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

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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?

I don't care if they're hard workers or non failures.. They aren't skilled workers, they aren't workers that it cost them ten years and $150K of debt to acquire those skills.

Non-skilled workers can be the hardest workers in the world, that doesn't mean that the work they do is worth 70K a year.

Jaden

a reply to: Aazadan

She was upset that others were being unwarrantedly treated BETTER than her and her peers that had more training, experience and responsibility.

If you don't understand the difference, then you are hopeless.

Jaden

I can't help but feel that allowing companies to "go public" and have shareholders leads to a society ruled by a corporatocracy.

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?

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.

Yes, I imagine it would be very frustrating to be the employee that put in the long hours and hard work to finally achieve that 70K salary only to see his/her less motivated co-workers receive the same.

Hell, I remember when I was a kid still in high school, and minimum wage got an increase. I had been there for a couple years, and worked my way up a few raises. When the increase came into effect, I wasn't making much more than someone just coming in, when previously, I was a few bucks above minimum wage. Thankfully, the managers saw this pretty quickly, and issued merit raises for a few (me included) at the time.

But, had they NOT done this (as we were high performers), I certainly would have carried that initial disappointment, and like another said, it would have killed my motivation.

The guy's heart was in the right place, but he didn't really think it through.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Based on?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Based on what? It's an anecdote fallacy. You are trying to show that this business, by catering to an ideal of raising the minimum salary in the company to a living wage, is failing and therefore represents the larger economy in regards to Socialism/Communism without any statistical sampling to back up the anecdote. That's a textbook anecdote fallacy.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I can't help but feel that allowing companies to "go public" and have shareholders leads to a society ruled by a corporatocracy.

Helps fund the Union pensions too !!

Not easy to beat success, buts it's easy to bash it.

No point in addressing failure however.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Phage
This is not about "peers". This is about those at lower skill levels receiving major increases while those at higher levels did not.

So it's about vanity and greed.... got it.

No, it's about earning your place and your privilege.

How did my high school track coach put it to us as freshmen? Oh yes, there is a certain substance that rolls downhill, and right now, you are all at the bottom of the hill. The older girls have all been here and paid their dues and climbed up the hill. You guys get last pick of uniforms, don't get to go on the overnight track trip and even if you make varsity will compete as freshmen at our home invitational because we always win it.

These employees were at the bottom of the hill and the CEO made sure the certain substance defied gravity for them with this move. Instead of having to pay their dues like all the others in the company did who had worked their way up. These people simply flew to the top without having to climb on their own merits.

Can't you see how the ones who had to climb on their own might be a tad upset?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

I can't help but feel that allowing companies to "go public" and have shareholders leads to a society ruled by a corporatocracy.

The company I worked for went public last June and was the best thing that happened to us, the infusion of cash allowed us to expand operations, develop new products and hire additional associates.

Plus I got to help ring the bell...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

...and that differs from your excellent (and textbook) display of confirmation bias how? We get it, this company's failure really does zero favors to your argument in favor of massive minimum wage increases. Unfortunately (for those fighting for those increases), this company's experience here is the most logical, and the most likely scenario for most companies if the minimum wage is jacked to $15/hr.

Only a handful of companies will be able to absorb those additional wages while also increasing the salaries of their best workers to remain consistent with the wage differences seen presently. The best and brightest employees in the companies which cannot continue to pay them above the average pay will leave those companies, either for the handful of competitors who can pay or for a different field entirely. In reality, this outcome is probably more favorable than the alternative, at least in regards to the living wage argument. The alternative is that companies are able to bump merited wages up following any mandated minimum wage increase, maintaining the status of their best workers and ensuring they actually are paid what they've earned above and beyond those less experienced or less productive... in that alternative, the minimum wage increase is for naught because prices will simply rise accordingly and, in a few years, $15/hr will be the new $7.25/hr and we'll have to listen to people suggest $30/hr.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

...and that differs from your excellent (and textbook) display of confirmation bias how? We get it, this company's failure really does zero favors to your argument in favor of massive minimum wage increases. Unfortunately (for those fighting for those increases), this company's experience here is the most logical, and the most likely scenario for most companies if the minimum wage is jacked to $15/hr.

What are you talking about? I haven't made any arguments for or against minimum wage increases in this thread or even on ATS in general. I just called your argument an anecdote fallacy, because it is.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And you know, I get that...a lot of companies just don't/can't get the capital to get themselves "out there" to really make the big bucks.

The problem is, when these companies go public and outside investors get involved -- the company then becomes "profit over people" -- and people are seen as a commodity and not an asset.

The companies are now beholden to the board of directors and the investors, not the original owners and it's employees.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And you know, I get that...a lot of companies just don't/can't get the capital to get themselves "out there" to really make the big bucks.

The problem is, when these companies go public and outside investors get involved -- the company then becomes "profit over people" -- and people are seen as a commodity and not an asset.

The companies are now beholden to the board of directors and the investors, not the original owners and it's employees.

But when the company remains people over profit. you end up with places like Hobby Lobby who them follow business practices the rest of the world would prefer they didn't.

Either a you want a business who does not run all for profit or you do ... which is it?

a reply to: ketsuko

LOL, most people don't stick with a company long enough these days to "work their way up".

In my parents time people would work years, decades even with a company and then retire -- most folks in their 20's and 30's stay with a company 3-5 years. I see it all the time on the job applications I go through. Only older people seem to have a job history that includes 10+ years with one company...

I'm not sure if it's ADD or what -- but younger people just don't like staying at the same place for very long. I think the whole 401k thing might be part of it ... there's no real incentive to stick with a company for a retirement/pension anymore -- you can take your 401k wherever you want.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You've got to realize, there's a contingent of America which views every Wall Street opening bell as this:


It's an illogical bastardization of the old Aesop's fable of the greedy little dog with a bone. The fable talks about a dog that see another dog with a larger bone and try to take it, only to discover it's his own reflection they're looking at and losing the bone he did have to the bottom of the lake in the process. Modern society has an element which wants to place a net under the dog, allowing the dog to make an attempt at grabbing the larger bone away from the dog that is holding it without running the risk of losing the bone they already have.

The idea of risk/reward is entirely lost on these people. That much is embarrassingly obvious when they display a total lack of understanding over *why* CEOs and preferred stockholders receive a significantly higher degree of compensation and return than the lowest rungs of the ladder who can walk away at any time with no investment losses or repercusions.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It all depends on the board and your company charter.

We have a pretty good board consisting of our founder as Chairman and some solid industry experts rounding out the membership. The first thing they did is vote in a new CEO which really reenergized the company.

We also all got RSUs so we have a vested interest and are able to vote on the board membership and various issues.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
You've got to realize, there's a contingent of America which views every Wall Street opening bell as this:

Too bad for them, standing up there on that podium was one of the coolest and most surreal things I have ever done.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think employee-owned businesses and profit sharing are a good thing?

a reply to: ketsuko

Sure, I completely understand your point. But that's not my line of thinking. I don't think like that, and I refuse to think like that. If I'm standing on the top of that hill, I refuse to stand idly by while those at the bottom struggle.


It's one thing if you have some standing there not trying to get up the hill at all. For those instances, I'm in full agreement with you and others who state one must work for what they have. But when I look down that hill, and see others struggling and trying to make it up, I'm dragging myself right back down and pulling them up with me.


Call me crazy, dumb, or whatever one thinks might fit. But I have a personal code that I try to live by:

Whenever one has the ability to effect something for the good, one has a moral and obligatory responsibility to do so.


Edit: This is also why I love the way Habitat for Humanity works. They require the recipient to not only help work to build their own home, but also help to build the homes of other recipients. Habitat for Humanity really is an amazing organization.