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: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace


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

But poverty shouldn't be a penalty either.


Youu can agree or disagree.

The fact is, equal outcome is here.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Why is the person working at McDonald's?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
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?


They can demand whatever they want, that is their prerogative. It is up to me to determine if they merit it and the P&L can support it.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Does it matter why a person works at McDonald's? I'm confident that I know the point you're about to make. Why won't this person put in time for an education, look for a higher paying job, etc. Maybe they're just lazy and unmotivated.

It's still a job. They're still a human. While this person hasn't earned a life of complete luxury, it shouldn't exclude this person from being above poverty.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Look. I taught inner city school for about three years. It was horrible. I had classrooms full of otherwise bright and capable kids who had more or less decided that education was for suckers.

They had no work ethic. They had no motivation to show up to class on time. They didn't care and didn't bother to try.

They are the work force of McDonald's and place like that.

They were physically and mentally capable, but wouldn't do it. So why do they deserve to be given a life of ease for turning their back on the opportunity to take it for themselves? It's not like they'll thank you or society for it, and it's not like it will be enough. They turn their back on the skills that would let them manage that income to make it enough. All they will see is that others have more, and they will make that society's fault.

Giving them the means to get out of poverty won't guarantee they won't end up in it.


edit on 3-8-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ketsuko

Does it matter why a person works at McDonald's? I'm confident that I know the point you're about to make. Why won't this person put in time for an education, look for a higher paying job, etc. Maybe they're just lazy and unmotivated.

It's still a job. They're still a human. While this person hasn't earned a life of complete luxury, it shouldn't exclude this person from being above poverty.


Then that should not come at the cost of those who aren't lazy and unmotivated. If a system can be made where there is no such thing as poverty...then i don't think anyone would argue against it. But as it stands, if i can make the same with all the stress of a McDonalds CSR....then ill just eliminate my stress and work at McDonalds.

There is not "fair and equitable system". Its a unicorn. The world just doesn't work like that. THe lion always eats the gazelle.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The biased plagiarism used as a source for this thread is a bit misleading to say the least. When you read the actual NY TIMES article, you get a completely different sense of feel.

I'm also having a really hard time finding a legitimate source to him renting out his house, sounds like the BS source used in the OP maybe made it up.

The 2 employees that quit are just plain dumb. They got raises as well, and by them quitting so hastily it seems like they probably weren't the most loyal employees to begin with. I would guess if a better paying job offer had come along before they would have taken it. Now they will take a for sure pay-cut, but hey they will make more than the janitor, so good for them, right?....dumb

The clients he lost in my opinion is the most hypocritical move by some real piece of work business owners. They don't want the government to tell them how to run their business (aka minimum wage) but they essentially want to tell this guy how to run his.

The actual article shows he is actually seeing an increase in customers from the move, but it will take a year to see profits. That's pretty good actually for anyone that actually knows business.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ketsuko

Does it matter why a person works at McDonald's? I'm confident that I know the point you're about to make. Why won't this person put in time for an education, look for a higher paying job, etc. Maybe they're just lazy and unmotivated.

It's still a job. They're still a human. While this person hasn't earned a life of complete luxury, it shouldn't exclude this person from being above poverty.


...but should any and every "job" singlehandedly raise an individual out of poverty, or is it 100% valid to accept that some jobs are tailored to the kids looking for summer work or even people who have identified the need to work more than 1 job? Moonlighting has been a thing as long as I've been alive. Once upon a time, it was viewed admirably as an indication of a person with a lot of self responsibility and a desire to better their own situation... now it's never discussed at all, as if it is considered completely alien in concept.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Unless they can find someone else to pay them substantially more they probably are paid ''appropriately''.


Tech and financial jobs are both well known for having wildly differing pay scales between companies even when CoL is comparable and job duties are identical.

There's no such thing as appropriately paid in those industries.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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?



I say too bad, because those individuals are benefiting from society. If you don't want to contribute to the goal, go join another society where you do.

Back in the day the worst punishment ever handed out to people was exile, it was considered more harsh than even the death penalty. This is because humans are innately interdependent on each other. Working only for yourself or your family is the worst possible thing a person can do.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.


Still - you work - he signs a check.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan



There's no such thing as appropriately paid in those industries.

Then why did you bring it up? It was a valid point for you when you wanted to use it. When it's turned back around on you, you backpedal. Awesome. Nice chatting with ya.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
The fact is, equal outcome is here.


But equal outcome is not what happened here. Some were still paid more than others, and some would still get higher raises than others. The only difference is that the gap between the largest and smallest shrunk from 30k-1 million to 70k-90k (estimate).

A person cannot complain about wealth inequality on one hand, while simultaneously turning around and condemning the actions that shrink that inequality on the other.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
I'm also having a really hard time finding a legitimate source to him renting out his house, sounds like the BS source used in the OP maybe made it up.


Watch the video on your NYT link. Price says it himself: "I'm trying really hard to make this work right now. I'm even renting out my house just to make ends meet." about 2 minutes into the video.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation





Is their anything more pathetic than a slave who thinks he's free?

I think he is just trying to make the point that most of the population on this planet are wage slaves or slaves to money in some way.

edit on 3-8-2015 by defcon25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Aazadan



There's no such thing as appropriately paid in those industries.

Then why did you bring it up? It was a valid point for you when you wanted to use it. When it's turned back around on you, you backpedal. Awesome. Nice chatting with ya.


The point was that being paid appropriately is completely subjective. What one person considers appropriate another will not. In industries like this there is no market average you can look to. There is only what others in your company make, and what you can convince a person to pay you. Since most people consider themselves to be above average, they will take the knowledge that their pay is average negatively. However, not everyone can earn an above average wage, by definition such a thing is impossible.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But you shouldn't have to moonlight. You should, by virtue of being a card carrying member of the collective of "Society", be entitled to "a living wage". Which means full cable and internet, a new car, cell phone with plenty of data, and yearly vacations in the bahamas.

To get my wife through nursing school, we had to let our car be repo'd. I worked 40hrs a week as a CNA, and another 40hrs a week as a home health CNA. The second job was in trade for an old panel van. So my family would still hvae some way to get around town. I also did side jobs mowing and odd jobs for some extra cash, so we could enjoy things like food. But we got her through nursing school, and earned a living wage with hard work and sacrifice.

Life is hard. No one owes you anything you haven't earned.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ketsuko

Does it matter why a person works at McDonald's? I'm confident that I know the point you're about to make. Why won't this person put in time for an education, look for a higher paying job, etc. Maybe they're just lazy and unmotivated.

It's still a job. They're still a human. While this person hasn't earned a life of complete luxury, it shouldn't exclude this person from being above poverty.


...but should any and every "job" singlehandedly raise an individual out of poverty, or is it 100% valid to accept that some jobs are tailored to the kids looking for summer work or even people who have identified the need to work more than 1 job? Moonlighting has been a thing as long as I've been alive. Once upon a time, it was viewed admirably as an indication of a person with a lot of self responsibility and a desire to better their own situation... now it's never discussed at all, as if it is considered completely alien in concept.

Depends what you consider poverty. Any and every job at 40 hours a week should be enough to afford an individual the basic and bare necessities - food, home, transportation. $15,000 a year doesn't cover that, and then the individual's lack of pay is made up by government assistance programs.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Based on?

Again, since you missed it the first time, the article in your OP is based on a lie.

The Washington Times wholly fabricated a quote to fit their agenda. Read my post on page 5.

I like that in this thread, people are attacking a business founder/owner for his business practices. I really like the socialism angle, since the guy basically embraces a fusion of Christianity and Capitalism.

He felt he could afford raising people's wages. He wasn't prepared for a political backlash resulting from it.

This company isn't failing as you suggest. Stop making crap up like the Washington Times.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Back in the day the worst punishment ever handed out to people was exile, it was considered more harsh than even the death penalty. This is because humans are innately interdependent on each other. Working only for yourself or your family is the worst possible thing a person can do.


Yet this country was built on a westward expansion, exploration, and sense of independence which demonstrated that working for yourself and your family not only could work, but could yield more positive results than the concept of societal dependence have ever generated.

Exile, however, is far too extreme of a principal to attach to this discussion. We're not talking about any form of exile. We're talking about self reliance and self motivation. Exile dictates that the exiled trader cannot even re-enter a community to trade goods and services. Exile runs afoul of capitalism.




top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join