5 ms·

A company has a finite amount of money to spend on payroll. The less you can get away with paying the low and middle level employees, the more you free up for

A company has a finite amount of money to spend on payroll. The less you can get away with paying the low and middle level employees, the more you free up for the higher level employees. Part of the reason high-end salaries have increased so much is because low-end salaries haven't significantly increased at all. An experiment that drastically raises low-end salaries can therefore be viewed as a big threat to those whose wealth depends on being able to get away with paying their employees low wages. We can all argue endlessly about what constitutes a low wage, to what degree we should let the market decide, etc, etc - but the idea that "If there was more money available, we'd happily use it to raise entry-level wages instead of giving it to the top-tier employees" is demonstrably false. This is why this has everything to do with wealth equality.

jerf 11y ago
I have no idea what your reply has to do with me. I never even remotely made that claim. Were you so sure you knew what I was going to say that you didn't bother to read what I actually did say? A solution that can't be sustained isn't a solution. It is a category error to treat it as a solution merely because you like it, or it flatters your politics, or it makes you feel good, or it provides you a cudgel with which to hit your political opponents. None of those things will prevent the company from going out of business, if it does, and then nobody has a job.
- jfindley 11y ago
  You asserted: > Paying people well doesn't bother me, and I doubt it actually bothers anybody. To which I pointed out that it might well bother some groups of people. You also asserted that: > ... has little to nothing to do with the problem of "wealth inequality". Everybody already knows that if it were possible to just pull wealth out of thin air everybody could have more. To which I pointed out that it does in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, sustainable or no, as this experiment is (IMO) primarily about where and how payroll gets distributed, not about how large payroll might be. I read your post carefully, several times, before replying. Please do mine the same courtesy. Thanks.
  - jasode 11y ago
    >in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, __sustainable or no__, as this experiment [The __emphasis__ was mine]. jerf was saying that determining if "wealth equality" can be a solved problem depends on whether Gravity's strategy is sustainable and a ultimately proven as a success. jerf is looking beyond the salaries experiment and current media hoopla. jfindley is saying that the mere existence of the experiment without consideration of whether it succeeds is itself a conversation about "wealth inequality". You guys are talking about 2 different things.

jerf 11y ago

I have no idea what your reply has to do with me. I never even remotely made that claim. Were you so sure you knew what I was going to say that you didn't bother to read what I actually did say? A solution that can't be sustained isn't a solution. It is a category error to treat it as a solution merely because you like it, or it flatters your politics, or it makes you feel good, or it provides you a cudgel with which to hit your political opponents. None of those things will prevent the company from going out of business, if it does, and then nobody has a job.

jfindley 11y ago
You asserted: > Paying people well doesn't bother me, and I doubt it actually bothers anybody. To which I pointed out that it might well bother some groups of people. You also asserted that: > ... has little to nothing to do with the problem of "wealth inequality". Everybody already knows that if it were possible to just pull wealth out of thin air everybody could have more. To which I pointed out that it does in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, sustainable or no, as this experiment is (IMO) primarily about where and how payroll gets distributed, not about how large payroll might be. I read your post carefully, several times, before replying. Please do mine the same courtesy. Thanks.
- jasode 11y ago
  >in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, __sustainable or no__, as this experiment [The __emphasis__ was mine]. jerf was saying that determining if "wealth equality" can be a solved problem depends on whether Gravity's strategy is sustainable and a ultimately proven as a success. jerf is looking beyond the salaries experiment and current media hoopla. jfindley is saying that the mere existence of the experiment without consideration of whether it succeeds is itself a conversation about "wealth inequality". You guys are talking about 2 different things.