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

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

#81

Post by moistgorilla » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #46

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.

It's both but not having new housing built is definitely not helping

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

#82

Post by azernik » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

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?

You are not crazy. My thoughts were that this reaction is totally predictable, no matter how morally absurd.

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

#83

Post by moistgorilla » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

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 for the company

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

#84

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #76

gohrt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Specifically, in the coastal cities where this is an issue, usually both sides of the development/anti-development political spectrum identify as liberal. It's very orthogonal to the issues involved in state or national politics.

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by pbreit » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

Wouldn't a simple stated policy of having generous compensation have been sufficient without creating all the problems from the blunt, arbitrary minimum?

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

#86

Post by jsprogrammer » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

thuuuomas wrote: post #75

jsprogrammer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropomorphize much? Are the crabs aware of their situation? Are they actually consciously preventing the other crabs from escaping? Or are they just trying to grab on to anything they can get get out of the crab-pile? Seems like a deeply flawed metaphor that will likely lead you astray.

The crab's "intentions" are immaterial! Like, if a human meerely intends "to grab on anything they can to get out of the [human]-pile", & they're quite rude/destructive while doing so, they're still rude/destructive regardless of how sympathetic we may judge their intentions to be.

Certainly. The linked reference argues otherwise though:

>is a phrase that describes a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you."

>Individually, the crabs could easily escape from the pot, but instead, they grab at each other in a useless "king of the hill" competition which prevents any from escaping and ensures their collective demise.

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

#87

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

Vexs wrote: post #53

sharkweek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 campa…

That seems like it wouldn't work... I mean, a fraction of the 'older generation' dies off every day.... and a few new people join the 'older generation' as they age.

Now, I can imagine saying things like "The progress will only happen once all the people who grew up with things being the old way die off," especially with things like interracial or gay marriage, but I don't think that applies to something like housing. Whoever owns the current houses will never want more houses built; that will only drive down the value of their property. It may be true that the people who own those homes are usually older, but that will not end when they 'die off'.

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

#88

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

The cool thing about how incentives work: instead of being angry that relative slackers are now making $70K, be happy that when they are fired, they will be replaced from a pool of hopefuls an order of magnitude larger then when the company had to settle on hiring those slackers in the first place.

It's funny how libertarian conservatism gets apoplectic when wealthy people make the wrong choice. Then they get all "Virtue of Selfishness" on your ass.

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

#89

Post by scarmig » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:33 PM UTC

a3voices wrote: post #74

scarmig wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. They're expensive because there's not enough high rises that would provide tons more housing space.

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 important to be clear that no one making, say, $80k a year will ever be able to purchase a house or condo in San Francisco, regardless of our policy choices.

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

#90

Post by hueving » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 7:33 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #46

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.

Housing follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else. Cities with lots of jobs draw in migrant workers. Cities that raise minimum wage bring in more workers from neighboring areas with lower wages. Those people need a place to live.