8 ms·

Am I crazy for thinking it seems naive to not anticipate that current employees may not take kindly to people who earn half as much as them getting bumped up to

Am I crazy for thinking it seems naive to not anticipate that current employees may not take kindly to people who earn half as much as them getting bumped up to their salaries?

jameshart 11y ago
Doesn't seem to be that he didn't anticipate problems, just that he was willing to work through them.
DarkTree 11y ago
No, not at all. I think it would have made more sense to give each employee a raise based on a percentage of their income. That way, everyone gets a pay raise, and you can give more money to the lower earners without offending employees because it is an equal percentage increase.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  The "higher earners" would receive an even larger increase in that case.
  - hueving 11y ago
    They would need a slightly larger raise to offset taxes, but you're a percentage match is probably too much.
  - DarkTree 11y ago
    Not if you take into account taxes.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Taxes won't matter. The higher earners receive a larger increase than they would have under a different regime (where everyone receives a constant $ increase [normalized for the "lowest earner"]).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jkestner 11y ago
  Well, the company does have a finite amount of money, and he wanted to get the minimum pay to the $70K that studies say make the most difference. I hope CEOs don't use the same thought process to keep their pay at 300x their minimum wage workers when the minimum wage is raised to $15.
jameshush 11y ago
I know what you're saying, but I've never understood this logic personally. How does someone else earning more money hurt you? It's not like a person doing better than you is taking your money.
- Killswitch 11y ago
  I think it's more along the lines that slackers that are lower pay scale getting huge raises that could equate to a 200% increase, whereas top performers, people who get paid above the threshold already, get nothing really.
- pjc50 11y ago
  "It's not enough to succeed. Others must fail." For many people, it's about the relative ranking of their worth as a person.
  - jbigelow76 11y ago
    It just makes the math easier that way :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Lockyy 11y ago
  Well the assumption is that the old salaries reflected what you were worth to the company. So bringing those who were previously compensated as 'less important' up to the same as the 'more important' people implies that the relative importance of those who were previously paid more has decreased, acting as a sort of 'now all your years of experience are worth no more than the minimal experience your colleague has.' Whether you agree or disagree, that's how I think those who are offended by this sort of change see it.
- scarmig 11y ago
  We're nicely dressed chimps, obsessed with hierarchies and status. A lot of our sense of value doesn't rest with how we're doing in absolute terms, but in how we are compared to the people around us. And even recognizing this, I'd be pissed off if I busted my ass off and provided lots of value to a company for a couple years and a new college hire ended up getting paid more than me, which has happened before.
infamouscow 11y ago
If it bothers you that your peers are going to have more financial security, then you're a self-centered asshole.
- walshemj 11y ago
  Absolutely some of the negative letters are worse human beings than that Minnesota dentist.
mmanfrin 11y ago
This is the main argument I hear from people who are against the push to raise the minimum wage to $15. Question to you: how does others who used to earn less than you now earning the same as you affect you?
- run4yourlives2 11y ago
  Ask yourself - If you are making minimum plus x and they raise the minimum to your salary mark, do you consider your worth to be "the minimum" or would you prefer your wage rise in tune with the increase? My guess is the latter. The argument against minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well.
  - pm24601 11y ago
    > The argument against minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well CORRECTED: The argument IN FAVOR of minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well
- vlucas 11y ago
  Answer: It raises prices for everyone, because the vast majority of companies will not simply absorb the hit to profitability, assuming they even have the ability to absorb a cost increase that large at all.
  - phaemon 11y ago
    Your answer appears to be wrong. Here are inflation figures for the UK from 1990 to 2015: http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate?start-year=1990&end-year=2015 http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-in... Can you spot the year that minimum wage was first introduced in the UK?
- netfire 11y ago
  Whether you support a minimum wage increase or not, to think that it won't affect other people than those that are getting the increase just isn't true. Here's some possible side effects. - Prices of products or services increase to compensate for the increase in salary. - Higher paid employees don't get raises since the money that was previously allocated for that is being used to pay for the minimum wage increase. (This seems to be happening in this case, where more experienced workers received little to no increase in compensation). - Other benefits are removed or reduced to cover the additional cost (health insurance, vacation, sick leave, etc) - The company can no longer be profitable with the additional costs and reduces the size of their workforce or shuts down completely. Which of these side effects (if any) occur, depends on the company and its current profits, management and/or investors, as well as how much they are already paying employees.
azernik 11y ago
You are not crazy. My thoughts were that this reaction is totally predictable, no matter how morally absurd.
- tunesmith 11y ago
  I think it's great that it elicits that reaction in such a stark way, though - it will make more than a few of them wrestle with it and maybe get past it. I can totally defend the desire to quit out of not wanting to have golden handcuffs, but quitting because someone "below" you is now not as far "below" you (or is now "shackled" to you, a ridiculous thought) is just spiteful and self-damaging.
- mistermann 11y ago
  It may be morally absurd, but it's certainly not economically absurd.
  - azernik 11y ago
    I think it is - for the cited examples getting a raise from 40k to 70k, this is strictly better than what they had before,/but they're still complaining. Economic rationality has nothing to do with it.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Am I crazy to think nobody should actually care? By that, I mean the cost of caring about it is probably much higher than the cost of not caring about it. I wonder if on the grave marker of humanity it will not read "THEY CARED TOO MUCH ABOUT SOCIAL SIGNALLING". The Universe is far too personal (and, curiously impersonal at the same time ) to care about whether other people are "winning". They'll get theirs, you'll get yours.
hyperion2010 11y ago
Nope, just revealing your our primate ancestry.

Am I crazy for thinking it seems naive to not anticipate that current employees may not take kindly to people who earn half as much as them getting bumped up to their salaries?

jameshart 11y ago

Doesn't seem to be that he didn't anticipate problems, just that he was willing to work through them.

DarkTree 11y ago

No, not at all. I think it would have made more sense to give each employee a raise based on a percentage of their income. That way, everyone gets a pay raise, and you can give more money to the lower earners without offending employees because it is an equal percentage increase.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
The "higher earners" would receive an even larger increase in that case.
- hueving 11y ago
  They would need a slightly larger raise to offset taxes, but you're a percentage match is probably too much.
- DarkTree 11y ago
  Not if you take into account taxes.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Taxes won't matter. The higher earners receive a larger increase than they would have under a different regime (where everyone receives a constant $ increase [normalized for the "lowest earner"]).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jkestner 11y ago
Well, the company does have a finite amount of money, and he wanted to get the minimum pay to the $70K that studies say make the most difference. I hope CEOs don't use the same thought process to keep their pay at 300x their minimum wage workers when the minimum wage is raised to $15.

jameshush 11y ago

I know what you're saying, but I've never understood this logic personally. How does someone else earning more money hurt you? It's not like a person doing better than you is taking your money.

Killswitch 11y ago
I think it's more along the lines that slackers that are lower pay scale getting huge raises that could equate to a 200% increase, whereas top performers, people who get paid above the threshold already, get nothing really.
pjc50 11y ago
"It's not enough to succeed. Others must fail." For many people, it's about the relative ranking of their worth as a person.
- jbigelow76 11y ago
  It just makes the math easier that way :)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Lockyy 11y ago
Well the assumption is that the old salaries reflected what you were worth to the company. So bringing those who were previously compensated as 'less important' up to the same as the 'more important' people implies that the relative importance of those who were previously paid more has decreased, acting as a sort of 'now all your years of experience are worth no more than the minimal experience your colleague has.' Whether you agree or disagree, that's how I think those who are offended by this sort of change see it.
scarmig 11y ago
We're nicely dressed chimps, obsessed with hierarchies and status. A lot of our sense of value doesn't rest with how we're doing in absolute terms, but in how we are compared to the people around us. And even recognizing this, I'd be pissed off if I busted my ass off and provided lots of value to a company for a couple years and a new college hire ended up getting paid more than me, which has happened before.

infamouscow 11y ago

If it bothers you that your peers are going to have more financial security, then you're a self-centered asshole.

walshemj 11y ago
Absolutely some of the negative letters are worse human beings than that Minnesota dentist.

mmanfrin 11y ago

This is the main argument I hear from people who are against the push to raise the minimum wage to $15. Question to you: how does others who used to earn less than you now earning the same as you affect you?

run4yourlives2 11y ago
Ask yourself - If you are making minimum plus x and they raise the minimum to your salary mark, do you consider your worth to be "the minimum" or would you prefer your wage rise in tune with the increase? My guess is the latter. The argument against minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well.
- pm24601 11y ago
  > The argument against minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well CORRECTED: The argument IN FAVOR of minimum wage increases is that it has a ripple effect and raises other wages as well
vlucas 11y ago
Answer: It raises prices for everyone, because the vast majority of companies will not simply absorb the hit to profitability, assuming they even have the ability to absorb a cost increase that large at all.
- phaemon 11y ago
  Your answer appears to be wrong. Here are inflation figures for the UK from 1990 to 2015: http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate?start-year=1990&end-year=2015 http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-in... Can you spot the year that minimum wage was first introduced in the UK?
netfire 11y ago
Whether you support a minimum wage increase or not, to think that it won't affect other people than those that are getting the increase just isn't true. Here's some possible side effects. - Prices of products or services increase to compensate for the increase in salary. - Higher paid employees don't get raises since the money that was previously allocated for that is being used to pay for the minimum wage increase. (This seems to be happening in this case, where more experienced workers received little to no increase in compensation). - Other benefits are removed or reduced to cover the additional cost (health insurance, vacation, sick leave, etc) - The company can no longer be profitable with the additional costs and reduces the size of their workforce or shuts down completely. Which of these side effects (if any) occur, depends on the company and its current profits, management and/or investors, as well as how much they are already paying employees.

azernik 11y ago

You are not crazy. My thoughts were that this reaction is totally predictable, no matter how morally absurd.

tunesmith 11y ago
I think it's great that it elicits that reaction in such a stark way, though - it will make more than a few of them wrestle with it and maybe get past it. I can totally defend the desire to quit out of not wanting to have golden handcuffs, but quitting because someone "below" you is now not as far "below" you (or is now "shackled" to you, a ridiculous thought) is just spiteful and self-damaging.
mistermann 11y ago
It may be morally absurd, but it's certainly not economically absurd.
- azernik 11y ago
  I think it is - for the cited examples getting a raise from 40k to 70k, this is strictly better than what they had before,/but they're still complaining. Economic rationality has nothing to do with it.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Am I crazy to think nobody should actually care? By that, I mean the cost of caring about it is probably much higher than the cost of not caring about it. I wonder if on the grave marker of humanity it will not read "THEY CARED TOO MUCH ABOUT SOCIAL SIGNALLING". The Universe is far too personal (and, curiously impersonal at the same time ) to care about whether other people are "winning". They'll get theirs, you'll get yours.

hyperion2010 11y ago

Nope, just revealing your our primate ancestry.