5 ms·

I would want to be compensated in kind. If they have enough money to double the least valuable employees from 35k to 70k, I would also demand double. I don’t t

by mruts 8y ago

I would want to be compensated in kind. If they have enough money to double the least valuable employees from 35k to 70k, I would also demand double. I don’t think there are bad incentives from increasing mean of the pay distribution. But similar to the problems with minimum wage, this 70k wage minimum significantly compresses the distribution instead of just changing the mean. This creates very bad long-term incentives for the company and employees.

lewilewilewi 8y ago
Why is it comparative? In the article it says that people left because they didn't like that others were getting a larger part rise to take them up to the minimum salary, which seems that envy is a more important driving force (for those people) than everyone getting paid a good living wage.
- ianai 8y ago
  I’ve worked with people like that before. Good riddance.
mikeash 8y ago
I always want more money, but I don’t see why I’d expect it here. If the company cut my pay in order to pay the janitors $70,000 I might be perturbed, but as long as my pay remains steady, what do I care if people lower down the pay scale make more? Tech workers are paid incredibly well. Maybe that’s because we create so much value, but our ability to do so is partly due to luck and circumstance. Certainly, the poor sucker emptying the trash cans for minimum wage puts in more effort each day than I ever do, and the company needs them in order to operate just as much as they need me.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  the company really doesn't need the janitor as much as it needs software devs. the janitor is only worth employing because they free other workers to spend their time on more valuable tasks. if, for some reason, janitors weren't cheaper than devs, you would see a lot more devs emptying trash cans.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. Devs don’t directly contribute to any fundamental human need. We’re valuable because our work can facilitate those who do take care of those needs. The relative need is entirely down to supply and demand. And while I greatly appreciate being part of a group with limited supply and great demand, I don’t see why this means I should object to other people getting more.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      > Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. this is true but it glosses over an important distinction between skilled and unskilled labor. skilled positions in engineering and sales (just for example) require specific skills and probably some baseline aptitude that can't be quickly acquired. that is, you can't just assign your engineers some sales duties if it becomes too expensive to hire sales people, and most sales people can't just pick up engineering tasks if it's too expensive to hire more engineers. in contrast, most able-bodied adults can learn to sweep, mop, etc. in a couple weeks. maybe extend it to a couple months if they need to use heavier equipment to clean a large space. this inherently puts a ceiling on the value of janitorial work. if janitor pay gets too close to pay for a skilled role, it's just not worth hiring the janitor anymore. you can see this dynamic play out in restaurants and convenience stores. most businesses like these don't hire janitors, because they would have to pay them as much or more than they pay the waitstaff, cooks, or cashiers. instead, the normal employees are usually tasked with cleaning the workspace at the end of their shifts. to be clear, I am not contesting your greater point. the fact that some people don't perform extremely valuable work doesn't mean it's okay to treat them like dirt; it doesn't make them less valuable as people. but the claim that a software company needs a janitor as much as it needs an engineer just isn't true.
      - wonderwonder 8y ago
        Assuming that everything you said is true (and it is), why should the engineers care? They are still getting the same salary they had before and likely still have a much higher top tier than everyone else. If they are able to put their ego aside, they would see they were not negatively affected at all. If I was an engineer getting a fair market wage at 70k, and then the janitor gets a raise to an above fair market wage of 70k as well, it does not affect anything in my life. I am not going to quit and go work across the street as an engineer still making 70k just to ensure the janitor there knows I am more valuable.
sovnade 8y ago
Not sure how. If you're a software engineer making 140k, you're still happy. You shouldn't have to make 280k at this company to be as happy.
- ianai 8y ago
  Such a person doesn’t like seeing coworkers they feel superior to being able to afford things similar to themselves. But that itself proves a point about what sorts of decisions impact a country’s wealth the greatest on the margin. If you give individuals on the lower end of the spectrum more money they will spend it. There’s no worry that they’re going to put it into investments or expenditures which don’t turn into income for somebody else. So the GDP actually raises by much more of an amount, and thus national wealth in the long term aggregate, than if those income increases were sent to the wealthy.
konschubert 8y ago
> But similar to the problems with minimum wage, this 70k wage minimum significantly compresses the distribution instead of just changing the mean. Yea, I mean, that's kind of the point. You really have it backwards: If you just multiply all salaries in society with 2, inflation will eat it all up. In order to achieve a more equal society, you have to raise the lower salaries more than the higher ones. Now, of course, you may say you don't WANT a more equal society, but ... ever wondered why US politics have become such a mess?
- 1123581321 8y ago
  You have to lower the high salaries as well, or cause some people to exit the workforce, to prevent inflation from raising low salaries if output doesn’t change.
Pfhreak 8y ago
This attitude is called greed. Typically, greed is considered a negative trait. > this 70k wage minimum significantly compresses the distribution instead of just changing the mean. That's the point, yeah? Like the whole point?
wonderwonder 8y ago
It really depends on how you categorize yourself and your co-workers. If you value yourself as simply an engineer and your coworkers as a janitor, cashier, etc. then yes I could see your entire identity being wrapped up in making more than others. If you categorize yourself as a person and your coworkers as other people who also deserve happiness and the chance to ensure their children have a good future at exactly zero cost to yourself then you would see this across the board raising of the minimum as a good thing. If I make the salary I ask for and am able to lead the life I want on it, then the fact that everyone else I work with is also getting a great salary is only a net positive in my book. The fact that the higher earners salaries were not affected at all means they suffered no harm except for those led by their ego.

by mruts 8y ago

lewilewilewi 8y ago

Why is it comparative? In the article it says that people left because they didn't like that others were getting a larger part rise to take them up to the minimum salary, which seems that envy is a more important driving force (for those people) than everyone getting paid a good living wage.

ianai 8y ago
I’ve worked with people like that before. Good riddance.

mikeash 8y ago

I always want more money, but I don’t see why I’d expect it here. If the company cut my pay in order to pay the janitors $70,000 I might be perturbed, but as long as my pay remains steady, what do I care if people lower down the pay scale make more? Tech workers are paid incredibly well. Maybe that’s because we create so much value, but our ability to do so is partly due to luck and circumstance. Certainly, the poor sucker emptying the trash cans for minimum wage puts in more effort each day than I ever do, and the company needs them in order to operate just as much as they need me.

leetcrew 8y ago
the company really doesn't need the janitor as much as it needs software devs. the janitor is only worth employing because they free other workers to spend their time on more valuable tasks. if, for some reason, janitors weren't cheaper than devs, you would see a lot more devs emptying trash cans.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. Devs don’t directly contribute to any fundamental human need. We’re valuable because our work can facilitate those who do take care of those needs. The relative need is entirely down to supply and demand. And while I greatly appreciate being part of a group with limited supply and great demand, I don’t see why this means I should object to other people getting more.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    > Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. this is true but it glosses over an important distinction between skilled and unskilled labor. skilled positions in engineering and sales (just for example) require specific skills and probably some baseline aptitude that can't be quickly acquired. that is, you can't just assign your engineers some sales duties if it becomes too expensive to hire sales people, and most sales people can't just pick up engineering tasks if it's too expensive to hire more engineers. in contrast, most able-bodied adults can learn to sweep, mop, etc. in a couple weeks. maybe extend it to a couple months if they need to use heavier equipment to clean a large space. this inherently puts a ceiling on the value of janitorial work. if janitor pay gets too close to pay for a skilled role, it's just not worth hiring the janitor anymore. you can see this dynamic play out in restaurants and convenience stores. most businesses like these don't hire janitors, because they would have to pay them as much or more than they pay the waitstaff, cooks, or cashiers. instead, the normal employees are usually tasked with cleaning the workspace at the end of their shifts. to be clear, I am not contesting your greater point. the fact that some people don't perform extremely valuable work doesn't mean it's okay to treat them like dirt; it doesn't make them less valuable as people. but the claim that a software company needs a janitor as much as it needs an engineer just isn't true.
    - wonderwonder 8y ago
      Assuming that everything you said is true (and it is), why should the engineers care? They are still getting the same salary they had before and likely still have a much higher top tier than everyone else. If they are able to put their ego aside, they would see they were not negatively affected at all. If I was an engineer getting a fair market wage at 70k, and then the janitor gets a raise to an above fair market wage of 70k as well, it does not affect anything in my life. I am not going to quit and go work across the street as an engineer still making 70k just to ensure the janitor there knows I am more valuable.

sovnade 8y ago

Not sure how. If you're a software engineer making 140k, you're still happy. You shouldn't have to make 280k at this company to be as happy.

ianai 8y ago
Such a person doesn’t like seeing coworkers they feel superior to being able to afford things similar to themselves. But that itself proves a point about what sorts of decisions impact a country’s wealth the greatest on the margin. If you give individuals on the lower end of the spectrum more money they will spend it. There’s no worry that they’re going to put it into investments or expenditures which don’t turn into income for somebody else. So the GDP actually raises by much more of an amount, and thus national wealth in the long term aggregate, than if those income increases were sent to the wealthy.

konschubert 8y ago

> But similar to the problems with minimum wage, this 70k wage minimum significantly compresses the distribution instead of just changing the mean. Yea, I mean, that's kind of the point. You really have it backwards: If you just multiply all salaries in society with 2, inflation will eat it all up. In order to achieve a more equal society, you have to raise the lower salaries more than the higher ones. Now, of course, you may say you don't WANT a more equal society, but ... ever wondered why US politics have become such a mess?

1123581321 8y ago
You have to lower the high salaries as well, or cause some people to exit the workforce, to prevent inflation from raising low salaries if output doesn’t change.

Pfhreak 8y ago

This attitude is called greed. Typically, greed is considered a negative trait. > this 70k wage minimum significantly compresses the distribution instead of just changing the mean. That's the point, yeah? Like the whole point?

wonderwonder 8y ago

It really depends on how you categorize yourself and your co-workers. If you value yourself as simply an engineer and your coworkers as a janitor, cashier, etc. then yes I could see your entire identity being wrapped up in making more than others. If you categorize yourself as a person and your coworkers as other people who also deserve happiness and the chance to ensure their children have a good future at exactly zero cost to yourself then you would see this across the board raising of the minimum as a good thing. If I make the salary I ask for and am able to lead the life I want on it, then the fact that everyone else I work with is also getting a great salary is only a net positive in my book. The fact that the higher earners salaries were not affected at all means they suffered no harm except for those led by their ego.