A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by sologoub » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

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 blow, provided the money was not completely spent, and leave that person better off.

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

#52

Post by hueving » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #12

DarkTree wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not at all. I think it would have made more sense to give each employee a raise based on a percentage of their income. That way, everyone gets a pay raise, and you can give more money to the lower earners without offending employees because it is an equal percentage increase.

The "higher earners" would receive an even larger increase in that case.

They would need a slightly larger raise to offset taxes, but you're a percentage match is probably too much.

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

#53

Post by Vexs » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

sharkweek wrote: post #37

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 i…

There's an entire economic theory that progress only happens when the older generation dies off. A bit grim, but I can believe it. There's a subdivision near my house that allows only 55+, and anytime anyone wants to do anything it's a massive shitshow. They stalled a much needed bond for a local highschool for two years (during which said highschool got really, really overcrowded) and actually ran insane smear campaigns against the school board. Not fun.

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

#54

Post by ManFromUranus » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

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.…

> the backlash from people calling this "unbridled Socialism."

It depends on the CEO's reasoning for paying the employees more. If he paid them more for economic reasons, reducing turnover, or incentive pay for increased performance, or a retention bonus or something like that then it's capitalism. If he paid them more because he's moralising about society, or out of pity, or fear of some kind of social backlash, then I would say it's socialism that motivated it.

Okay after reading the article, I would agree with Rush's take on calling it socialism.

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

#55

Post by DarkTree » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #12

DarkTree wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not at all. I think it would have made more sense to give each employee a raise based on a percentage of their income. That way, everyone gets a pay raise, and you can give more money to the lower earners without offending employees because it is an equal percentage increase.

The "higher earners" would receive an even larger increase in that case.

Not if you take into account taxes.

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

#56

Post by swyman » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:15 PM UTC

a3voices wrote: post #50

I don't see why the CEO feels the need to fix problems with capitalism instead of just doing what's best for the company.

Some people care about things other than what's immediately in front of their faces on a day-to-day basis

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

#57

Post by Lawtonfogle » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

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.

It reminds me of the view that poor people should be happy because they are still living a very high standard of wealth compared to some people in other countries. People have already created a list of problems with using an absolute standard; I'm sure many of them will carry over.

Also, it does impact you directly. As those around you get paid more, there is more disposable income which impacts pricing. Now, a hundred employees in a large city has zero actual impact, but the psychological resistance is already there because it will have an actual impact at larger scale (also could impact if there is a company store/cafeteria or such, but I don't think that applies here).

Then there is the notion of unequal raises. If someone else gets a 200% raise because the company has enough money, you are left wondering why you didn't get one. Did you not do good enough? Even if you already had a raise, if it was for some other reason, you are left wondering why you don't get one. Once again, even with a rational reason (because you were already making above the new minimum), the emotional damage is still there. Such a raise doesn't feel fair, regardless if it is or isn't.

Finally, considering how many times people are denied wages 'because the money isn't in the budget for it' (even if that is just used as an excuse), there is a chance one who deserves a raise can be denied it because the budgeted money for raises was already spent on other raises.

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

#58

Post by rrss1122 » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

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.

The arguments presented by the employees quoted in the article make it seem that it is exactly about someone else earning more money taking your money, not actual money but potential money. One of the high profile employees that left talked to Mr. Price about the fairness of newer employees with less responsibilities getting a dramatic pay raise while she and her co-workers, who have been at the company longer and have more responsibilities, did not receive a similarly substantial raise. It doesn't say exactly what Mr. Price said to her, but from her reaction ("He treated me as if I was being selfish and only thinking about myself") I would guess she got something close to "how does someone else earning more money hurt you?"

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

#59

Post by a3voices » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

gohrt wrote: post #43

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…

Well liberals often favor regulations and licenses for everything, and these prevent or delay new housing from being constructed.

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

#60

Post by zekevermillion » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:17 PM UTC

Better to give everyone the same % raise, out of your pocket, then create a reason for jealousy and other silliness within the company. It seems irrational for someone to care about what other people make. As long as you're OK in absolute terms, what does it matter? But I've seen people get really pissed and quit over the perceived slight of a coworker getting a nominal bonus that was not "deserved".