A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared

Post by brewdad » Sun, Aug 02, 2015, 3:14 AM UTC

mrkurt wrote: post #171

scarmig wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which has more high rises: Buffalo or NYC? I'd argue you're mostly getting cause and effect backwards: places end up with lots of high rises because they're the most economically productive localities. Obviously at the margin another high rise will lower prices a bit , but the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Which isn't nothing, but it's…

There are lots of places either similarly, or more dense than San Francisco with housing people can buy on an $80k salary. All of these places allow for higher density housing. Sure SF is way behind the curve at this point, but it's a bit silly to argue that "policy debt" is a reason policy changes wouldn't do much.

Post by Ensorceled » Sun, Aug 02, 2015, 8:32 PM UTC

pm24601 wrote: post #170

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.

And you would be replaced by people that would regard your (former) pay as a huge salary increase. Don't be so certain that the company will be sad to see you leave. The people who replace you might be even better than you.

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 1:05 AM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #263

pm24601 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you would be replaced by people that would regard your (former) pay as a huge salary increase. Don't be so certain that the company will be sad to see you leave. The people who replace you might be even better than you.

Why would I be replaced? I'm still there and just as productive as all my peers?

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 1:12 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #159

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.

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 1:21 AM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #121

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…

This is ridiculous. Any change in pay structure is going to cause someone to get the short end. Who doesn't want more money? Who doesn't have getting less? One thing's for certain: there's a whole bunch of people who are butthurt about lower class people getting more money. Wonder what that reflects about them...

   the CEO