CEO Who Raised Minimum Salary to $70k, Falls On Hard Times

[ultramanhyata]

You're posting as if I'm saying that people shouldn't get raises when their value increases, when we're talking about a situation where people *did* get raises--putting their wages out of line with what the market would call for--but they were upset because others at their work got relatively bigger raises. By all means, try to explain that without it being due to envy.

Humanly, I can understand the impulse to Keep Up With The Jones'; that is, to envy those who have more money than you and thus try to obtain the same. I understand how such an impulse can drive an economy.

But what I'm really beginning to see for the first time is another impulse... The impulse to Outpace The Smiths'; that is, the desire to enlarge the margin between yourself and those who already have less money than you do. And this motivation is alien to me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Humanly, I can understand the impulse to Keep Up With The Jones'; that is, to envy those who have more money than you and thus try to obtain the same. I understand how such an impulse can drive an economy.

But what I'm really beginning to see for the first time is another impulse... The impulse to Outpace The Smiths'; that is, the desire to enlarge the margin between yourself and those who already have less money than you do. And this motivation is alien to me.

Honestly, I think that is the single biggest issue in the left/right divide in emotional terms. There are people who look at it neither way or both ways and probably people who look at it one way that can be convinced by arguments to fall somewhere else on the spectrum, etc., but the single most important question in terms of political orientation is "are you more worried or more sympathetic to others who are more worried about losing status or about the difficulty of increasing status?" How you answer that influences how you feel about racism, sexism, the appropriate level of belligerence in foreign policy, the social safety net, taxation, etc.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

The format where when I quote you, the whole thing disappears. If you have a point to make, make it. Sounds like you're just whining about nothing, to be honest.



The other idiot said that people have a reason for wanting to keep their co-workers down besides envy, and that is that if their co-workers are paid less, they will get paid more (or in a softer form, that they could be paid more). That is not how wages are set. That argument holds no water (and, frankly, reflects an appalling lack of understanding of our world--I do not believe anyone would pay him to work in finance).

That's how we do it (for raises) and I work for a rather large company. Each group is given X dollars. That money is then divided up based on regions. Then divided up between the employees. So for ex:my team has 15k avail to give in raises. That is divided up between the 10 reps at the branch. So if Bob gets a huge raise, he has taken money out of the pool. If Bob gets a lower raise, that leaves more money in the pool. So yes, do I hope Bob underperformed or called in sick too much, hell yes I do, because that means there is more money left for me. That doesn't mean bob makes more or less than me as a whole. He may have had a great year last year and a bad one this year or vice versa.

We have over 20k employees.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's how we do it (for raises) and I work for a rather large company. Each group is given X dollars. That money is then divided up based on regions. Then divided up between the employees. So for ex:my team has 15k avail to give in raises. That is divided up between the 10 reps at the branch. So if Bob gets a huge raise, he has taken money out of the pool. If Bob gets a lower raise, that leaves more money in the pool. So yes, do I hope Bob underperformed or called in sick too much, hell yes I do, because that means there is more money left for me. That doesn't mean bob makes more or less than me as a whole. He may have had a great year last year and a bad one this year or vice versa.

We have over 20k employees.

And that's a permanent raise? That's really weird. What company is it?

 

[ChainFlow]

I worked at a company (based out of Texas) that did the same thing. There's no reason they have to do raises this way of course. It just suits them to promote division in the workers.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

And that's a permanent raise? That's really weird. What company is it?

Yes that's permanent. The name, Hmmmm, can't do that. (I have said some dumbass shit here.)

Our bonuses on the other hand are tied to a percentage of our salary and has zero to do with performance. The better the company does on a whole changes the percentages. My bonuses tend to be in the $4500 (small potatoes) a year, always makes Christmas more enjoyable and less stressful.


Edit: I would think because the company is so large, they need to have some form of a structured way of giving raises, compared to a smaller company where the people giving raises are only a few steps away from the owner. .. Meaning my large employer doesn't want the person giving out the raise to have an open checkbook to use. The manager get X amount and that's it.

 

[ultramanhyata]

but the single most important question in terms of political orientation is "are you more worried or more sympathetic to others who are more worried about losing status or about the difficulty of increasing status?"

I would like to understand what you're saying. Can you please either reword or extrapolate on this?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I worked at a company (based out of Texas) that did the same thing. There's no reason they have to do raises this way of course. It just suits them to promote division in the workers.

Interesting, though it doesn't really change the value of a particular worker so it wouldn't seem workable unless it coincides with changes in supply or demand. Seems like a shady management tool rather than something that actually affects the economy.

Yes that's permanent. The name, Hmmmm, can't do that. (I have said some dumbass shit here.)

Just wanted to see more details about the company and figured because it's so big, you'd still be pretty anonymous. But fair enough, and touche'.

Our bonuses on the other hand are tied to a percentage of our salary and has zero to do with performance. The better the company does on a whole changes the percentages. My bonuses tend to be in the $4500 (small potatoes) a year, always makes Christmas more enjoyable and less stressful.

Interesting. My wife gets most of her pay in bonuses (despite a pretty nice base pay), but she's in sales so it's entirely determined by her own performance. Mine is performance dependent with a small portion determined by overall company performance.

Edit: I would think because the company is so large, they need to have some form of a structured way of giving raises, compared to a smaller company where the people giving raises are only a few steps away from the owner. .. Meaning my large employer doesn't want the person giving out the raise to have an open checkbook to use. The manager get X amount and that's it.

The way you describe seems like a terrible idea. You basically have people working against each other, though I guess it prevents dangerous worker solidarity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Humanly, I can understand the impulse to Keep Up With The Jones'; that is, to envy those who have more money than you and thus try to obtain the same. I understand how such an impulse can drive an economy.

But what I'm really beginning to see for the first time is another impulse... The impulse to Outpace The Smiths'; that is, the desire to enlarge the margin between yourself and those who already have less money than you do. And this motivation is alien to me.

Are there any wants that aren't derived from envy or is that part and parcel just by definition?

Is the desire for comfort the result of envy?

Is it possible that I look around, see various standards of living, and ascertain what I want to achieve in terms of security and disposable income without being jealous of others?

Can I then gauge what innate talents I have and couple them with my perception of what skills I can offer the marketplace that will compensate me to the level I desire?

If I do this is it unreasonable to think that the unwritten rules of employment (gain in-demand skills and put in effort to further my compensation) would apply to me?

If things are working that way to a degree but then all of the sudden my employer gives massive raises to everyone and a relatively very small raise to me is it unfair to view it in terms of contribution (via skills and effort) and feel somewhat slighted or unappreciated because of it?

To me this scenario produces more a feeling of betrayal than envy. Nothing about it says I want to keep others down. My problem here is disproportionate treatment that violates perceived structure of compensation. It's an unwelcome shift in values on the part of the employer, akin to changing the rules midway through the game. I'd have no hard feelings toward co-workers here. My issue would be with the employer. I don't see how wanting the same % raise as less skilled/hard working employees is necessarily envy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I would like to understand what you're saying. Can you please either reword or extrapolate on this?

Kind of a muddled sentence. Let me try to make the whole thing clearer.

Status is a zero-sum game, and there are benefits to higher status--attractiveness, respect, etc. So logically, when there is a relative change in the status of a person or group (for example "the poor"), that affects other parties, too. If you sympathize more with the person in a lower position who is rising, your emotional leaning will be more to the left, and if you sympathize more with the person whose position is being threatened, your emotional leaning will be more to the right.

Think of the comments along the lines of "Jim Bob has worked hard his whole life and played by the rules but then he has to be practicing degrading pricetaggery at the grocery store while some lazy bum on food stamps is living the high life." Or "we used to be MEN in this country--our women relied on our beneficence and they obeyed, and everyone liked it." Or, "When Reagan ruled the world, other countries used to tremble before us, but now we have this pansy who is trying to offer goodies to evil regimes in order for them not to do what we don't want them to." It's all reflective of sympathy for people who are having their status threatened or eroded from below, and the opposite positions reflect sympathy from people who have a lower status trying to climb.

I think most people can see both sides of the issue (some more clearly than others, of course), but almost everyone will choose or the other and that determines your position on the spectrum. So like I'd say, "yes, Jim Bob's feelings are human and understandable, and I feel his pain or whatever, but that isn't any reason at all to restrict food stamp usage."

It gets a lot more complicated when you get into the weeds, but on a very basic, emotional level, I think that's the key divide.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is the desire for comfort the result of envy?

Is it possible that I look around, see various standards of living, and ascertain what I want to achieve in terms of security and disposable income without being jealous of others?

Can I then gauge what innate talents I have and couple them with my perception of what skills I can offer the marketplace that will compensate me to the level I desire?

If I do this is it unreasonable to think that the unwritten rules of employment (gain in-demand skills and put in effort to further my compensation) would apply to me?

None of this is relevant. In the example we're looking at, you are getting a raise, lifting your salary above what it would command in the market.

If things are working that way to a degree but then all of the sudden my employer gives massive raises to everyone and a relatively very small raise to me is it unfair to view it in terms of contribution (via skills and effort) and feel somewhat slighted or unappreciated because of it?

The word you're looking for is "envious." You envy the other people for getting the raises and especially the status that you don't think they "deserve."

To me this scenario produces more a feeling of betrayal than envy. Nothing about it says I want to keep others down.

You get a raise, meaning more compensation than you would get otherwise and a higher standard of living, and yet you're unhappy because others are also getting those benefits and to a greater degree.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

None of this is relevant. In the example we're looking at,

I posted my own example/line of thinking to get the thoughts of another poster. You interjecting to say that my example isn't what some other post of yours is dealing with is pretty funny. By funny I mean arrogant. I think you're envious I find his input more valuable than yours.

 

[chardog]

wtf, did someone kidnap Jack?

yes and the idea that people side against minimum wage for emotional reasons exists and is ludicrous. It's a horrible argument for increasing minimum wage.

I couldnt give a damn if you make 10 or 20 bucks an hour, rather how will employers deal with such a change, is it feasible? That should be the core of the debate.... the jealousy issues.... not up for debate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I posted my own example/line of thinking to get the thoughts of another poster. You interjecting to say that my example isn't what some other post of yours is dealing with is pretty funny. By funny I mean arrogant. I think you're envious I find his input more valuable than yours.

Learn to read better. Following the thread, this is the scenario you described yourself:

"things are working that way to a degree but then all of the sudden my employer gives massive raises to everyone and a relatively very small raise to me"

You're getting a raise, lifting your salary above what it would command in the market and raising your standard of living. So you saying that you want to be paid in line with what you want and think you deserve is irrelevant. It would be relevant if you felt you were being underpaid.

 

[The Diplomat]

Why do people work and why do they work to move up?

Because they want to get paid more as a reward for the effort they put out and the value they add.

She was paid more.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Learn to read better.

I'll do that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Are there any wants that aren't derived from envy or is that part and parcel just by definition?

Is the desire for comfort the result of envy?

Is it possible that I look around, see various standards of living, and ascertain what I want to achieve in terms of security and disposable income without being jealous of others?

Can I then gauge what innate talents I have and couple them with my perception of what skills I can offer the marketplace that will compensate me to the level I desire?

I certainly don't believe that all desire for material security or comfort is a result of envy. That's silly. A man stranded alone on a desert island would desire these things.

If I do this is it unreasonable to think that the unwritten rules of employment (gain in-demand skills and put in effort to further my compensation) would apply to me?

This sounds like what a lot of millennials with college degrees have been saying about the actual state of the job market versus their expectations and the perceived value they attached to their education. Do you empathize with their discontent?

If things are working that way to a degree but then all of the sudden my employer gives massive raises to everyone and a relatively very small raise to me is it unfair to view it in terms of contribution (via skills and effort) and feel somewhat slighted or unappreciated because of it?

OK. Let's take the surprise element out of the equation. If you had been told in the interview for the position that, while you would be earning as much or more for your time and talents as you could anywhere else, the company followed a policy of paying an entry level wage of 70K, would you still consider a position with the company if offered it?

To me this scenario produces more a feeling of betrayal than envy. Nothing about it says I want to keep others down. My problem here is disproportionate treatment that violates perceived structure of compensation. It's an unwelcome shift in values on the part of the employer, akin to changing the rules midway through the game. I'd have no hard feelings toward co-workers here. My issue would be with the employer. I don't see how wanting the same % raise as less skilled/hard working employees is necessarily envy.

I'm having difficulty relating to you here. Let's say GP was across the street from your own employer. Let's say you are good friends with Ben, a GP employee, who basically holds a comparable position to your own. You and Ben have essentially identical salaries.

If you find out Ben just got a 10K raise from GP while you just got an 8K raise from your boss, will you feel like you actually came out "ahead", all things considered, given the fact that Ben now has to walk into a building everyday where the less skilled new-hires just got a 20K raise? Whereas you only have to look at the building through the window of your office?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

lol Jesus Christ. She got a raise, too. Unless she's getting paid a lot more somewhere else, she literally quit because the people below her weren't as poor.

People like this allow these cronyist systems to persist.

The whole country could be turning to zhit around them but as long as theyre making more than burger-flipper Barry theyre content.

Try to give them both a raise with Barry getting a proportionally higher one and they start throwing hissy fits.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I certainly don't believe that all desire for material security or comfort is a result of envy. That's silly. A man stranded alone on a desert island would desire these things.

Envy certainly may be on any one particular person's mind at the company from the OP. My stance is simply that one could be dissatisfied and it not have it chalked up to envy. So I ask if envy is by definition attached to desire, because if it is then there's not much to explore on the subject. It also means that there's more of a burden on anyone taking the other side of this argument.

This sounds like what a lot of millennials with college degrees have been saying about the actual state of the job market versus their expectations and the perceived value they attached to their education. Do you empathize with their discontent?

I don't empathize in the sense my education has failed to deliver the range of compensation I expect. I do empathize in the sense that as humans we become accustomed to a certain order for things and when that's violated it can lead to negativity and distrust.

OK. Let's take the surprise element out of the equation. If you had been told in the interview for the position that, while you would be earning as much or more for your time and talents as you could anywhere else, the company followed a policy of paying an entry level wage of 70K, would you still consider a position with the company if offered it?

I'm not sure this directly addresses the section of my post that preceded it, but I'd certainly consider that position. I'd need to weigh it against other opportunity of course. If it's my best offer and I take the job only to discover that my position has far greater demands than others getting paid the same or slightly less I'd need to think long and hard over how I felt about that. At some point the concept of being taken advantage of comes into play. I have to wonder why all these other positions are getting so much above market value compared to mine. In my particular example though I was imagining already being part of the team on a upstart company with this new payscale coming in well after the fact. Being hired into that culture would of course inspire a different outlook.

I'm having difficulty relating to you here. Let's say GP was across the street from your own employer. Let's say you are good friends with Ben, a GP employee, who basically holds a comparable position to your own. You and Ben have essentially identical salaries.

If you find out Ben just got a 10K raise from GP while you just got an 8K raise from your boss, will you feel like you actually came out "ahead", all things considered, given the fact that Ben now has to walk into a building everyday where the less skilled new-hires just got a 20K raise? Whereas you only have to look at the building through the window of your office?

I'm not sure what I'm saying relates to inter-company comparisons. If one can get better pay at a new company that's kind of the nature of career building. There's no real dilemma or controversy there. A person doesn't have a work history with the new company and wouldn't have notions of being treated fairly or unfairly based on what they've contributed to company success. Personally I'd feel better making a couple grand less and being paid proportionally with what the company can afford to allocate to overall payroll. Not everything comes down to just dollars and cents. I agree there's human emotion/perception involved. I disagree that it's necessarily envy.

Again, my contention is that people can be unhappy with this arrangement without it being envy/wanting to keep others down. In fact it could be as simple as thinking the person who devised this pay structure is making a huge mistake and that with that type of understanding of economics and human nature the company won't be around too long. Better to jump ship now rather than wait for it to sink. I might even be willing to take a pay cut if there's advancement opportunity obviously present at a new company. I'd certainly have to wonder what my future raises at the current company would be when I see them overextending themselves in the compensation department. It might be a long time before they reach new heights of revenue that would allow for new and substantial increases for me. Since the company is now having financial troubles I'd say jumping ship could be the prudent option for some.

Ps. Normally I'd proof this bitch but I gotta split.