It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle CEO Who set Company Minimum Salary at $70k/yr Struggling

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

School uniforms are a good example. You implement them, and the kids start using things as mundane as underwear and socks to show their exclusivity. You cannot level the playing field. Any attempts to do so will be disastrous, because it is fighting against the nature of what we are: human animals.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: EternalSolace

School uniforms are a good example. You implement them, and the kids start using things as mundane as underwear and socks to show their exclusivity. You cannot level the playing field. Any attempts to do so will be disastrous, because it is fighting against the nature of what we are: human animals.


You're 100% correct. I'd even say it goes beyond the desire for individuality as well.

Through all of our discussions on this topic, I've never seen a thought experiment or discussion on what it would take to cause a paradigm shift in regard to our behavior towards each other. Is the evolution of our minds even possible?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Leveling the playing field isn't necessary. A good rule set is.

In football, you don't have a single person allowed to use a tank to run over whichever team he wants to win. For one it's against the rules and two it's completely psychotic. Instead you have fair rules that everyone can live and compete by, and the rules have their limits.

So why do we create an economy that allows one person buy a tank and run over the other players?

Our economy has a #ty rule set. You don't need a level playing field, you need a fair one with reasonable rules and limitations.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
And there, in a nutshell, we see the problem at hand: you work, he signs a check.


And he appreciates that I have been on the other side of that equation as a business owner and understand what a responsible employee is capable of, that is why I get paid so well.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You said 'if everyone' was working hard, I have never been at a place where everyone worked hard, there were always slackers and slugs. So I ask you again, what fantasy employer were you working for where everyone was working hard?

The whole reason for merit increases is to recognize those who do in fact work harder/smarter/better.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Aazadan

You said 'if everyone' was working hard, I have never been at a place where everyone worked hard, there were always slackers and slugs. So I ask you again, what fantasy employer were you working for where everyone was working hard?

The whole reason for merit increases is to recognize those who do in fact work harder/smarter/better.



Are you sure? many people by their own estimation are working hard. Just about everyone considers themselves to be an above average worker, and to do more than their peers. Grading your peers as not working as hard and being slackers is a subjective concept and it is completely related to who else is on your team. If you have a 100 person company, and 4 of the 5 workers on your team are in the 5 hardest in the company, while you're only in the top 20, you look like a slacker.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

If a magic alien snapped its fingers and everyone in the world owned a nice home, a nice car, and no one had to worry about money or being able to afford anything ever again, people would still get upset and try to get ahead of their neighbor because they wanted a blue car instead of a green one. Or this neighbor has 2,000sqft and I only have 1800sqft.



I would not want to live on a planet of Stepford People.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: EternalSolace

School uniforms are a good example. You implement them, and the kids start using things as mundane as underwear and socks to show their exclusivity. You cannot level the playing field. Any attempts to do so will be disastrous, because it is fighting against the nature of what we are: human animals.


You're 100% correct. I'd even say it goes beyond the desire for individuality as well.

Through all of our discussions on this topic, I've never seen a thought experiment or discussion on what it would take to cause a paradigm shift in regard to our behavior towards each other. Is the evolution of our minds even possible?


Human thought derives from neurochemical response. If you want to change human thought, you have to change the neurochemicals or the neurons they act upon. I would say that modern human society is trying this with disastrous consequences.

Its human hubris to think we can improve on our own design, or to think our rationalizations have a place in this world. The brilliance of ancient man was that he observed the world around him for insights into how to solve his problems. Modern man seeks to solve his problems by subjugating the world around him.

originally posted by: Puppylove

If you are talking about regulation of commerce, i agree. If you are talking about regulation of wages....fair is what the local market says it is.
edit on 8/3/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

Are you sure? many people by their own estimation are working hard. Just about everyone considers themselves to be an above average worker, and to do more than their peers. Grading your peers as not working as hard and being slackers is a subjective concept and it is completely related to who else is on your team.


And that is why people like me have a job. I am the one who gets to grade performance of my team and determine who is actually the top performers and who is delusional about theirs.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And that is why people like me have a job. I am the one who gets to grade performance of my team and determine who is actually the top performers and who is delusional about theirs.


And if everyone under you knew what everyone else was being paid, do you not agree that every single person would demand a raise because they see themselves as working harder than their peers? Which would then force you to piss off the majority of your workers as you tell them they are being paid appropriately?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

it isn't pissing them off...its giving them an accurate performance evaluation.

If you let underperforming employees think they are doing great, then you are doing them an enormous disservice. My company doesn't care of employees discuss their wages with each other....its their wages, afterall. DIscuss away. But we are also very honest in evaluating your performance, job duties, etc. If you make less than a peer hired on the same day, you will know why you do.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Might as well face it, "equal outcome" is here to stay.

Equal opportunity is sooo 20th century.

It doesn't even matter when it fails. Because the failure will be placed on people who "just don't get it".



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Which would then force you to piss off the majority of your workers as you tell them they are being paid appropriately?

Unless they can find someone else to pay them substantially more they probably are paid ''appropriately''.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I think any sufficiently noble society's goal should be to maximize the human potential.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: corvuscorrax

That's what the recruiting process is for. You have to decide if you can trust the coach and the organization, not just pick a place to go based on what you want. If he couldn't trust the coaching stuff the manage the locker room and his teammates, then he didn't do his homework when he was on the recruiting hunt.

I went on that trail too. If a big time program is serious about wanting to win, they will control their players because the best players will see the field not just the biggest thugs.

A business environment will operate differently. And at that point, you can either underperform and lower yourself or find another workplace.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

But how do you do that?

There comes a point where maximizing human potential sinks a company.

And how does arbitrarily handing over $70K salaries regardless of performance or position maximize anything other than bank account?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Fail or succeed. Shouldn't we want to see how this turns out?

And it's this guys company and he should be able to run it how he sees fit. I don't really see how this is a Liberal vs conservative issues anyway. It's just a lesson in capitalism and business.

Also, it's unclear if it's just a bad business or if the higher wage contributed. He could be failing even with minimum wage employees.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: EternalSolace

I think any sufficiently noble society's goal should be to maximize the human potential.


Since when has our society or any society for that matter, ever been noble?

And in order to maximize the human potential, the human in question would have to work in order to maximize his/her potential.


Someone can't maximize your potential for you!
edit on 3-8-2015 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Why is everything that's disagreed with taken to the extreme in an attempt to make a point. I'm guilty of it, others are too. This can be said about every topic we've ever discussed. We push an argument to the extremes to discredit something.

My point being: Someone shouldn't be given a $500,000 dollar home, a $60,000 dollar corvette, and a 60" LED TV just like the doctor that put in his 10+ years of schooling and education to earn those things, when that someone works at a McDonald's. If that someone wants the luxury items, yes, they should work for them and earn them.

That said, the person who works at McDonald's shouldn't be excluded from owning a home, a reliable vehicle, and the means to not be one missed work day from being homeless.


originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Might as well face it, "equal outcome" is here to stay.


No, equal outcome should not be the goal. I agree with you on that.

But poverty shouldn't be a penalty either.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: EternalSolace

I think any sufficiently noble society's goal should be to maximize the human potential.


But what if individuals within that society don't wish to participate in a collective goal?




top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join