I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers • Hacker News Board

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#261

Post by c0vfefe » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #251

c0vfefe wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd cause a big morale hit & big incentive for engineers to leave. Support staff are great, but at the end of the day they're not what drives growth for the company.

That's a terrible mentality. Exponential growth is not sustainable. The worst thing about technology companies these days is that putting out a polished product and covering overhead + emergency funding is seen as a failure. Products must be modified to extract money from the consumer at every turn, and the market cap must rise and rise. If engineers would leave a company because its no longer growth driven, then our…

That focus on increasing shareholder value above all else is definitely a regrettable inevitability of publicly-traded companies.

I know my engineering curriculum hasn't focused on empathy, or ethics much at all. Unfortunately you can't educate the selfishness out of humanity.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#262

Post by DuskStar » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

whytaka wrote: post #257

rayiner wrote: post #159

I wish redistribution to the very bottom was a bigger part of the political debate. Our politics is currently focused on redistribution from the very top to the middle class. (Stuff like free college or universal healthcare would primarily benefit the top half, because those folks are the ones who are in a position to be accepted to and attend college, and aren’t already covered by Medicaid.) The math of that is toug…

That’s interesting. I’ve always seen the promotion of free college and universal healthcare as one of promoting equal opportunity to all. While the lowest income groups have historically had low college participation, I saw it as a reflection of a class of people not even daring to dream an impossible dream, as it would cost too much. Making it free would of course change the idea around it.

> Making it free would of course change the idea around it.

For every good private college I know of (and almost every good public school) prices are free or enormously close to so for people in the bottom quarter of incomes. Making it free for everyone might change the psychology, but not the reality for lower-income people today.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#263

Post by JimBrimble35 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

csallen wrote: post #233

JimBrimble35 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you are identifying as incompetence is, in fact, well-aged malice. The greedy behavior that leads to the kind of inequality faced by today's society is now so well established that it has become hard to recognize for what it truly is. The fact that this article's author seems to find it novel to trickle down the proceeds of the company to the bulk of it's employees is a pretty good indication of that.

> The greedy behavior that leads to the kind of inequality faced by today's society is now so well established that it has become hard to recognize for what it truly is. So in other words: It no longer requires any malice to pay this way, as it's just a cultural norm in the business world. By the way, it's also a cultural norm in the US to complain about the lack of generosity among those richer than you, and yet spe…

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what pay inequality looks like for top earners. This isn't about using pay to buy luxury items like iPhones vs putting that money to charity. This is about people stuffing bank accounts with more money than they'll be able to use in their lifetimes because the generations of executives that came before them made it acceptable to take a disproportionate cut of the earnings from a business.

Businesses _shouldn't_ exist for the purpose of making the executive team and the shareholders rich at the expense of the employees. American dream or not, businesses serve a purpose in _society_ not just the tiny fraction of society who have the skills to start and run the business.

The goal now is to make executives and shareholders disgustingly rich, and use the government to subsidize the underpaid workforce that generates that wealth. We've created a socialist state for corporations.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#264

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #54

justaguyhere wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a nice gesture from this CEO/company. I wish more companies tried this. That said, we shouldn't depend on the largesse/good nature/etc of a few rich individuals - if there is sensible minimum wage, sensible labor laws (and enforcement of these laws), sensible housing laws etc, we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Putting so many laws into place about how much you have to pay workers / etc. makes it harder for small companies to even start. To me, seeing a company pay its workers more voluntarily is the best option, and also one I wish more companies would go with.

[deleted]

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#265

Post by Frondo » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

mercer wrote: post #145

Kalium wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an excellent question! Let's see if we can address it with some math. I'll start with this: http://ir.united.com/corporate-governance/company-leadership This says there are 24 executives at United (I counted). If you assume literally every single one of them is paid as much as the CEO is and redistribute all that money across the whole of United, then that's 24 * $200 = $4800. $200 was rouding a bit ($207 is u…

Thanks for the calculation! I think limiting it to the 24 execs is still a bit on the conservative end of things (as far as equalizing pay goes), but it's interesting to think on. I'm actually surprised how merely broadening the calculation a bit already results in a quite significant amount. 5k is quite a bit! Anyways, thanks again :).

What I'd like to see is what the numbers look like if you:

1) Pegged the CEO lowest-paid worker (or contracted worker, so you can't just contract out the janitors) to no greater than 10 to 1.

2) Balance out the next few layers of management to reflect that cap.

3) And see what pay looks like for the lowest-paid workers.

If you don't like 10-to-1, maybe we do 20-to-1. Find a nice low ratio, though, and if people want to make more, they can run the business such that everyone makes more.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#266

Post by JimBrimble35 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #258

jakelazaroff wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So in other words: It no longer requires any malice to pay this way, as it's just a cultural norm in the business world. Sure. But I don't think this is a sufficient defense — at the extremes, cultural norms can result in horrific things even though individual actors may not be motivated by malice. > By the way, it's also a cultural norm in the US to complain about the lack of generosity among those richer than you…

> But even if I were to donate 100% of my salary, it would barely dent things for those 500 employees. There's a lot more people like you than billionares in the world, though.

_but the billionaire's have MOST of the money_

............ THAT'S THE PROBLEM

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#267

Post by brianpgordon » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #215

flush wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Financially supporting a charity is an extremely good way for someone with a lot of money to give back. The charitable person may not have expertise to distribute the money effectively, whereas a group who are familiar with the needs and thus where the money should go and how it should be used will use it well. IMO, what you're saying is akin to saying: Criminals on the streets? Why pay to hire m…

Very wrong analogy, sorry. You are misrepresenting what I said. You are also very generously assuming that charities actually do what they are supposed to. Here in Eastern Europe where I live this has been proven to be false, many times. Are you convinced it's better where you live?

In the United States larger nonprofits have a great deal of public accountability. They have to file public financial statements and there are numerous watchdog groups which publish ratings on their effectiveness. Check out Charity Navigator for example. You can also give to organizations like GiveWell which are paid specifically to research nonprofits and direct funds effectively.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#268

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

auiya wrote: post #239

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a whole plot line about how her wage was now in the 6 figures, and I was incredulous until I did a bit of research - Wal-Mart store managers can absolutely make that much money while their employees live in poverty. The problem is fundamentally this: A typical Wal-Mart store has around 300 employees. If you take the manager's entire $100,000 and distribute it to the employees, they each get less than $500…

And yet there are stores like Costco which do pay their employees quite comfortable wages and manage not to immediately bankrupt themselves. How is this so?

Different business models. Walmart sells a 10 oz box, Costco sells a 100 oz box using the same number of employees which allows them to pay each employee more. They employ fewer people per quantity of goods sold.

Walmart could sell 100 oz boxes, but then they wouldn't have the same customers. People who don't have the cabinet space or the money to buy everything in bulk couldn't shop there anymore. Then some other discount store selling in smaller quantities would spring up to serve those customers and they'd be the ones who couldn't pay higher wages.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#269

Post by harryh » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

OliverJones wrote: post #241

rayiner wrote: post #159

I wish redistribution to the very bottom was a bigger part of the political debate. Our politics is currently focused on redistribution from the very top to the middle class. (Stuff like free college or universal healthcare would primarily benefit the top half, because those folks are the ones who are in a position to be accepted to and attend college, and aren’t already covered by Medicaid.) The math of that is toug…

Maybe, just maybe, the feds and the states (in the US) should pass laws like this: Employers are liable to the government for four times the cost of providing SNAP (f/k/a food stamps), public housing, and other welfare benefits to their employees. 1/3 of any fines collected in this way would be payable to citizens who report the problems. It's totally unfair for the taxpayers to subsidize businesses by feeding and ho…

Hiring someone to work part time who has a spouse with a good full time job: totally fine.

Hiring someone to work part time who is a single mother: company gets saddled with massive fines.

Doesn't seem like the best plan.

Re: I froze the salaries of my executive team to benefit other workers

#270

Post by Matumio » Thu, May 16, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #54

justaguyhere wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a nice gesture from this CEO/company. I wish more companies tried this. That said, we shouldn't depend on the largesse/good nature/etc of a few rich individuals - if there is sensible minimum wage, sensible labor laws (and enforcement of these laws), sensible housing laws etc, we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Putting so many laws into place about how much you have to pay workers / etc. makes it harder for small companies to even start. To me, seeing a company pay its workers more voluntarily is the best option, and also one I wish more companies would go with.

Wishing for market players to act against their own self-interest, that is one strategy. In case it doesn't work, and you don't like minimum wage or complicated rules, another strategy might be to advocate for an universal basic income. I would even argue that this is less utopian than the first strategy.