6 ms·

If you can't make a profit without extremely lowballing and undercutting your employees, do you deserve to stay in business?

• exclusiv 10y ago
  Your comment is so simplistic and inaccurate. It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work. Especially when you layer on good benefits like we do that aren't accounted for in the salary requirement. We do 3% of salary automatic contribution to 401k each year, allow employees to work from home, good healthcare and vacation/discretionary, etc. Other states don't have these rules and competition in many industries is across states or globally.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work. And nothing in the actual law prevents you from paying $41.6k or less (the whole way down to the minimum wage) for 40 hours of work. What you can't do is pay $41.6k or less and then not pay overtime. (And the threshold is much higher if you rely on the computer-related work exemption, and you have to pay overtime regardless of base pay if the work doesn't qualify for some exemption -- unlike the Feds which do at $100k [rising to $134k], California doesn't have an unqualified "high-pay" exemption.)
  • st3v3r 10y ago
    "It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work" Depending on the job, it can be. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about doing that, and not paying overtime.
• prostoalex 10y ago
  US steel companies, coal miners and large-scale manufacturers answered a resounding "no" to that, and yet their former employees are still unhappy.
• dismantlethesun 10y ago
  What's the point of a minimum wage when if you pay it, people will claim you are greedy and don't deserve to stay in business? At a minimum, regulation should match social expectation such as the minimum wage is enough that it shields businesses from such concerns as "am I paying people enough to survive?"
  • st3v3r 10y ago
    I won't disagree with you on that. Minimum wage should be enough to live on. But paying minimum wage is basically saying, "If I could pay you less, I would." That's about as greedy as it gets regarding employers.
    • dismantlethesun 10y ago
      Greed presupposes having excess and being unwilling to share its due solely for selfish desire. If your business can't pay more simply because the service isn't worth more then that isn't greed. If your business can't pay more, because the money is earmarked for other things, then that isn't greed. Basically, shuffling around monies between third parties isn't greed. It's only greed when the money is kept to yourself when others could use it, and could make a reasonable claim to deserving it (e.g. not being charitable is not greed).