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

271–280 of 280 posts

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

#271

Post by sologoub »

andrewvc wrote: post #67
sologoub wrote: post #51

One scenario this article doesn't address is a situation where an employee who previously earned a lot less comes to rely on the higher salary and adjusts his/her expenses accordingly, but then for whatever reason ends up having to look for another job, which is unlikely to pay nearly as much. I'm guessing that while the situation would be extremely unfortunate, the overall higher income should still help cushion the…

I'm not sure if you realize that the poor hold on to a ton of debt in this country, and a large part of it is their inability to dig themselves out of the holes they're in. Now, it is true that financial literacy is tends to be low among those who make little, but it is also the case that many people who are financially literate, but poor, just can't dig themselves out of debt. Medical expenses, for instance, are one…

I do realize that and am fairly familiar with how the cycle works, largely fueled by pay-day loans.

Is your hypothesis that the higher income, even if temporary, may afford significant relief from this?

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

#272

Post by hueving »

EliRivers wrote: post #218
hueving wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a common mistake. The housing prices increasing means demand had already gone up. An increase doesn't leaf to more demand. If people were paying increased prices, it means the demand has increased enough for the seller to make the sale at the inflated price.

You are incorrect. Also a common mistake. An increase doesn't lead to more demand. Yes it does. People see prices going up. They see the front page of a tabloid paper declaring it repeatedly. They panic about "missing the boat" and other such. They see people who did buy sitting on sudden equity gains, and they want some of that. They were going to wait, but now they won't. They stretch, and go out and buy. Extra peo…

You've just wasted a lot of space describing supply and demand. The same thing applies to any commodity or potential investment vehicle. People buy gold when they think the price will go up, which increases demand and therefore the price. There is nothing special about houses other than the fact that you can live in them.

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

#273

Post by Ensorceled »

pm24601 wrote: post #265
Ensorceled wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

because now you are 9-5-ing it for a salary that is above the median wage for Seattle. ( http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2013/09/median-incom... ). Considering that this is also above the median income for the Washington and the US as a whole. There were a number of people making less than that at Gravity Payments; so it seems likely that there are other qualified people in the area who will appreciate the sa…

Who said I would be grumpy or toxic? Just working the same hours as my peers would actually probably make me less grumpy. I'd be very happy and grateful to adjust my effort downwards if I can keep my same salary.

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

#274

Post by EliRivers »

hueving wrote: post #272
EliRivers wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incorrect. Also a common mistake. An increase doesn't lead to more demand. Yes it does. People see prices going up. They see the front page of a tabloid paper declaring it repeatedly. They panic about "missing the boat" and other such. They see people who did buy sitting on sudden equity gains, and they want some of that. They were going to wait, but now they won't. They stretch, and go out and buy. Extra peo…

You've just wasted a lot of space describing supply and demand. The same thing applies to any commodity or potential investment vehicle. People buy gold when they think the price will go up, which increases demand and therefore the price. There is nothing special about houses other than the fact that you can live in them.

The point I'm making is that the supply that most affects house prices is not the supply of houses, so to say it's "supply and demand" and stop there is to imply heavily that the supply in question is the supply of houses. Which is wrong.

commodity

Houses AREN'T commodities. Commodities are, by definition, fungible. Houses are not fungible. If you are thinking of houses as a commodity, and trying to apply the rules of commodity economics, that is a large part of your misunderstanding.

There is nothing special about houses other than the fact that you can live in them.

That's also not true. Something funny happens inside people's heads with houses. They will go to stupid lengths and put themselves into ridiculous situations in order to get one. People who would drop any other investment with the same characteristics like a hot potato somehow can't see it when it's a house. They're not like "any commodity or potential investment vehicle" (not least because they are NOT a commodity, as explained above), and to say that they are is wrong.

As it is, I'm presenting a lot of argument and you're going "nu uh, nu uh, you're wrong". Do you have anything other than just saying "nu uh", or is that the limit of your argument? If this is a fundamental axiom for you that simply cannot be argued, just say so.

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

#275

Post by EliRivers »

omonra wrote: post #224
EliRivers wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As someone who actually lived in a socialist country (the one that started the whole socialism business :), take it from me. While the original framework devised by Marx in the 19th century referred to means of production, in actuality the socialism that came to pass meant that salaries were set for a given position / seniority with no relation to the person's education or how good of a job they were doing. Ie that w…

Sure, that's one set of data, but there are other organisations of various sizes and various degrees of socialism. To tar them all with the brush of the former USSR hardly seems fair.

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

#276

Post by run4yourlives2 »

pm24601 wrote: post #172
run4yourlives2 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> If you suggest all of a sudden that I'm not any more valuable than the receptionist hired last month, you should rightly expect that I'd be a little pissed. Then leave. Seriously. If you are so upset then leave. But when interviewing, you might want to come up with a different reason for leaving the job. The interviewer might not be so understanding. Update: wow, a downvote. :-) I welcome the downvotes.

That's what they did. Point being that upsets the company more than the person leaving.

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

#277

Post by omonra »

EliRivers wrote: post #275
omonra wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who actually lived in a socialist country (the one that started the whole socialism business :), take it from me. While the original framework devised by Marx in the 19th century referred to means of production, in actuality the socialism that came to pass meant that salaries were set for a given position / seniority with no relation to the person's education or how good of a job they were doing. Ie that w…

Sure, that's one set of data, but there are other organisations of various sizes and various degrees of socialism. To tar them all with the brush of the former USSR hardly seems fair.

At one point half the world was living under socialism - that's a pretty big set. Perhaps other species would have a better way of executing it :)

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

#278

Post by Spooky23 »

sopooneo wrote: post #254
Spooky23 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So compared to his contemporaries, was your grandfather a better man, a more prudent man, or both?

A bit of both. He was a great guy who loved people, selling stuff to them was just a thing you did to keep the conversation going. But, he wasn't unique in doing this... plenty of business owners, especially smaller businesses, pay for better employees. Ever go to a hardware store where the clerk has worked there for 20 years? She doesn't make minimum wage.

I think the discussion here is a demonstration of how bean counters have conquered the world.

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

#279

Post by vancouverwill »

mistermann wrote: post #191
wmboy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting and even nonsensical. He's an entrepreneur, owns a for-profit business and is choosing to compensate how he wants to. It's actually the definition of how capitalism can improve quality of life for everyone, is it not?

Not really, because he's pushing towards a completely arbitrary minimum $70k salary for everyone. That's certainly his right as the business owner, and that sentiment shared more widely might be better for society, but there's nothing particularly "capitalistic" about it.

He hasn't limited upper cap he has imply set a higher base salary.

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

#280

Post by sebkomianos »

prostoalex wrote: post #145
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.

I think this was researched in numerous psychology studies. All else being equal, people were happier earning $70,000 knowing that their peers earned $50,000, and unhappier earning $90,000 knowing that their peers earned $110,000. I am likely wrong on exact numbers, but studies are well-known enough to be quoted in "Fooled by Randomness", "Predictably Irrational" and some other pop-psych titles.

It might be about the percentages as well: 70k out of available 120k in total (first case) is 58.3%, much lower than 90k out of 200k (45%).
Post reply on HN