

I have noticed that lots of the people who are rich enough to relax for the rest of their lives work very hard. This has always made me suspect that without the motivation of survival tokens, boredom would still keep society running just fine.

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

#153

Post by jkestner » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:30 AM UTC

run4yourlives2 wrote: post #95

jameshush wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

I understand that very human response and would probably feel it myself, but if your salary is 3x the receptionist's, you're still not technically getting paid 3x what he/she does, once you factor in a progressive tax rate and public services that are used disproportionately by lower-income people.

What this guy tried to do is in effect just raise the floor of the minimum wage, which is also unfair to you.

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

#154

Post by jsprogrammer » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:34 AM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #111

fokov wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 leav…

You got it right at the beginning. People weren't being paid fairly before.

To the point the person you responded to brought up though:

Those years of sacrifice could have been compensated through equity grants instead.

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

#155

Post by morgante » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

I hope some academics are doing a study on this, as it's an almost prefect real-world example of efficiency wages.[1] I wouldn't be surprised if they see large increases in productivity amongst downmarket employees, as they now have an extremely strong incentive to kick ass at their job (any other job they could get would pay significantly less).

That being said, I also sympathize with the workers who were making $70k. If I were making $70k and a junior developer making $30k before (all hypothetical) got a raise to $70k I would absolutely be pissed off that I am now apparently considered equally valuable to them.

Probably a better way to handle this with total buy-in from all employees would have been to give an $Xk raise, where $Xk is the amount required to bring the lowest paid employee up to $70k. This would have preserved proportional productivity values while giving everyone an awesome reward (and introducing efficiency wages). Of course, it probably also would have been much more expensive.

Tangent: a salary of $50k seems absurdly low for a web developer in Seattle. That guy should be looking for a new job immediately.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage

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

#156

Post by jkestner » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

DarkTree wrote: post #7

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?

No, not at all. I think it would have made more sense to give each employee a raise based on a percentage of their income. That way, everyone gets a pay raise, and you can give more money to the lower earners without offending employees because it is an equal percentage increase.

Well, the company does have a finite amount of money, and he wanted to get the minimum pay to the $70K that studies say make the most difference.

I hope CEOs don't use the same thought process to keep their pay at 300x their minimum wage workers when the minimum wage is raised to $15.

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

#157

Post by jkestner » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:45 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #155

I hope some academics are doing a study on this, as it's an almost prefect real-world example of efficiency wages.[1] I wouldn't be surprised if they see large increases in productivity amongst downmarket employees, as they now have an extremely strong incentive to kick ass at their job (any other job they could get would pay significantly less). That being said, I also sympathize with the workers who were making $70…

I've always wondered how pro athletes in their weird economy deal with this issue. With salary caps, max contracts and scarcity there are all sorts of constraints that change from year to year, and a superstar on a max contract signed a few years ago can be making less than a merely good player who just signed a contract. (One of the rare cases where one's actually voiced displeasure: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2015-07-14/john-wall-m... )

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

#158

Post by sdenton4 » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:46 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #42

jameshush wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Yeah, it sounds like we're asking to balance some pop psychology against a minimum amount needed for a middle class life. I would emphasize the latter, personally.

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

#159

Post by Spooky23 » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

shoo wrote: post #143

> Roger Reynolds, a co-owner of a wealth management company, said his discussion of the pay plan with Mr. Price got heated. “My wife and I got so frustrated with him at a cocktail party, we literally left,” said Mr. Reynolds, who complained that Mr. Price unfairly accused him of measuring his self-worth solely in terms of money and trying to hold somebody else down. Everyone may have equal rights, but not equal talen…

Ironic that a wealth management advisor, who essentially peddles mutual funds and pats clients on the head in exchange for 2% of their wealth is concerned about paying for talent.

My grandfather owned a bar years ago. He paid the bartenders a good wage, way more than what he was required to by law. He did it because it kept good people around and reduced pilferage.

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

#160

Post by MaulingMonkey » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 3:00 AM 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 saying is the problem is people knowing other people's salaries?

There are times when that can be part of the problem.

But it can also be part of the solution, when e.g. the problem is discrimination, lack of consideration for the not-so-squeaky wheel, etc.