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

31–40 of 280 posts

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

#31

Post by Ensorceled »

jameshush wrote: post #9
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?

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.

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.

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

#32

Post by jbigelow76 »

ekanes wrote: post #8

Interesting. He would have done well to have read The Hard Thing about Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, which conveys nicely that much of being a CEO is realizing that when you think you're talking to person X (about their salary, etc), you're also sending messages to everyone else in the company. You have to keep everyone in mind, all the time.

It seems (based on the Horowitz reference, pardon me if I am wrong) you're implying that Mr Price was wrong to make the change based on losing two key employees (and probably more that didn't up and quit). Maybe at the time he didn't anticipate that some would feel slighted but he also didn't know really what the change mean to the lives of other of his employees.

An interesting question would be "if you could go back in time would you do it all over again?" (PR and ego would probably indicate "yes" but we would never know the real truth).

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

#33

Post by jimmaswell »

jameshush wrote: post #9
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?

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.

One argument could be that the incentive to contribute to what used to be a higher-paid higher-skilled job goes away so now less people will do it, harming society as a whole.

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

#34

Post by marcosdumay »

jameshush wrote: post #9
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?

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.

Think about it this way:

1 - My productivity is X per month. (Whatever your definition of productivity, it must be, because I can ask for a bigger salary.) 2 - This other guy productivity is X/2 per month. (By the same rationale.) 3 - The other guy gets a raise, and now is paid twice for the same work. 4 - It follows that I'm losing the opportunity of a raise, because I do more than him.

It's not logically rigorous, it may not be true at all, but it's not an irrational reaction either.

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

#35

Post by ekanes »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #32
ekanes wrote: post #8

Interesting. He would have done well to have read The Hard Thing about Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, which conveys nicely that much of being a CEO is realizing that when you think you're talking to person X (about their salary, etc), you're also sending messages to everyone else in the company. You have to keep everyone in mind, all the time.

It seems (based on the Horowitz reference, pardon me if I am wrong) you're implying that Mr Price was wrong to make the change based on losing two key employees (and probably more that didn't up and quit). Maybe at the time he didn't anticipate that some would feel slighted but he also didn't know really what the change mean to the lives of other of his employees. An interesting question would be "if you could go bac…

It's not so much that the change was wrong or right, but that Mr Price didn't anticipate how big a deal it would be, both internally and externally. While a couple employees might have left, it sounds like the company may now be in a financial crisis which is a bigger deal.

I'm mostly saying he should have thought it through more, even if he did go through with it.

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

#36

Post by jbigelow76 »

pjc50 wrote: post #10
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.

"It's not enough to succeed. Others must fail." For many people, it's about the relative ranking of their worth as a person.

It just makes the math easier that way :)

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

#37

Post by sharkweek »

apsec112 wrote: post #29

Talking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have made it very difficult to construct new housing. If a million families want to live in a city, and the city only allows half a million houses to be built, then a lot of people are going to be forced out. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question…

Oof don't get me started.

I like to consider myself a regular at my neighborhood council's meetings (NE Seattle). When the city shows up to present development plans, only older generations who feel somewhat entitled to their neighborhood's "culture" show up and berate the plans. At the last one, some lady was pissed because a new apartment building might block partial sunlight in her yard, which is apparently more important than 400 market priced units becoming available in a city starved for housing.

Then these same people get upset at Amazon (I have no affiliation) for bringing in tech money and causing a massive housing shortage. They then allow their short term memories to forget what a shithole South Lake Union was before Amazon bought and developed on the land.

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

#38

Post by buerkle »

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.

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

#39

Post by icebraining »

Ensorceled wrote: post #31
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.

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 :)

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

#40

Post by a3voices »

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.
Post reply on HN