It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:12 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Gotcha, since I hold an opinion that you disagree with that shows that America is an Idiocracy.

Makes sense.

And my previous point was just about why when comparing people their work ethic is based on how hard they work.

They are not one in the same.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:14 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The constitution is not a perfect infallible document, so yes, it has flaws, and yes I reject those flaws. In fact it happens a lot, is why it's constantly updated and changed. You act as if it's as pure as the day it was first written.

I disagree with giving up on finding new and better systems of both the economy and government. I'm under no delusion we're so enlightened we've discovered the perfect version of each.

Honestly I'm surprised you are so certain we have to the point where we should not even consider exploring alternative possibilities and ideas.

Why is attempts to progress such a scarey concept to so many? If no one attempted to reform and progress society you'd likely be a serf.[
edit on 8/2/2015 by Puppylove because: Grammar and Spelling

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:32 AM
a reply to: Sremmos80
Yep and the company goes out of business….
That is what your talking about.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:37 AM
The problem is not an amount that relates to a living wage being given. The problem is that your currency has been devalued to the point that is is no longer a living wage. Do not point your anger at those that excel in their business acumen but rather in those government systems that make your hard earned dollars worth less.

Or, just keep making successful business people want to leave the country and see how your socialistic/Marxist system that takes place works for you; Chairman Mao anyone??

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:41 AM

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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

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?

I agree with you that is the way most people will think. I was looking at the issue from a purely logical standpoint - to keep the skilled / hard workers happy they have to know others are valued less. It is illogical but it is the way people work.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:43 AM

originally posted by: Puppylove
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.

Well first 100,000 X 20,000 would be 2 billion...any CEOs making 2 billion per year? Also do you consider bonuses and stock options awarded by the investors for a job well done as part of base salary? CEO of Boeing is up there, top 10 CEO...2 million salary. His base salary is 40x of the lower end of employees, is this too much? He made 18 million in stock options and bonuses too.

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

They make their money different ways, most salaries are well within 100 times.

BTW if the CEO of Boeing said screw it! I give my 20 million to my employees each employee would get a whooping 6 cent an hour raise, so please explain to me why his 20 million reduction to some cap is more important than his leadership to make the company strong so all can keep their jobs and continue to prosper.

edit on 2-8-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:46 AM

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
I was looking at the issue from a purely logical standpoint - to keep the skilled / hard workers happy they have to know others are valued less. It is illogical but it is the way people work.

I don't agree as an overall norm. I think equality goes both ways. My CEO makes 20 million and as long as he makes my life better and better I say he earned it, but if I see someone make as much as I do and working 1/2 as much I would get pissed.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:54 AM

originally posted by: Sremmos80

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.

Being a manager, we are salary and so are expected to work more when needed. An hourly worker is typically limited to 40 hours to prevent overtime. I work about 45 to 50 hours per week, I have worked more. Most of my staff works 40 or takes paid time off to make up the difference to 40.

I can make a 20 million dollar decision and run a 20 person team where a person dumping the trash doesn't and so what worth am I to the company over that person? Maybe hard is the wrong word... how about more impact and longer hours invested.

edit on 2-8-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:26 AM
It prevents all the money from being funneled into off shore accounts where no one can get access to it, and keeps the economy honest.

As for my specific numbers I said they were a generalization.

It also prevents a company from doing really well while keeping the wages the same, it also makes it so that if the company does poorly the employees feel the repercussions in real time. The employees become an active part of the company when it does both good and bad. It does so daily, not in some vague way that only pays out if they live long enough to retire.

If the company does better, the employee and employer both do better, and the company loses the ability to not pass on profits to their employees by a fair amount, and the employees by being limited to a percentage of the profit lose the ability to demand more than a company can pay.

Oh and that 6 cents spread out amongst millions of people and put back into the economy is better than that six cents combined into millions and put into an off shore account and forgotten, never stimulating the economy at all.

I'm not saying to eliminate better pay, I'm saying to make things regulated by profit and percentages.

Workers should not be treated as a resource like a pallet of fabric, we should be treated as contributors to the companies profit margin, succeeding and failing with the company for the work we invest same as the people that run the company do. We all are the whole reason the company fails or succeeds together. I'm not saying equal contribution nor payout, but the pay the employee gets should be linked to the companies success, not whatever number the employer can get away with paying regardless of how successful the company gets.

On the same token, an employee should not expect to get paid more than the companies profits allow for.
edit on 8/2/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:32 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I would have treated her like she was being selfish, as well. She wasn't angry at her own pay, she was angry that others were getting decent pay. That's screwed up. If she hadn't known, she wouldn't have had any issue with it.

It reminds me of the rich kids who get angry when the poor kids get their hands on nice stuff. Suddenly, they think their own nice stuff isn't worth as much. It's stupid.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:47 AM
An example, I'm in a position where I live basically paycheck to paycheck, I'm trying to save, but it's hard. As such, near 100% of my money goes back into stimulating the economy. I make jack and # so, overall that doesn't account for much. Meanwhile the filthy rich take most of their wealth and horde it in off shore bank accounts to never see the light of day. If that money instead went back into the economy, if they actually used that money, it would do wonders. They jump through tax loopholes, while we pay all our taxes with what meager money we have.

I may not make much, but I 100% or damn near it, contribute to the economy actively.

Trickle down economics was based on the idea those with money would actually use it, and in doing so, stimulate the economy. Since it gets hoarded in bigger and bigger ever growing offshore accounts, trickle down does the exact opposite of stimulation, instead it just takes and takes from the economy, reducing the overall pool by more and more each year.

For a healthy economy money needs to keep being recycled throughout, not taken out and forgotten.
edit on 8/2/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 03:00 AM
a reply to: Cuervo

Yes, it was selfish of her to notice that the policy was going to cost the company their best employees and bankrupt her place of employment. She should have kept quiet and waited until the company shutters its doors, acting like a happy fool in this untenable imaginary Nirvana her employer created for his workers.

When intelligent and rational honesty is defined as selfishness, how do we categorize that? Intelligence, rationality, and honesty are all virtues, but selfishness is a natural act that is somehow considered poor form? What happens when these four traits combine? I'd personally call the lady a pragmatic realist and stay in a more logical realm, away from hysterical emotional jidgements that do nothing to change the truth of her assessment of the policy.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 03:04 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

What a massive burning straw man if Ive ever sen one. A wicker man.

(deep breath)

What socialism is not, a couple basics:

1. some right wing take on Marx where everyone gets exactly equal pay.
2. exclusively Marxian ideas in general (real or imagined). Meaning, not all socialists advocate central planning. Again, just to reiterate, very few advocate abject equal pay across the board.
3.anything with a singular owner of a company
4. Pretty much every non Leninist attempt at socialism was sabotaged by the US State Department/Pentagon. Either via embargo's, sanctions, war or subversive funding, training and general support of right wing dictators, fascists and religious fundamentalists. See Spain and Chile for example.

More in depth on point one and two, socialism is a broad spectrum of ideas. What failed was the Marxist-Leninist model where a bunch of ill informed technocrats attempted to plan the economy with no means of information gathering or analysis. It wasn't "equal pay" it was the calculation problem that did the Leninist regimes in. That and their unmoving bureaucratic party dogma. Anyhow, Stalin's USSR paid piecework, meaning, their pay was determined by their productivity. Even later wage reforms didn't give everyone equal pay. So, there goes your "equal pay is socialism" routine.
Market socialists certainly don't advocate abject equal pay. Granted there are people who advocate this sort of utopian dreck. As if people will go to med school and bust their humps in emergency rooms if they could just bar tend in a slow (but entertaining) dive bar and make the same pay. Some still would for a love of medicine but not nearly as many people.

Now of course you're going to tie this in with the push to raise minimum wage and to also generally lessen the wage gap- as if anyone is talking about abject equal pay across the board. When we look at the income inequality today it's real and guess what buddy, you're not in the top 1% of earners and probably never will be. The bigger issue is capital accumulation in general. As in, people/institutions with a net worth in the 100+million to billions. This wage/income/wealth gap began to soar in the 1980's. What changed? All the sudden "the real meritocracy" kicked in? Or perhaps wealth has been generated to such extremes via screwing American workers? Perhaps most people are working longer hours for less pay and live in debt because there's a literal vampire class sucking wealth from labor in America and abroad. Why do you defend this vampire class? You certainly arent in it.

Is this where you lie and say you have a net worth of 50 million dollars?

I'll leave you with a Chomsky quote:

"As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon."
edit on 2-8-2015 by JeanPaul because: addition

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 03:24 AM
You know Burd, I don't see this as proof of concept at all. I am left looking at things clinically and feeling like those who quit were pretty stupid. I am left thinking a singular thought:

Those people who quit, what bad happened to them?

After all, these people did not get a pay cut. They did not have anything taken away from them. At the end of the day they were in exactly the same position that afternoon as they had been when they walked into work. They lost nothing.

Well, except for their sense of superiority, merited or not.

This is the real issue we are dealing with here, one group of people more focused upon others than upon reality. These are people who quit a good paying job because somebody else got a pay raise? Rather childish isn't it? All of the "but I deserve more!" rhetoric, as I see it, is simply ego. This company didn't create a policy saying "OK, now everyone makes 40k a year, period - for some that's a raise, for others that a cut... but whatever". The people who made more still made more.

Were their expectation sets violated? Probably. But, damn man, the idea of spiting somebody else a little comfort simply out of a sense of superiority or entitlement? Absolutely immoral.

This is a prime example of why modern American "conservative" thought stymies me. It seems that the rhetoric is vicious from the right -when it is working in their absolute favor, but folds directly into pedantic tantrums the moment that the playing field even starts to level out.

If this story was "CEO drops all entry level employees down to minimum wage" you wouldn't be angry. In fact you'd be arguing that it's HIS company and we all need to keep our noses out of his business. If that had happened and the story stated that people had quit, you'd likely be ranting that anyone who quit a perfectly good job was a waste and unworthy of any respect at all.

Not a jab at you personally, but the levels of hypocrisy needed to hold onto a "conservative" point of view these days is simply beyond my comprehension.

edit on 8/2/15 by Hefficide because: rephrase

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 03:42 AM
I work for a company where the wage gap is incredibly evident, even between lower ranking members.

I earn more than the people on the same level as me, and you know what, I wish I didn't. I wish we were all on the same money. I wish those lower than me were too, and the people at the bottom as well. I live a comfortable life with some pleasures but there's people in there, like the cleaners for example, who work 50+ hours a week who can't afford even a day at the zoo. They have to shop in discount stores and sacrifice basic needs for need of heating or electricity.

You know what it takes for you to be okay with someone who you PERCEIVE to be less than you, to earn the same? It takes empathy, and that's something this site has very little of. Sometimes it seems like none at all.

So deeply rooted are most members in their party rhetoric, their political ideologies and their selfish world bubble they fail to realize their whole world is a fiction, just like the money they earn - their lives are devoid of real connection and happiness because the substitute of material gain has dulled their humanity. It's sickening.

Everyone is human and will leave this Earth ALONE, with no possessions. Deal with that. Then, once that's settled in your mind you might start to treat people as your equal, not you lower. Psychopathy at it's finest. The problem with people being equal is you can no longer force people to do things for you. Scary isn't it. Imagine losing that power......
edit on 11/10/2012 by Joneselius because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 03:49 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The 'Washington Times' a rag if ever there was one, look up the ownership sometime.

If two employees felt entitled to more then they were receiving for their work then they probably never belonged at that company. And as for losing two customers - well that is their right if they disagree with his business practices. I'm certain that he was aware of possible blow back - and we'll see where this goes in the future.

I applaud him and wish him, his employees, customers and company well.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:00 AM
a reply to: Joneselius

Don't you think saying everyone on ATS is heartless is a bit harsh. It's not like everyone is on this thread for example is promoting these things. In fact most of us seem to be arguing against the wealth gap and people being treated as less than trash.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:25 AM
This really isn't a good example of why a $15 an hour minimum wage wouldn't work, since $15 an hour only works out to 31k for a 40 hour work week, where as 70k works out to like $34 an hour. Its a complete different argument to whether a 30k a year minimum living wage would work.

Besides, I think you'll find there's plenty of factories (or whatever) where the lowest payed workers are payed fairly well and don't get much less than the managers that are on salaries. It actually usually works, except for maybe rare cases of spiteful people with a superiority complex.

Fact is, people on wages have to be there everyday at the same time, can only take there half hour lunch at the dedicated time (or when there told there allowed) and are doing all the grunt work.

Where as, a person on a salary may end up working more hours (sometimes), but can usually start or end whenever they want, do a lot of there work at home and take lunch whenever they choose. Plus they usually get far better benefits.
edit on 2-8-2015 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:49 AM
a reply to: Puppylove

Yes it was harsh and maybe a little extreme, I've edited my post to reflect that.

I read your responses and I know you're arguing in favour of the poor for equality.

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:34 AM

originally posted by: Puppylove
Sounds like this was done in the most extreme way possible, a set up for failure. This guy will be fine, he did his job, the job being pretending to be a friend, while making sure to fail, so that the idea of paying people better can be "proven" to be a failure.

The issue is extreme wealth gaps, not wealth gaps. He we went too far in the other direction specifically to fail so the corporate elites could ultimately keep the status quot and use this as an example why.

So, are you saying that he gave his employees too much money?

Is that how this failed? It would have worked if he had given less money to his employees?

Forgive me if I have to withhold respect for an apparent ideal target fleecing (voluntary or not) that is so delicately poised as to be ineffective over some unknown ratio.

It was just a bait and switch? So, to make the 615 billionaires in America look bad, he threw his business down the pooper with an ill-conceived meritless promotion regimen which backfired in a very transparent and well documented way?

I think this just goes to show that people who wish for the nature of man to be different and risk their reputations and estates on that hope are demonstrably good-hearted but, naive. This is just one of many ways that the very concept of meritless promotion, even when performed voluntarily upon one's own business, produces catastrophic results.

Now just imagine how this works when you remove the voluntary part.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in