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

a reply to: burdman30ott6

How is anything I just said communist?

It's a hybrid of the two systems. It's incentive to do better/be a higher tier without creating an unreasonable wealth gap.

a reply to: Puppylove

Rung 5 *should* represent the guy with the most skin on the line. Unfortunately, horsecrap like bailouts, TARP, and legally dubious golden parachutes have become a thing. Go after those for a change. Let's allow corporations, even big ones, to fall on their ass if they can't support their own failures.

Look, I'm nothing if not a consistent curmudgeonly SOB. I'm anti welfare, anti tax, anti redistribution across the board. I believe men and their enterprises must be allowed to be as successful or as epic a failure as those men are able to be.

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
If you feel you are receiving adequate compensation for your work, why should you care what others earn?

So this person worked hard, 60 hour weeks to make things happen and finally achieve 70k per year for all that she did. The CEO comes out and says a new hire dumping the trash day one is now 70k. She gets no raise and works her 60 hour a week the person dumping the trash gets 50k raise and still works 40 hour dumping the trash.

This would make me think what am I worth with all my greater efforts AND the greater value I bring to the company ... 90k 120k 180k now? And so that is what will happen as we go up in minimum wage etc. while understanding that we wish everyone got paid 70k white there is still an overall finite amount of money to do this. So the CEO gives up his 1 million per year and helps 15 of his 120 workers with his pay check.

There is another part of this story. The low skill workers are afraid now that they can not compete with others who might want their 70k job, even if it is dumping the trash.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Which means you're for allowing extremes. Extremes are bad, period. A capitalistic system with no no wealth cap allows for extreme wealth gaps, and funneling of wealth. This is bad, just as bad if not worse than paying everyone the same across the board. One leads to mediocrity the other one to destitution of the majority.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

OK, but are you stating that as a two way street? Do you also find it distasteful when a poor person judges a wealthy person purely based on how large a handout they were given?.

originally posted by: Puppylove

Which means you're for allowing extremes. Extremes are bad, period. A capitalistic system with no no wealth cap allows for extreme wealth gaps, and funneling of wealth. This is bad, just as bad if not worse than paying everyone the same across the board. One leads to mediocrity the other one to destitution of the majority.

So what do you say is a wealth cap? 100 million, 50 million, 5 million, 1 million, 500k, 250k, 100k...

a reply to: Puppylove

It didn't damage the US in any way whatsoever until the government sold our asses out and started eliminating import taxes and tariffs and signed international free trade agreements.

Look, I do understand the emotions used here. I also understand the goals. Unfortunately, we have been crammed into a global economy and the feds refuse to embrace national protectionist labor and trade policies. That means we can have the highest paid unskilled worker base in the world alongside one of the highest real unemployment rates in the western world, we can develop the third world to the point where manufacturers want to manufacture goods in America because Mexico and Taiwan is too expensive, or we can adopt social Darwinism and let those with wings soar unchained to their anchors below.

America is an Idiocracy... We are talking about capping success while increasing the rewards for mediocrity (and failure since the failures will also be paid that abundant minimum wage.)

a reply to: Xtrozero

A percentage of the wealth gained, do things by percentages. The exact details need to be figured out when implementing such a system, but 100,000 times what the lowest rung gets should be pretty clearly ludicrous.

Even a limit of 100 times what the lowest rung gets would be a huge improvement over what we currently have.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

My statement applies to both ends of the spectrum,but in general in my experience poor people are much more personable and caring than the rich

a reply to: Xtrozero

Who says the guy dumping trash isn't working hard or putting in 60?

I actually agree with you though, just found it interesting that you had to set it up for the person making more was assumed the harder worker then the person who was making less.

Doomed from the very first $70K x "X" paycheck...

I am certain I read a thread a while back that predicted this company's complete failure within months...

a reply to: Puppylove

If the gains are percentage base, how is success capped? The better you do, the more you get, but in the same token so does the rest of the corporation you're a part of. If you run a corporation well, you get more money still, it just means, so does your employees. If you do real well, you still get a bigger piece of the pie up to a max limit of the percentage of profit, but the only limit to the wealth you gain is the profit itself. You do well you still can increase in tiers to get more wealth, ect. When the company does well everyone gets a raise. If it does poorly everyone pays the price.

I can think of no better incentives than that. Do your job better you do better, do your job poorly, pay the repercussions of it, across the board, for everyone.

Forget about a minimum wage, instead have a minimum percentage of profits. Implement a minimum percentage of profits and a maximum percentage of profits, and there's all the incentive you need for everyone across the board to step up their game.

If your company is doing so poorly you make 2 bucks an hour because that's what the bottom percent would get of the profit, well one you have a failed company, but at the same time, the employer is likewise probably struggling as well.

a reply to: Puppylove

OK, and by what right, law, or precedent would you set this limit within a capitalist Constitutional Republic which holds that type of cap as being unconstitutional?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ah yes because only failures work those jobs.
There is also no chance they are hard workers.

It is only class warfare when you are talking about the rich right?

a reply to: Sremmos80

If the guy dumping trash is putting in 60, then federal labor laws dictate that he's getting paid time and a half for those extra 20 hours. Salaried employees (who are almost universally above minimum wage) are not. Furthermore, most manual labor positions fall under Davis-Bacon wage laws and get paid handsomely.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You assume I believe in the system we currently have in any way what so ever.

a reply to: Sremmos80

like I said, an idiocracy...

The ONLY way this model works, is if you start the company with everyone making the same salary...all hired at the same time....

a reply to: Puppylove

Ah, you reject the Constitution. OK, good luck seeing these changes you supportaffected, then.