5 ms·

If you work somewhere and everyone else gets a raise because there's a new company-wide minimum wage, but you don't get a raise because you were already compens

by _yosefk 11y ago

If you work somewhere and everyone else gets a raise because there's a new company-wide minimum wage, but you don't get a raise because you were already compensated above that level and you got there through hard work (or so you think), you might quit, not because you resent the people who got the raises, but because you figure that you'll get a better deal at a place that gives raises to people who work harder. As to state-wide minimum wages - "the" argument against it is that less people are employed at a higher price of labor and that those priced out of the market are likely to be the ones hurt the most by it, though their numbers might be smaller than the numbers of those employed at the higher wage. (Of course this applies to the company with the $70K minimum wage as well: that company could have used the money it cost to implement this policy to instead hire more people.) There are counter-arguments along the lines of the demand for labor being inelastic and other such, but it's kinda off to not present a sensible argument against a minimum wage while presenting a crazy strawman argument against it, the latter implying with a high likelihood that the author supports a high minimum wage.

deanCommie 11y ago
But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. If you were to leave, maybe you'll be able to get a raise at another position, maybe not, but the other employees at your company don't change that. Okay so now you're in a situation where other people who don't work as hard or as smart as you are getting paid close to you, or the same. That doesn't feel good, but what happens next? Well, if you continue working harder than them, you'll be promoted and get a raise, and they won't. And there, the system re-corrects itself. Now, I COULD buy the argument that seeing people who you know don't work as hard suddenly make the same money as you would make you yourself get lazy and not try as hard. Because surely they can't fire you for performing the same as the rest. But if that's the type of person you are, maybe the company would be better off without you anyway?
- lazyjones 11y ago
  > But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. So were those who got a raise, but the company decided to hand out raises as a gift (not as a reward) to lower performers only - of course this discrimination will be frustrating.
  - darod 11y ago
    I don't know if you can characterize the people who got a raise as a low performers. Some people's market rate may just be below 70k but that doesn't mean they don't work hard. There are plenty of blue collar workers that bust their ass everyday.
    - brushfoot 11y ago
      But performance has less to do with butt-busting than with choices in what to learn/how to spend your time, don't you think? E.g., I could be working long hours manually moving data around, but if you come in and script that, you're already the higher performer. It's about where you've chosen to direct your effort vs. where I've chosen to direct mine.
  - mhb 11y ago
    If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? In fact, it seems as though they would read the news every day and become inconsolably frustrated.
    - lazyjones 11y ago
      > If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? Because the frustration came from being treated unfairly by the management, which they've cut ties with. Also, they might earn more at their new jobs now as well.
  - secstate 11y ago
    But the problem is that discrimination is a function of perception, and that is 9/10ths of reality. What the company was trying to do was correct a perceived culture wrong that some people were compensated less because their job was perceived as less important. The reality is that those "less important" jobs frequently actually keep businesses running smoothly. Only a smoothly running business can afford to invest in strategy, thus smooth operation should be as important as strategy. That (^) right there is another "perception" and is increasingly the one reasonable people are adopting EXACTLY because of what Seth notes: "It's possible to create dignity and be successful at the same time."
- balls187 11y ago
  > But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. If you were to leave, maybe you'll be able to get a raise at another position, maybe not, but the other employees at your company don't change that. When it comes to money, humans are generally irrational in their decision making, mostly biased towards emotional decision making. * This actually happened to me when I was 16 years old. I started working at fastfood job making $4.90/hr, WA state's minimum wage. I was a very strong worker, and was offered a position as a manager a few months later. I politely declined (read: my mother told me I was dumb to sacrifice my education in order make an extra $1.00 or so an hour). Eventually I was making $5.15 an hour through a series of wage increases due to good reviews. Then the Federal government raised minimum wage to $5.15/hr. I went to the store manager and asked for a raise. My argument was that my wage increases were do to my performance and seniority. Any unproven new-hire would start making the same wage as I do. They did not see it that way, and declined to provide me with a compensation increase. The feeling was irrational. I still made my wage, and new employees wages didn't come out of my pocket, so it had no impact on me. Still, I felt that my salary should reflect the value I bring to the company. I ended up putting in my two-weeks about a year later when they promoted an inept person to manager.
- orangecat 11y ago
  Well, if you continue working harder than them, you'll be promoted and get a raise, and they won't. Or not, if the company has no money left for merit raises because they're paying well above market salaries to others. But if that's the type of person you are, maybe the company would be better off without you anyway? So you expect employees to perpetually go above and beyond the job requirements without consideration of whether they'll be rewarded for it?
- pkaye 11y ago
  Would you ever run a competition where the first prize monetary value is less than the second prize? What kind of incentive would it give the participants? It is not always the absolute value that matters but the relative value of the rewards.
- jpollock 11y ago
  They would mechanize the role, removing the need to hure low wage staff, replacing them with higher wage maintenance staff at much lower numbers.
imgabe 11y ago
It's not about the minimum wage, that's just one example of how people have a tendency to define their happiness in relation to other people rather than to an absolute measure of how things are going for themselves. The point of the article is to judge yourself independently of other peoples' success, not about whether we should or should not have a high minimum wage.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  When we live in a world where prices are set based on how much people can pay, it makes sense to try to get ahead of everyone else. This applies to housing. I can't afford to live where I want because there are a lot of people making way more money than me that are in line ahead of me. Why shouldn't I try to get ahead of them?
- dTal 11y ago
  I think it's perfectly rational to be upset in the case where coworkers get the paid the same as you or more, yet are in your eyes less productive, competent, or otherwise valuable. Pay signals how much your employer values you, and therefore indirectly your job security. If your hard work goes unrecognized on the balance sheet, it'll probably go unrecognized when times get tight and they need to lay people off. Wanting to feel valued in one's "community" isn't comparing yourself to others, it's a basic human emotional need.
chongli 11y ago
less people are employed at a higher price of labor and that those priced out of the market are likely to be the ones hurt the most by it I don't see how that follows. Imagine the minimum wage were doubled, do you think McDonald's would respond by laying off half their staff? What do you think that would do to their business? Companies hire people because they need the work done, not because they have $X allocated to payroll and it's burning a hole in their pocket. If minimum wage goes up then payroll costs will go up, forcing them to either cut profits or find cost savings elsewhere.
- rooster8 11y ago
  If they raised the minimum wage 10% (not double, let's be realistic), it would raise McDonalds' incentive to eliminate a small percentage of staff. Look at how supermarkets now have self-checkout. 4 self-checkout stations going with one employee monitoring, and customers don't mind using them. In fact many customers prefer them because they help them get out of the store more quickly. There's no reason to think that McDonalds won't eventually try to eliminate some of the staff that takes orders. It's just a question of when they'll be incentivized enough to try it.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    B does not follow from A. Supermarkets did self checkout without any appreciable minimum wage pressures in the US. There is no evidence they won't do them, and no appreciable reason to think there's a floor on the price they can be implemented. Which leaves us with a minimum wage in many areas which does not actually allow someone to survive, and a growing population who will end up on welfare anyway regardless (who usually are on welfare anyway because oh look Walmart's HR practices).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - timpark 11y ago
    McDonald's is already working on self-serve options. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/mcdonald-s-canada-introducing-new-self-serve-options-table-service-1.2588733 http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/mcdonald-s-canada-introducing...

by _yosefk 11y ago

deanCommie 11y ago

But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. If you were to leave, maybe you'll be able to get a raise at another position, maybe not, but the other employees at your company don't change that. Okay so now you're in a situation where other people who don't work as hard or as smart as you are getting paid close to you, or the same. That doesn't feel good, but what happens next? Well, if you continue working harder than them, you'll be promoted and get a raise, and they won't. And there, the system re-corrects itself. Now, I COULD buy the argument that seeing people who you know don't work as hard suddenly make the same money as you would make you yourself get lazy and not try as hard. Because surely they can't fire you for performing the same as the rest. But if that's the type of person you are, maybe the company would be better off without you anyway?

lazyjones 11y ago
> But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. So were those who got a raise, but the company decided to hand out raises as a gift (not as a reward) to lower performers only - of course this discrimination will be frustrating.
- darod 11y ago
  I don't know if you can characterize the people who got a raise as a low performers. Some people's market rate may just be below 70k but that doesn't mean they don't work hard. There are plenty of blue collar workers that bust their ass everyday.
  - brushfoot 11y ago
    But performance has less to do with butt-busting than with choices in what to learn/how to spend your time, don't you think? E.g., I could be working long hours manually moving data around, but if you come in and script that, you're already the higher performer. It's about where you've chosen to direct your effort vs. where I've chosen to direct mine.
- mhb 11y ago
  If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? In fact, it seems as though they would read the news every day and become inconsolably frustrated.
  - lazyjones 11y ago
    > If it's frustrating to someone working at that company, why wouldn't they feel frustrated working any other place knowing that those people at their former company are still making relatively more than they should? Because the frustration came from being treated unfairly by the management, which they've cut ties with. Also, they might earn more at their new jobs now as well.
- secstate 11y ago
  But the problem is that discrimination is a function of perception, and that is 9/10ths of reality. What the company was trying to do was correct a perceived culture wrong that some people were compensated less because their job was perceived as less important. The reality is that those "less important" jobs frequently actually keep businesses running smoothly. Only a smoothly running business can afford to invest in strategy, thus smooth operation should be as important as strategy. That (^) right there is another "perception" and is increasingly the one reasonable people are adopting EXACTLY because of what Seth notes: "It's possible to create dignity and be successful at the same time."
balls187 11y ago
> But that doesn't make any sense. Ostensibly, you were being paid market rate before. If you were to leave, maybe you'll be able to get a raise at another position, maybe not, but the other employees at your company don't change that. When it comes to money, humans are generally irrational in their decision making, mostly biased towards emotional decision making. * This actually happened to me when I was 16 years old. I started working at fastfood job making $4.90/hr, WA state's minimum wage. I was a very strong worker, and was offered a position as a manager a few months later. I politely declined (read: my mother told me I was dumb to sacrifice my education in order make an extra $1.00 or so an hour). Eventually I was making $5.15 an hour through a series of wage increases due to good reviews. Then the Federal government raised minimum wage to $5.15/hr. I went to the store manager and asked for a raise. My argument was that my wage increases were do to my performance and seniority. Any unproven new-hire would start making the same wage as I do. They did not see it that way, and declined to provide me with a compensation increase. The feeling was irrational. I still made my wage, and new employees wages didn't come out of my pocket, so it had no impact on me. Still, I felt that my salary should reflect the value I bring to the company. I ended up putting in my two-weeks about a year later when they promoted an inept person to manager.
orangecat 11y ago
Well, if you continue working harder than them, you'll be promoted and get a raise, and they won't. Or not, if the company has no money left for merit raises because they're paying well above market salaries to others. But if that's the type of person you are, maybe the company would be better off without you anyway? So you expect employees to perpetually go above and beyond the job requirements without consideration of whether they'll be rewarded for it?
pkaye 11y ago
Would you ever run a competition where the first prize monetary value is less than the second prize? What kind of incentive would it give the participants? It is not always the absolute value that matters but the relative value of the rewards.
jpollock 11y ago
They would mechanize the role, removing the need to hure low wage staff, replacing them with higher wage maintenance staff at much lower numbers.

imgabe 11y ago

It's not about the minimum wage, that's just one example of how people have a tendency to define their happiness in relation to other people rather than to an absolute measure of how things are going for themselves. The point of the article is to judge yourself independently of other peoples' success, not about whether we should or should not have a high minimum wage.

jschwartzi 11y ago
When we live in a world where prices are set based on how much people can pay, it makes sense to try to get ahead of everyone else. This applies to housing. I can't afford to live where I want because there are a lot of people making way more money than me that are in line ahead of me. Why shouldn't I try to get ahead of them?
dTal 11y ago
I think it's perfectly rational to be upset in the case where coworkers get the paid the same as you or more, yet are in your eyes less productive, competent, or otherwise valuable. Pay signals how much your employer values you, and therefore indirectly your job security. If your hard work goes unrecognized on the balance sheet, it'll probably go unrecognized when times get tight and they need to lay people off. Wanting to feel valued in one's "community" isn't comparing yourself to others, it's a basic human emotional need.

chongli 11y ago

less people are employed at a higher price of labor and that those priced out of the market are likely to be the ones hurt the most by it I don't see how that follows. Imagine the minimum wage were doubled, do you think McDonald's would respond by laying off half their staff? What do you think that would do to their business? Companies hire people because they need the work done, not because they have $X allocated to payroll and it's burning a hole in their pocket. If minimum wage goes up then payroll costs will go up, forcing them to either cut profits or find cost savings elsewhere.

rooster8 11y ago
If they raised the minimum wage 10% (not double, let's be realistic), it would raise McDonalds' incentive to eliminate a small percentage of staff. Look at how supermarkets now have self-checkout. 4 self-checkout stations going with one employee monitoring, and customers don't mind using them. In fact many customers prefer them because they help them get out of the store more quickly. There's no reason to think that McDonalds won't eventually try to eliminate some of the staff that takes orders. It's just a question of when they'll be incentivized enough to try it.
- XorNot 11y ago
  B does not follow from A. Supermarkets did self checkout without any appreciable minimum wage pressures in the US. There is no evidence they won't do them, and no appreciable reason to think there's a floor on the price they can be implemented. Which leaves us with a minimum wage in many areas which does not actually allow someone to survive, and a growing population who will end up on welfare anyway regardless (who usually are on welfare anyway because oh look Walmart's HR practices).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- timpark 11y ago
  McDonald's is already working on self-serve options. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/mcdonald-s-canada-introducing-new-self-serve-options-table-service-1.2588733 http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/mcdonald-s-canada-introducing...