7 ms·

So to the person who is currently making $75k and watching their coworker getting a $30k raise does what, exactly? Suddenly that person is worth 66% more, so w

So to the person who is currently making $75k and watching their coworker getting a $30k raise does what, exactly? Suddenly that person is worth 66% more, so what about everyone else? Come salary review time, I'd be asking for a huge raise, because clearly the company has the cash to throw around, and if they're handing out 50+% raises, my value must have also increased.

dsg42 12y ago
If you read the article, you'll note that they don't actually have the cash for this. The CEO is taking a massive paycut to make it happen. That being said, that kind of logic demonstrates an incredible lack of caring for the people who are benefiting from this. I presume you make more than $70k a year, and you fail to understand what it's like to live on less than $48k, as half of his employees do, in a city like Seattle. Making sure his employees are well paid makes a huge difference in their lives in a way increasing someone's salary from 75k to 95k just doesn't.
- cheald 12y ago
  The two aren't mutually exclusive. A skilled employee can both be happy for their coworker who is now living comfortably, and upset that they draw the same wage with twice the experience and domain-specific skills that their colleague doesn't possess. To put it another way, why invest time and money into education and specialized skills development if you can draw the same wage for an entry-level job with fewer responsibilities?
  - jasonlotito 12y ago
    You might have twice the experience, but if the value of your output and your coworkers output is the same, why should you get paid more?
    - cheald 12y ago
      You shouldn't, and that isn't my argument. If Gravity was paying some people $40k and some people $75k for the same work and result, they were being economically irrational. I'm saying that the $75k worker, up until today, was someone who likely commanded $75k because a) their training and experience allowed them to do productive work that exceeds that of entry-level workers, and b) they are harder to replace than entry-level workers. If your employer says "your value to this company is equivalent to the value of unskilled entry-level workers", when you are in fact a highly trained and experienced worker, that may well be difficult to swallow.
      - jasonlotito 12y ago
        > You shouldn't, and that isn't my argument. That is your argument. The company decides what it values, not you. > If your employer says "your value to this company is equivalent to the value of unskilled entry-level workers", when you are in fact a highly trained and experienced worker, that may well be difficult to swallow. Your value doesn't necessary map to your training and experience.
    - loco5niner 12y ago
      That's the point. The value of the output of various workers in various positions is NOT the same. Often that comes as a result of considerable effort, btw. That difference is naturally reflected in pay.
      - jasonlotito 12y ago
        > That's the point. The value of the output of various workers in various positions is NOT the same. The company decides the value, however, and they pay according to that. Are you suggesting this is not the case? This is literally how practically every company I know of works.
        loco5niner 12y ago
        I don't know how it is possible that you read what I wrote and came away thinking that.
- hdjdijkdu 12y ago
  Average salary for a programmer in Seattle is $72K according to GlassDoor. Why should a mailroom guy make the same as a programmer? The programmer had to go to school, learn his craft, keep up with the latest technology, learn several different languages, fix bugs at odd hours, forced to learn new things or be obsolete, etc. The mailroom guy just sorts mail and packs boxes. Why should they be paid the same?
  - srtjstjsj 12y ago
    > Average salary for a programmer in Seattle is $72K > Average salary for a software engineer in Seattle is $92K And Glassdoor 'salary' doesn't include bonuses or equity. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/seattle-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,7_IM781_KO8,25.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/seattle-software-engineer-... > keep up with the latest technology, learn several different languages, fix bugs at odd hours, forced to learn new things or be obsolete, These are not the programmers making <= $72k/yr Why is "should" relevant here? Why is the free market sacrosanct, except when someone makes a decision you don't like? Anyway, there are plenty of programmers who haven't honed their bodies in a way to make them competent mailroom staff.
- mc32 12y ago
  A couple of things: The article mentions salaried employees. Maybe the have no hourlies. Two. However things work out, we can be happy for the workers who got a pay raise. Maybe other cos will follow suit and lessen the spread between upper mgmt and kind worker pay. The current trajectory of increasing disparity does not bode well for the middle class or the lower classes both of which are experiencing an economy squeeze compared to their late sixties counterparts, in real terms.
jasonlotito 12y ago
> So to the person who is currently making $75k and watching their coworker getting a $30k raise does what, exactly? Congratulate their coworker. > Suddenly that person is worth 66% more No. That person is finally getting paid what they're worth. > so what about everyone else? What about them? Did they suddenly lose money? > Come salary review time, I'd be asking for a huge raise, ..., and if they're handing out 50+% raises, my value must have also increased. Why would your value raise at 'salary review time'? > because clearly the company has the cash to throw around Why do you think it has money to throw around? If the company hires someone else, do you think the company has cash to throw around? You're making a bunch of illogical statements that make bad assumptions. Start with this: how does one person getting a raise increase your value later on? How does hiring someone else increase your value later on? Unless you can answer these two questions satisfactorily, you are just being petulant.
- lolsal 12y ago
  > No. That person is finally getting paid what they're worth. I dunno about that, sounds like they are just getting paid more.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    > I dunno about that, sounds like they are just getting paid more. The free market has always been shitty about getting money to people who "deserve" it versus people who acquire it. If you think a high-paid lawyer is somehow worth the same as elementary school teacher, you should agree with the reduction in the massive disparity of salary. If you honestly think the lawyer is "worth" more, I don't want to know you, be around you, or have to interact with you at all.
    - lolsal 12y ago
      I think salary and compensation don't correlate to the worth of a human being, but they do directly correlate with the value that the human being provides to a company. I feel pity for you if you consider your salary or other compensation a representation of your worth as a person. Do you think an elementary school teacher and a lawyer are 'worth' the same in the courtroom?
philangist 12y ago
Zero-sum thinking like this is probably not healthy for anybody. If you're unhappy simply because your neighbor is better off, even though he hasn't actually taking anything from you, then a little bit of self-reflection might be in order. I'm not attacking you specifically, just speaking in general terms. Anyway I think the point being made here is that an employee's compensation shouldn't only be thought about in terms of what's best for the company's bottom line (employee Jon Fish provides the company with a value of X dollars/year, the least we can pay him without him quitting is .4X dollars/year) but also in terms of what's best for the employee's quality of life. That's what's radical and interesting about it.
- gotrecruit 12y ago
  i feel like this is a zero-sum situation though, since they're all employees and not owners, which means to a certain degree, the decision by the employer/owner to give more to one employee usually necessarily means giving less to another. to be more pedantic, you could even say the employer doesn't necessarily give less to another but HAS less to give or allocate to another employee. the situation of course changes if we're talking about part owners as well, then the argument does get a little murkier since it can be argued that improving the overall morale of the lower paid employees will bring about improved productivity and thus eventually lead to improved sales/revenue/profits, which ultimately benefits all the owners.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>> Come salary review time, I'd be asking for a huge raise, because clearly the company has the cash to throw around, and if they're handing out 50+% raises, my value must have also increased. Nope. The company isn't increasing those people's salaries because they are suddenly more valuable. It is doing it so that they can actually live somewhat comfortable lives in an expensive city. Other than that, I would advise that you stop looking at salaries as a way to compare yourself to others. You will be a happier person.
duaneb 12y ago
If you were making >2x the cash your colleagues were, you are DEFINITELY overvalued.
- cheald 12y ago
  That's a ridiculous statement without an evaluation of the economic contributions of each employee and the availability of employee alternatives for each position.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    It's almost as if economic contributions have NO RELATION to someone's worth.
    - cheald 12y ago
      Are you making an argument for the labor theory of value?
- loco5niner 12y ago
  Not really. It depends on the value you bring to the company for your work and the difficulty in replacing your skills. I happily admit there are surgeons making much more than 2X my salary, and think that it is entirely appropriate.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    Yes, and most companies are utterly worthless. I'm trying to point out that worth is obviously different than market value.
    - loco5niner 12y ago
      > most companies are utterly worthless Hard to argue that point, but they are at least worth enough to be paying their employees salaries. > I'm trying to point out that worth is obviously different than market value And yet, market value is what determines pay-scale.
eonw 12y ago
well said. giving undeserved raises erodes the believe in hard word generating better returns then just hanging out. it would certain make me look elsewhere if everyone else was grossly rewarded for their work(above the industry standard for their position) and i was paid on par with my peers at other companies.

dsg42 12y ago

If you read the article, you'll note that they don't actually have the cash for this. The CEO is taking a massive paycut to make it happen. That being said, that kind of logic demonstrates an incredible lack of caring for the people who are benefiting from this. I presume you make more than $70k a year, and you fail to understand what it's like to live on less than $48k, as half of his employees do, in a city like Seattle. Making sure his employees are well paid makes a huge difference in their lives in a way increasing someone's salary from 75k to 95k just doesn't.

cheald 12y ago
The two aren't mutually exclusive. A skilled employee can both be happy for their coworker who is now living comfortably, and upset that they draw the same wage with twice the experience and domain-specific skills that their colleague doesn't possess. To put it another way, why invest time and money into education and specialized skills development if you can draw the same wage for an entry-level job with fewer responsibilities?
- jasonlotito 12y ago
  You might have twice the experience, but if the value of your output and your coworkers output is the same, why should you get paid more?
  - cheald 12y ago
    You shouldn't, and that isn't my argument. If Gravity was paying some people $40k and some people $75k for the same work and result, they were being economically irrational. I'm saying that the $75k worker, up until today, was someone who likely commanded $75k because a) their training and experience allowed them to do productive work that exceeds that of entry-level workers, and b) they are harder to replace than entry-level workers. If your employer says "your value to this company is equivalent to the value of unskilled entry-level workers", when you are in fact a highly trained and experienced worker, that may well be difficult to swallow.
    - jasonlotito 12y ago
      > You shouldn't, and that isn't my argument. That is your argument. The company decides what it values, not you. > If your employer says "your value to this company is equivalent to the value of unskilled entry-level workers", when you are in fact a highly trained and experienced worker, that may well be difficult to swallow. Your value doesn't necessary map to your training and experience.
  - loco5niner 12y ago
    That's the point. The value of the output of various workers in various positions is NOT the same. Often that comes as a result of considerable effort, btw. That difference is naturally reflected in pay.
    - jasonlotito 12y ago
      > That's the point. The value of the output of various workers in various positions is NOT the same. The company decides the value, however, and they pay according to that. Are you suggesting this is not the case? This is literally how practically every company I know of works.
      - loco5niner 12y ago
        I don't know how it is possible that you read what I wrote and came away thinking that.
hdjdijkdu 12y ago
Average salary for a programmer in Seattle is $72K according to GlassDoor. Why should a mailroom guy make the same as a programmer? The programmer had to go to school, learn his craft, keep up with the latest technology, learn several different languages, fix bugs at odd hours, forced to learn new things or be obsolete, etc. The mailroom guy just sorts mail and packs boxes. Why should they be paid the same?
- srtjstjsj 12y ago
  > Average salary for a programmer in Seattle is $72K > Average salary for a software engineer in Seattle is $92K And Glassdoor 'salary' doesn't include bonuses or equity. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/seattle-software-engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,7_IM781_KO8,25.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/seattle-software-engineer-... > keep up with the latest technology, learn several different languages, fix bugs at odd hours, forced to learn new things or be obsolete, These are not the programmers making <= $72k/yr Why is "should" relevant here? Why is the free market sacrosanct, except when someone makes a decision you don't like? Anyway, there are plenty of programmers who haven't honed their bodies in a way to make them competent mailroom staff.
mc32 12y ago
A couple of things: The article mentions salaried employees. Maybe the have no hourlies. Two. However things work out, we can be happy for the workers who got a pay raise. Maybe other cos will follow suit and lessen the spread between upper mgmt and kind worker pay. The current trajectory of increasing disparity does not bode well for the middle class or the lower classes both of which are experiencing an economy squeeze compared to their late sixties counterparts, in real terms.

jasonlotito 12y ago

> So to the person who is currently making $75k and watching their coworker getting a $30k raise does what, exactly? Congratulate their coworker. > Suddenly that person is worth 66% more No. That person is finally getting paid what they're worth. > so what about everyone else? What about them? Did they suddenly lose money? > Come salary review time, I'd be asking for a huge raise, ..., and if they're handing out 50+% raises, my value must have also increased. Why would your value raise at 'salary review time'? > because clearly the company has the cash to throw around Why do you think it has money to throw around? If the company hires someone else, do you think the company has cash to throw around? You're making a bunch of illogical statements that make bad assumptions. Start with this: how does one person getting a raise increase your value later on? How does hiring someone else increase your value later on? Unless you can answer these two questions satisfactorily, you are just being petulant.

lolsal 12y ago
> No. That person is finally getting paid what they're worth. I dunno about that, sounds like they are just getting paid more.
- duaneb 12y ago
  > I dunno about that, sounds like they are just getting paid more. The free market has always been shitty about getting money to people who "deserve" it versus people who acquire it. If you think a high-paid lawyer is somehow worth the same as elementary school teacher, you should agree with the reduction in the massive disparity of salary. If you honestly think the lawyer is "worth" more, I don't want to know you, be around you, or have to interact with you at all.
  - lolsal 12y ago
    I think salary and compensation don't correlate to the worth of a human being, but they do directly correlate with the value that the human being provides to a company. I feel pity for you if you consider your salary or other compensation a representation of your worth as a person. Do you think an elementary school teacher and a lawyer are 'worth' the same in the courtroom?

philangist 12y ago

Zero-sum thinking like this is probably not healthy for anybody. If you're unhappy simply because your neighbor is better off, even though he hasn't actually taking anything from you, then a little bit of self-reflection might be in order. I'm not attacking you specifically, just speaking in general terms. Anyway I think the point being made here is that an employee's compensation shouldn't only be thought about in terms of what's best for the company's bottom line (employee Jon Fish provides the company with a value of X dollars/year, the least we can pay him without him quitting is .4X dollars/year) but also in terms of what's best for the employee's quality of life. That's what's radical and interesting about it.

gotrecruit 12y ago
i feel like this is a zero-sum situation though, since they're all employees and not owners, which means to a certain degree, the decision by the employer/owner to give more to one employee usually necessarily means giving less to another. to be more pedantic, you could even say the employer doesn't necessarily give less to another but HAS less to give or allocate to another employee. the situation of course changes if we're talking about part owners as well, then the argument does get a little murkier since it can be argued that improving the overall morale of the lower paid employees will bring about improved productivity and thus eventually lead to improved sales/revenue/profits, which ultimately benefits all the owners.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>> Come salary review time, I'd be asking for a huge raise, because clearly the company has the cash to throw around, and if they're handing out 50+% raises, my value must have also increased. Nope. The company isn't increasing those people's salaries because they are suddenly more valuable. It is doing it so that they can actually live somewhat comfortable lives in an expensive city. Other than that, I would advise that you stop looking at salaries as a way to compare yourself to others. You will be a happier person.

duaneb 12y ago

If you were making >2x the cash your colleagues were, you are DEFINITELY overvalued.

cheald 12y ago
That's a ridiculous statement without an evaluation of the economic contributions of each employee and the availability of employee alternatives for each position.
- duaneb 12y ago
  It's almost as if economic contributions have NO RELATION to someone's worth.
  - cheald 12y ago
    Are you making an argument for the labor theory of value?
loco5niner 12y ago
Not really. It depends on the value you bring to the company for your work and the difficulty in replacing your skills. I happily admit there are surgeons making much more than 2X my salary, and think that it is entirely appropriate.
- duaneb 12y ago
  Yes, and most companies are utterly worthless. I'm trying to point out that worth is obviously different than market value.
  - loco5niner 12y ago
    > most companies are utterly worthless Hard to argue that point, but they are at least worth enough to be paying their employees salaries. > I'm trying to point out that worth is obviously different than market value And yet, market value is what determines pay-scale.

eonw 12y ago

well said. giving undeserved raises erodes the believe in hard word generating better returns then just hanging out. it would certain make me look elsewhere if everyone else was grossly rewarded for their work(above the industry standard for their position) and i was paid on par with my peers at other companies.