CEO who set firm's minimum wage at $70,000 hits hard times

[swingline]

Originally Posted by Alientank

The CEO should have kept his yap shut and just quietly increased peoples pay. Of course, this would get around the office quickly.

One of the reasons he gave for making the increased pay public was to encourage other businesses to do the same thing which would prevent the government from regulating wages.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

One of the reasons he gave for making the increased pay public was to encourage other businesses to do the same thing which would prevent the government from regulating wages.

Which would drive many, if not most companies out of business.

[Nagorak]

Originally Posted by Progression

Tons of misconceptions there, the brain is constantly evolving based on experience. You are not "set" by genetics. You may get an starting point but it is not deterministic unless you have a severe disability, which is a different thing altogether. Intelligence, skill and understanding certainly increase with practice (just not IQ; I hope you don't think of IQ = inteligence).

Well, I'd say I pretty much don't agree based on my experience. You can improve anything, but the starting point is vastly different among different people. Intelligence is no different than physical traits. It doesn't matter how much I worked out or how many steroids I took, I could never be Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could never be a major league baseball player. I could also never be a great mathematician. These are simple facts. I just don't have the innate talent for it.

This idea that anyone can do anything with enough effort is just completely deluded. A lot of people will simply never be that good at certain things, and certainly not exceptional at them. You can improve your abilities but if you don't have a natural talent in the first place, then there are other people who will be better, even with much less effort invested. There are many people who try hard in school and still get mediocre grades, while there are others who barely even study and still ace the test. The sad truth is life isn't fair.

As far as intelligence, there are a lot of different intelligences and aptitudes, so it's not just one thing. But for a given aptitude if your brain is not wired right in the first place, you're swimming upstream and will always be at least a few steps behind. Yes, there can also be people who are great at something, for example engineering, who are otherwise complete fools. Then you can have people who are really talented at something, but don't apply themselves, or screw around and do drugs, etc. So, it's not all black and white.

That isn't to say that people shouldn't try to improve themselves to the best of their abilities, but you have to be realistic about where your talents lie. I've seen it before where someone wants to go into a field/line of work which they are totally unsuited for, and it predictably ends badly. Not everyone can be a doctor/lawyer,etc, or even a mechanic or plumber for that matter, and the problem often isn't lack of effort or motivation.

[Jay20016]

Originally Posted by IamHere

Which would drive many, if not most companies out of business.

Would it though? Smaller ones, maybe... larger ones, potentially. Multinational ones? More than likely not; as you could give 100,000 employees a $10,000 a year increase in pay and only shave off a billion dollars. That way, when Apple posts a year end profit, they'd only be making 7.5 billion dollars, instead of 8.5. Or, Wal-mart deciding to take only the meager sum of $128.5 billion, rather than $129.5 billion. Hell, if Wal-Mart decided to pay each of its US employees an extra $10k a year, that would still only net them a minuscule sum of $116.5 billion dollars. What ever are the Walton family members going to do without that money.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by Jay20016

Would it though? Smaller ones, maybe... larger ones, potentially. Multinational ones? More than likely not; as you could give 100,000 employees a $10,000 a year increase in pay and only shave off a billion dollars. That way, when Apple posts a year end profit, they'd only be making 7.5 billion dollars, instead of 8.5. Or, Wal-mart deciding to take only the meager sum of $128.5 billion, rather than $129.5 billion. Hell, if Wal-Mart decided to pay each of its US employees an extra $10k a year, that would still only net them a minuscule sum of $116.5 billion dollars. What ever are the Walton family members going to do without that money.

So, what, bankrupt all the small companies? Sounds good lets do it....

[Sasquach]

Originally Posted by Jay20016

Would it though? Smaller ones, maybe... larger ones, potentially. Multinational ones? More than likely not; as you could give 100,000 employees a $10,000 a year increase in pay and only shave off a billion dollars. That way, when Apple posts a year end profit, they'd only be making 7.5 billion dollars, instead of 8.5. Or, Wal-mart deciding to take only the meager sum of $128.5 billion, rather than $129.5 billion. Hell, if Wal-Mart decided to pay each of its US employees an extra $10k a year, that would still only net them a minuscule sum of $116.5 billion dollars. What ever are the Walton family members going to do without that money.

except big corporations aren't gonna sacrifice the bottom line to make the numbers work. They're gonna clean house and claim "we cant sustain the raises so we have to lay off the workers"

[Jay20016]

Originally Posted by IamHere

So, what, bankrupt all the small companies? Sounds good lets do it....

Sink or swim? Capitalism at work? Doing God's plan?

[swingline]

Originally Posted by IamHere

So, what, bankrupt all the small companies? Sounds good lets do it....

<-- Partner of a small business. Only one employee makes less than six-figures (secretary/office manager). Not going bankrupt anytime soon.

[Jay20016]

Originally Posted by Sasquach

except big corporations aren't gonna sacrifice the bottom line to make the numbers work. They're gonna clean house and claim "we cant sustain the raises so we have to lay off the workers"

Believe me, I'm well aware of this. That the US Government basically grants corporate welfare to Walmart by extending low income benefits to its full time workers so that they can afford to live, is just one reason as to why they don't have to do ****. They easily could and not feel an once of pain, but refuse to because money to some is the most addictive game you can embark upon. They see it as the cookie clicker counter ever rising...

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

<-- Partner of a small business. Only one employee makes less than six-figures (secretary/office manager). Not going bankrupt anytime soon.

Wow, that is so representative of every small business.

[swingline]

Maybe you shouldn't use words like "all" and "every" when trying to make a point chief if you don't like a contradictory example.

Edit: And to get back to the point - I doubt this CEO was encouraging other businesses to follow suit and pay their workers more if it meant those businesses would fail as a result. Until this guy turns into some dictator that can mandate the salaries of others, all he's done is serve as an example to other owners why arbitrary pay raises are a bad idea.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

Maybe you shouldn't use words like "all" and "every" when trying to make a point chief if you don't like a contradictory example.

Edit: And to get back to the point - I doubt this CEO was encouraging other businesses to follow suit and pay their workers more if it meant those businesses would fail as a result. Until this guy turns into some dictator that can mandate the salaries of others, all he's done is serve as an example to other owners why arbitrary pay raises are a bad idea.

Ok chief. If you read what I was replying to, he insinuated that the small companies would be screwed, so just stated more succinctly. Oh, and by the way, calling someone chief is really a dick move. Dick.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

Maybe you shouldn't use words like "all" and "every" when trying to make a point chief if you don't like a contradictory example.

Edit: And to get back to the point - I doubt this CEO was encouraging other businesses to follow suit and pay their workers more if it meant those businesses would fail as a result. Until this guy turns into some dictator that can mandate the salaries of others, all he's done is serve as an example to other owners why arbitrary pay raises are a bad idea.

Even though he is failing, but set himself as an example... I really wonder about just how screwed we are.

[kepler]

It's kind of weird that people are so personally offended by all this.

[Higgy10]

Originally Posted by swingline

<-- Partner of a small business. Only one employee makes less than six-figures (secretary/office manager). Not going bankrupt anytime soon.

Small biz owner here swing, something like this would be put me on the welfare line(FTR im a greedy bastard and would never give my workers that much cake), same for pretty much any small biz I know of. Well I wouldn't go bankrupt but id lay off every employee I have and just work solo.

[Canesfan2020]

Originally Posted by kepler

It's kind of weird that people are so personally offended by all this.

No it isn't. You're taking away bragging "rights".

[Zoolok]

I think it all comes down to responsibility, not how actually hard is the work you do. If my work is more responsible (and then more important for the company) than someone else's, I want that to be adequately rewarded (doesn't have to translate to more money, not in my case, anyway).

But if, say, you give someone on a starting position one salary, and then someone on a much higher and more responsible position, just a bit more, you in the end kinda demotivate both of them? The more responsible guy will tell you "are my sleepless nights really only worth $500 more?" and the lower positioned guy will lose the motive to be more responsible and advance, since it's such a tiny reward for doing so.

Obviously, the minimum salary should be one that lets people live normal lives, but you also need to reward people according to the work they do for you. If these really were "most valued" employees, then they should have been given "most valued" rewards as well, not just (basically) a tap on the back (and it looks like that happened, when the CEO raised minimum salaries, but not salaries of people on higher positions? Their reward for the work they do suddenly went from "much more money" to "a bit more (or same?) money and a thank you").

In other words, money is an ok (at best) motivator, but a very strong demotivator, and if I think I'm being paid less than what I'm worth to the company, I'll be unhappy (and I think this is what it is about, I doubt anyone complained about people getting raises, but about the fact that now the difference in rewards was not equal to the difference in what they felt they brought to the company).

[IamHere]

Walmart is having the same problems. They raised the bottom and ignored the middle and now those people are leaving and/or complaining hard about it. You can't raise the bottom without hurting the middle. When Walmart raises pay, they will increase the cost of their goods. They will not let it hurt their bottom line. So those that need to purchase those goods (and did not get a raise) are, in a way, getting a pay cut. This will spread far and wide as the ignorant press continues to push this non-issue. The reason that people are getting paid close to minimum wage is because we have too many workers for too few jobs. When I was 17 (40 years ago) minimum wage was $3.35, but my first job at a gas station paid $5.55. They had to pay because there were not enough workers. This is caused by outsourcing of jobs, which both parties have had a hand in, and immigration. One or both need to be stopped if we are going to turn this around. Sadly there is no will to do either.

[swingline]

Originally Posted by IamHere

Ok chief. If you read what I was replying to, he insinuated that the small companies would be screwed, so just stated more succinctly. Oh, and by the way, calling someone chief is really a dick move. Dick.

Do you feel better now?

Originally Posted by Higgy10

Small biz owner here swing, something like this would be put me on the welfare line(FTR im a greedy bastard and would never give my workers that much cake), same for pretty much any small biz I know of. Well I wouldn't go bankrupt but id lay off every employee I have and just work solo.

Somehow, people seem to be missing how "something like this" was a completely voluntary decision made by the CEO of one small company. In no way am I suggesting what works for me will work for anyone else.

Business owners make all kinds bad decisions everyday that negatively impact their profits, this was just a really obvious one.

[Higgy10]

Originally Posted by swingline

Do you feel better now?



Somehow, people seem to be missing how "something like this" was a completely voluntary decision made by the CEO of one small company. In no way am I suggesting what works for me will work for anyone else.

Business owners make all kinds bad decisions everyday that negatively impact their profits, this was just a really obvious one.

I know it was voluntary. Publicity stunt that backfired. Its a good case study for wage parity in the workplace tho.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

Do you feel better now?



Somehow, people seem to be missing how "something like this" was a completely voluntary decision made by the CEO of one small company. In no way am I suggesting what works for me will work for anyone else.

Business owners make all kinds bad decisions everyday that negatively impact their profits, this was just a really obvious one.

Walmart is getting caught up, and I would expect that others will either be forced to do it to stop union inroads, or shamed into it. The thing is, most of these jobs can be automated to some degree or other. As soon as McD's is pushed enough, they will get rid of almost everyone. They will just automate and hire one or two guys to keep it up and running. Then we will hear more complaining.

[swingline]

I'm sure people that built stage coaches complained when people started driving cars. If jobs are automated, there will need to be workers to maintain the robots and all the supporting infrastructure. If robots start taking care of other robots, we have bigger worries than worker's wages.

The problem isn't at the bottom end of the pay scale - it's at the top where kids are going into massive amounts of debt for an education that does not give them the skills to participate in the workplace.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

I'm sure people that built stage coaches complained when people started driving cars. If jobs are automated, there will need to be workers to maintain the robots and all the supporting infrastructure. If robots start taking care of other robots, we have bigger worries than worker's wages.

The problem isn't at the bottom end of the pay scale - it's at the top were kids are going into massive amounts of debt for an education that does not give them the skills are participate in the workplace.

That is also a major problem, but maybe the answer is to tell them to stop getting degrees in basket weaving? Get a degree that directly relates to position and your chances go way up. There are no out of work nurses, or doctors. There are many out of work art history majors that will never work in that field.

[swingline]

Telling people what degrees to get sounds like communism.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by swingline

Telling people what degrees to get sounds like communism.

No, it just sounds like good advice. I did not tell the government to do it (though they should stop giving loans for them because they will not get paid back). Colleges are in this to make money, they don't care if the piece of paper they give you will help you in life or not. This is why I stress to my son that if wants to be successful, he needs to pick a degree that will give him a job for life. Once you have that you can get further education without fear because you will always have that degree.

[Elysian]

Originally Posted by IamHere

That is also a major problem, but maybe the answer is to tell them to stop getting degrees in basket weaving? Get a degree that directly relates to position and your chances go way up. There are no out of work nurses, or doctors. There are many out of work art history majors that will never work in that field.

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/...ollege-majors/

Maybe they should stop getting jobs in business administration.

[IamHere]

Originally Posted by Elysian

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/...ollege-majors/

Maybe they should stop getting jobs in business administration.

You did mean degrees, right? Because if they are getting jobs, their degree did it's job. You did notice that quite a few of those degrees were the very type I was talking about, right?

[MasterGoa]

Originally Posted by swingline

Telling people what degrees to get sounds like communism.

It is communist to get people to study for available, good paying jobs?

I think you need to flip your perspective outside-in

[SteadVéx]

Originally Posted by kepler

It's kind of weird that people are so personally offended by all this.

I see your not from America! ... I also find this strange...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by IamHere

Walmart is getting caught up, and I would expect that others will either be forced to do it to stop union inroads, or shamed into it. The thing is, most of these jobs can be automated to some degree or other. As soon as McD's is pushed enough, they will get rid of almost everyone. They will just automate and hire one or two guys to keep it up and running. Then we will hear more complaining.

I know the place I work for is implementing self-serve ordering systems. They claim it's to make things easier on the customer and allow them to get in and out. Reality = we aren't going to pay a teenager $15 an hour to ring in orders.