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

41–50 of 280 posts

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

#41

Post by buerkle »

austenallred wrote: post #27

While I have no idea whether this will work (or if it's a good idea), the most interesting part of all of this, to me, is the backlash from people calling it "unbridled Socialism." I'm still not sure how a CEO of a profitable company electing to pay his employees more becomes a political debate. If it fails, perhaps it's a failed experiment in Capitalism? It's not like anyone is forcing the business owner to do this.…

Because it makes a good story in their circle of people who don't know the meaning of socialism. If the CEO of a company is not making 200-300 times their average employee, they think it's socialism.

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

#42

Post by oh_sigh »

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.

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 feel that it was somewhat unfair?

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

#43

Post by gohrt »

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…

There's no need to toss "liberal" in there. Dense cities tend to have rent-control, and Dense cities tend to have people with policies generally referred to as "liberal" (to the extent that "liberal" means anything.

But NIMBYism and status-quoism is not just a liberal issue, and "not changing the neighborhood" is right in line with the definition of "conservative", which means a preference for how things already are and against risky changes.

Trying to squeeze any question into a "liberal-conservative" split just muddies the issue.

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

#44

Post by dmitrygr »

The departure of most values employees is not surprising. In their place I'd do the same. I want no part of working in a place where salary is based 100% on politics and 0% on merit.

curious all the quitters said the same thing (if you read the article)

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

#45

Post by gohrt »

temuze wrote: post #22
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.

“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.”

That philosopky is what leads to the exploited poor being unaware of how much wealth the empowered are hoarding.

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

#46

Post by scarmig »

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…

Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productive people and companies are located in them.

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

#47

Post by doki_pen »

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.

Even if people are paid the same, when times are tough the true value of each employee will be obvious. It's also not unusually to "signal" value through other types of compensation.

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

#48

Post by hueving »

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 :)

The downside is that the company innovation dies way down because you've killed the meritocracy. Good people will either slack or leave.

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

#49

Post by omonra »

austenallred wrote: post #27

While I have no idea whether this will work (or if it's a good idea), the most interesting part of all of this, to me, is the backlash from people calling it "unbridled Socialism." I'm still not sure how a CEO of a profitable company electing to pay his employees more becomes a political debate. If it fails, perhaps it's a failed experiment in Capitalism? It's not like anyone is forcing the business owner to do this.…

I'll try to explain.

People call it socialism because a starting salary of 70k is likely to be uneconomic. Ie the cost of the employee is set above their value to the company. This is done at the expense of other stakeholders (ie management and investors, possibly other employees who would be paid less).

That's kinda the basic premise of socialism - whereby an employee's salary is dissociated from the economic benefit they bring.

Ie the backlash is because he chose to set everybody's salaries fairly high, regardless of seniority, etc.

Post reply on HN