Seattle Business offering $70K min wage is failing

[IndyDave1776]

Any business that pays employees MORE than they are worth will not survive on its own. The minimum wage argument being used today has nothing to do with "value" but everything to do with "entitlement". These low-wage workers claim they DESERVE more because they WORK HARD and because they have BILLS to PAY. While I have some serious doubt about the working hard part, since what I see in many cases is the opposite, I'll even concede that point. But hard work does not equal value. I've operated a shovel in the past and it's hard work, no doubt about it. But is it VALUABLE work? No, almost anyone can do it, virtually without training and if I won't do it, someone else will.

But what if you need open heart surgery? Is that hard work? To some degree it is, but a surgeon doesn't "work" as hard are a ditch digger, but he gets paid a LOT more. Why is that? VALUE! Just anyone is NOT able to do heart surgery. It takes years of study and years of practice and a good bit of specialzed skill that only a few are willing and able to develop. It's easy to say everyone deserves the same but that's socialism where pay is based on someone's idea of what people are worth and it doesn't work, it's NEVER worked anywhere, but it appeals to the lazy, the stupid, and the "entitled" because it promises them something for nothing.

But if YOU were having open heart surgery would YOU want a minimum-wage surgeon? I sure wouldn't!!

The leftists, of course, have no way to refute this argument. So they use the Alinsky tactic of attacking the PERSON of anyone holding this view. I'm a hater and a racist bigot because I hold this awful position. If you can't attack the position, attack the PERSON!

Very well said! I would also add that I have seen this same argument in public school (incidentally being spewed by an assistant principal). This subset of the same nonsense, presented while we were discussing weighted grades, is that it is wrong to give more value to a grade in honors classes than, say, remedial English because those people who were scarcely able to construct a comprehensible sentence were working just as hard for their A as I worked for mine. He signally failed to grasp the significance of valuing the results rather than the amount of effort invested in reaching those results. Taking this thinking with your ditch digger analogy, a ditch digger should be paid somewhere around $500/hour given that he works a hell of a lot harder than an operator on a $200/hour excavator--after all, we are now paying based on how hard he works rather than what he gets done or the value he produces.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I don't know anything about credit card clearing or whatever it says his business is but I'm not sure why processing a bunch of credit card transactions would take years to start paying off. That had to be a really lean first few years of business.

If it were easy everyone would do it. New business is not always immediately profitable, sometimes not for years.

 

[jamil]

If he's paying 70g, it shouldn't be tough to replace the oxygen suckers with motivated employees. It's funny people quit not because of their own pay but because of other people's pay. "I was happy with my slice of the pie until that guy's slice got almost as big. Now my pie slice looks smaller in comparison!" Or apparently "I'm making too much money and if I don't leave now I won't be able to follow my dreams!"




Or perhaps employees will be more loyal and motivated:





I wonder how loyal those employees and clients are going to be...


He's getting a metric butt ton of free publicity out of this and I'm guessing his "star" employees won't be tough to replace. It's not like there's a shortage of web designers out there. Per the article he's drawing in a lot of new clients but the profit on a new acquisition doesn't start rolling in for a year or so. Perhaps a short term loss for a long term gain? Unless his brother sues him out of existence. The joys of a family owned business. Either way, his company, and he's working hard to make it work, so what's the beef?


A bit more detailed account:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=1

You can't defeat human nature. Turns out, employees aren't all equal. The best employees should be rewarded. The worst, not so much. Human nature dictates that if they're compensated equally, their performance will equalize towards least common denominator. Of course it will be easy to find people who say their performance has increased. After all, they wouldn't want to lose THAT gig. Of course there will be outliers, high performing individuals who continue to perform, and low performing individuals who increase their performance. But those are outliers.

Most businesses choose their business partners based on quality of service vs price. If all else were equal, sure, things like "social justice" may matter to some businesses. Certainly if a vendor has a high price and really ****ty service, no one would do business with them even if they hired only LGBT, handicapped, single parent rape victims, and payed them 100K/year.

And I have no beef with the guy. It's his business. He is free to live in a cardboard box while paying his employees way more than their labor is worth. Apparently his brother doesn't care to live in a cardboard box. And you probably think that makes HIM the bad guy.

 

[jwh20]

You can't defeat human nature. Turns out, employees aren't all equal. The best employees should be rewarded. The worst, not so much. Human nature dictates that if they're compensated equally, their performance will equalize towards least common denominator. Of course it will be easy to find people who say their performance has increased. After all, they wouldn't want to lose THAT gig. Of course there will be outliers, high performing individuals who continue to perform, and low performing individuals who increase their performance. But those are outliers.

Most businesses choose their business partners based on quality of service vs price. If all else were equal, sure, things like "social justice" may matter to some businesses. Certainly if a vendor has a high price and really ****ty service, no one would do business with them even if they hired only LGBT, handicapped, single parent rape victims, and payed them 100K/year.

And I have no beef with the guy. It's his business. He is free to live in a cardboard box while paying his employees way more than their labor is worth. Apparently his brother doesn't care to live in a cardboard box. And you probably think that makes HIM the bad guy.

You'll notice that in the article other employees, TOP employees, were leaving because they were not being paid a premium over the lower value employees.

By the way, this is not rocket science, it's capitalism and the definitive work on this subject is Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" book. It was published in 1776 by a Scotsman but it describes the WHY behind free markets and capitalism and why it happens automatically as well as in secret where prohibited.

The contrary viewpoint is a much newer work by German Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto". It's sad that neither of these works and the worldviews they present are studied any longer in schools. Schools have adopted the philosophy of Marxism (today called liberalism or progressivism) as the "future" when, in fact, it's a bankrupt system that has proven itself NOT to work anywhere. But that doesn't stop the elites from promoting it since it give them an avenue to give themselves more power and is doesn't stop the uneducated masses from wanting it since it promises something for nothing - or something for little.

Both are heavy readying, especially Smith's tome, but well worth the investment to read. By the way, another favorite of mine is Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which describes the tactics used by the leftists. It's virtually their playbook and it really helps you understand what they are doing.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Human nature dictates that if they're compensated equally, their performance will equalize towards least common denominator.

Interesting. Does the military see that? Why does one squad with a good sergeant work their ass off and have great morale while another squad with an ineffective sergeant drag ass and complains about it constantly? Police departments? Why do some guys actively patrol and kick things up while others hang out at the BP and wait for a run? Why don't the forerunners slow down to match their equally compensated buddies?

Is money the only motivator for you to do a good job, then? You do not work harder for a boss you like? Loyalty means nothing? You do not work harder in a task you enjoy than one you despise?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Any business that pays employees MORE than they are worth will not survive on its own.

How much are you worth? How did you calculate that?

How much is your CEO worth? How did you calculate that?

Are both of your pay levels matched exactly to that?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Interesting. Does the military see that? Why does one squad with a good sergeant work their ass off and have great morale while another squad with an ineffective sergeant drag ass and complains about it constantly? Police departments? Why do some guys actively patrol and kick things up while others hang out at the BP and wait for a run? Why don't the forerunners slow down to match their equally compensated buddies?

Is money the only motivator for you to do a good job, then? You do not work harder for a boss you like? Loyalty means nothing? You do not work harder in a task you enjoy than one you despise?

How much are you worth? How did you calculate that?

How much is your CEO worth? How did you calculate that?

Are both of your pay levels matched exactly to that?

I would say that both military and law enforcement do not really conform to the regular standards here. Both offer people who are motivated by making a positive difference for the nation or community to do so, an opportunity which can easily transcend money for people who are so motivated. By contrast, the factory worker isn't going to reduce crime, keep children safe, or protect us from international terrorism by turning out more widgets than the guy on the next line.

How much are you worth? While calculating it can be a bear, the bottom line is that your worth is determined by the amount of revenue which is generated which would not have been generated in your absence. There is some subjective judgment involved, especially with positions which are necessary but not directly part of production, like mechanics or custodial workers who are not directly part of production but still necessary, but generally, this is where the answer is found. Looking to the stated example, I fail to see how any administrative assistant fresh out of school can generate $70K worth of value for the company. I will grant you that there are definitely examples of the perception of generating value getting skewed. I once worked for a company which was a dealer of construction machinery and also operated a dedicated rental division. In this environment, the salesmen were god and everyone else was considered a marginally necessary evil. The foundation of this thinking is that the salesmen made money while everyone else costs money. The flaw is that there is no one more useless than a salesman without a commodity to sell, which is what everyone else supplied.

My final conclusion is that you cannot go to the accountant and determine 'scientifically' how much each individual is worth to the penny but the attentive observer will have a very solid idea of where the boundaries are on this, subject to that observer's own ability, examples of willful ignorance, and examples of the Peter principle setting in.

 

[jamil]

Interesting. Does the military see that? Why does one squad with a good sergeant work their ass off and have great morale while another squad with an ineffective sergeant drag ass and complains about it constantly? Police departments? Why do some guys actively patrol and kick things up while others hang out at the BP and wait for a run? Why don't the forerunners slow down to match their equally compensated buddies?

Is money the only motivator for you to do a good job, then? You do not work harder for a boss you like? Loyalty means nothing? You do not work harder in a task you enjoy than one you despise?

Does the military only have one rank? No. Are all the ranks paid the same? No. Is there an incentive to be higher than you are in the chain of command? Yes. Do the forerunners have an incentive to outperform their rivals? Yes. Is everyone in the military treated equally? No. Is that fair? No. Fairness isn't the goal. Is the number on the paycheck the only way workers are compensated? No.

The idea behind paying everyone a minimum wage of $70K conforms to the social justice concept of equal compensation regardless of equal work. It is pure folly. There will be exceptions but if you pay everyone the same, regardless of their performance, their productivity will decline towards the least common denominator. I've seen it work that way in every case in close to 40 years of working. If your job is to put pieces of a widget together, why should you put more together than the next guy when you get paid the same either way?

Long ago I worked in a unionized factory and my first day coworkers told me to slow down or I'd screw up the piecework incentive and cause them to have to do more to get the same bonus. Piecework incentive. Now THAT was a sham. EVERYONE got paid the same bonus spread equally across the workforce for meeting some piecework standard. If the point of paying a piecework incentive was to get everyone to be more productive, it failed miserably, compared to what they'd have achieved if they could pay everyone by how much they produced.

If there is no incentive besides pride, or ego, eventually, that'll wear down.

Contrary to social justice warriors, paying people according to their value to an employer is not an evil concept. It's not a business owner's responsibility to provide a living for employees. Humans aren't a hive. We're individuals. And individual incentives tend to motivate us best. It is an individual's responsibility to provide his own living.

 

[jwh20]

How much are you worth? How did you calculate that?

How much is your CEO worth? How did you calculate that?

Are both of your pay levels matched exactly to that?

I can't say for sure what I'm worth but if I thought I was being compensated less than what the market says I'm worth, I'd likely look for a new job. I work for a large technology company and the CEO makes WAY too much in my opinion but in this case, CEO pay is relatively insignificant compared to the company's net. They could pay the CEO 10X and it wouldn't affect the company's bottom line.

What the CEO makes is not really my concern, the CEO doesn't answer to me, they answer to the board of directors and ultimately to the stockholders. If they fail to produce value for the stockholders over a long enough period of time, they will be replaced. At least that's the way it should work.

I know I get paid a LOT more than many others at my company in the same job category. Why is that? It's always about RESULTS not effort. Do I feel sorry for the others who don't make as much? Of course not and what I do is not a secret and I ALWAYS help others out. I'm ALWAYS the one who says, "I'll take that challenge..." Those things pay off. I make sure I know more and do more than anyone else.

But if some "fairness doctrine" came over my company and they decided that all people in a particular job category got paid $X, I would probably leave. Ultimately doing that would devalue what I do that others won't and that's UNFAIR!

Just my opinion but I'm a free-market proponent and NOT a socialist!

 

[rhino]

Now wait! If that guy is paying his employees a minimum of $70K regardless of all other factors, why shouldn't everyone else with a business do the same? The government should make them do it.

I shall enjoy the raise and then relax for a change.

It's social justice, after all.

 

[pudly]

Sure. Why stop at $15/hour? $35/hour ($70K) is the new standard!

 

[rhino]

Sure. Why stop at $15/hour? $35/hour ($70K) is the new standard!

But then what's magic about $70K? Some people make a lot more than that. We should either lower their salaries, or raise everyone else's to match whatever the top number really is. It's not fair for Robert Smith to scrape by on $70K while John Jones is making $100,000. It shouldn't matter that John works more hours, has a harder job with more stringent qualifications, and does everything he can to make the company succeed.

It's all about social justice, after all. You can't be against social justice.

 

[jwh20]

Sure. Why stop at $15/hour? $35/hour ($70K) is the new standard!

I've been saying that all along! If $15/hour is good, then $50/hour is better. But if $50 is better then why not $100, or $1000, or let's just pay everyone $10,000/hour! Poverty is solved in one fell swoop of the mighty hand of government. Ask yourself WHY that won't ever work and you have then answered the question about why government has no business in the minimum wage business.

As a side note, you have these people picketing for "living" wage and Democrats are pandering to that. But you have those same Democrats importing millions of illegal aliens which drive wages DOWN. A contradiction there but as ZoNation likes to point out: "Liberals are CONSISTENTLY inconsistent!"

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I would say that both military and law enforcement do not really conform to the regular standards here. Both offer people who are motivated by making a positive difference for the nation or community to do so, an opportunity which can easily transcend money for people who are so motivated. By contrast, the factory worker isn't going to reduce crime, keep children safe, or protect us from international terrorism by turning out more widgets than the guy on the next line.

How much are you worth? While calculating it can be a bear, the bottom line is that your worth is determined by the amount of revenue which is generated which would not have been generated in your absence. There is some subjective judgment involved, especially with positions which are necessary but not directly part of production, like mechanics or custodial workers who are not directly part of production but still necessary, but generally, this is where the answer is found. Looking to the stated example, I fail to see how any administrative assistant fresh out of school can generate $70K worth of value for the company. I will grant you that there are definitely examples of the perception of generating value getting skewed. I once worked for a company which was a dealer of construction machinery and also operated a dedicated rental division. In this environment, the salesmen were god and everyone else was considered a marginally necessary evil. The foundation of this thinking is that the salesmen made money while everyone else costs money. The flaw is that there is no one more useless than a salesman without a commodity to sell, which is what everyone else supplied.

My final conclusion is that you cannot go to the accountant and determine 'scientifically' how much each individual is worth to the penny but the attentive observer will have a very solid idea of where the boundaries are on this, subject to that observer's own ability, examples of willful ignorance, and examples of the Peter principle setting in.

Sure they do. Military and LE are just motivated by something else. I'm sure everywhere you've worked, though, some people and some departments have worked harder and/or been more productive than others. The idea that people are only motivated by making more money than their peers is what I'm challenging as ridiculous. Ok, let's go to the lower end of the scale. Go to an amusement park. Seasonal workers, all making roughly the same based on seniority, but some are much more friendly and engaged than others. Why? They aren't fighting crime or the like. Perhaps they enjoy their job, the interaction with the public? I recall a case study of amusement park game workers and various motivational techniques used to get them more engaged and, thus, to get more people to play the games. Paying them more than their colleagues wasn't what worked.

Salaries aren't really set by some formulaic "value" of revenue, anyway. You are in agriculture, right? Do farmers get paid for the value they provide in the same proportion as the distributors and retailers, particularly when viewed through the lens of how much of the risk they shoulder and how much of the labor they do?

Does the military only have one rank? No. Are all the ranks paid the same? No.

Which bypasses the question. Anyone who's been in the military can assure you that hard work does not make up the majority of what drives lower enlisted men through the ranks. You can be the hardest working man on base, but if your MOS is overstaffed and promotion points are through the roof to make E-5, you aren't getting promoted. You can be a slacker who does well at boards, tests well, and in a shortage MOS and get promoted much faster.

So, again, if human nature is to hit the lowest common denominator if you are all getting paid the same, why are some soldiers more motivated than others? It certainly doesn't explain why some units are so much better than others. Did they just get more than their share of hard workers? Does the leadership have no influence, since they can't mete out more pay for their higher performers?

Or is pay only one factor, especially once a certain floor is met?

Now wait! If that guy is paying his employees a minimum of $70K regardless of all other factors, why shouldn't everyone else with a business do the same? The government should make them do it.

I shall enjoy the raise and then relax for a change.

It's social justice, after all.

Why make this something it isn't? When I worked for Pizza Hut when it was owned by Pepsi, I had health insurance, paid vacation, etc and that was working part time in the restaurant industry. Pepsi also started their factory workers out at nearly double what other factories in the area paid. Pepsi was profitable enough and had a corporate philosophy of not paying the bare minimum. They weren't mandated to, they just took care of their workers. Last I checked, Pepsi was still in business as well, although of course Pizza Hut is no longer under their umbrella with the YUM! brand owning it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sure they do. Military and LE are just motivated by something else. I'm sure everywhere you've worked, though, some people and some departments have worked harder and/or been more productive than others. The idea that people are only motivated by making more money than their peers is what I'm challenging as ridiculous. Ok, let's go to the lower end of the scale. Go to an amusement park. Seasonal workers, all making roughly the same based on seniority, but some are much more friendly and engaged than others. Why? They aren't fighting crime or the like. Perhaps they enjoy their job, the interaction with the public? I recall a case study of amusement park game workers and various motivational techniques used to get them more engaged and, thus, to get more people to play the games. Paying them more than their colleagues wasn't what worked.

Salaries aren't really set by some formulaic "value" of revenue, anyway. You are in agriculture, right? Do farmers get paid for the value they provide in the same proportion as the distributors and retailers, particularly when viewed through the lens of how much of the risk they shoulder and how much of the labor they do?



Which bypasses the question. Anyone who's been in the military can assure you that hard work does not make up the majority of what drives lower enlisted men through the ranks. You can be the hardest working man on base, but if your MOS is overstaffed and promotion points are through the roof to make E-5, you aren't getting promoted. You can be a slacker who does well at boards, tests well, and in a shortage MOS and get promoted much faster.

So, again, if human nature is to hit the lowest common denominator if you are all getting paid the same, why are some soldiers more motivated than others? It certainly doesn't explain why some units are so much better than others. Did they just get more than their share of hard workers? Does the leadership have no influence, since they can't mete out more pay for their higher performers?

Or is pay only one factor, especially once a certain floor is met?



Why make this something it isn't? When I worked for Pizza Hut when it was owned by Pepsi, I had health insurance, paid vacation, etc and that was working part time in the restaurant industry. Pepsi also started their factory workers out at nearly double what other factories in the area paid. Pepsi was profitable enough and had a corporate philosophy of not paying the bare minimum. They weren't mandated to, they just took care of their workers. Last I checked, Pepsi was still in business as well, although of course Pizza Hut is no longer under their umbrella with the YUM! brand owning it.

As typical on forums such as this, the arguments tend to become so binary as everybody takes sides and makes their cases. Compensation alone is not the sole indicator of performance or job satisfaction. To deny it doesn't play a crucial role is silly. To assume if you throw enough money at people they'll be happy, highly productive employees is equally silly. I can tell anybody, from my personal experience and observations, people will lay down on you if they think you're ****ing them on pay raises, bonuses, benefits, paid days off, or what have you. I've seen barely moderately competent people get promotions and then seen teams become virtually ineffective because of demoralization the promotion caused.

The last group I managed has some real problems with motivation now. They're relatively highly paid and get compensated for working weekends. Partly because of all the overtime they're being forced to work, partly because of the job assignments the corporation has decided to shift around, and partly because of their perceived slighting during recent pay raise time, they're hitting bottom now. It was bad enough when I left, but it's only gotten worse as time has rolled on.

 

[jamil]

Which bypasses the question. Anyone who's been in the military can assure you that hard work does not make up the majority of what drives lower enlisted men through the ranks. You can be the hardest working man on base, but if your MOS is overstaffed and promotion points are through the roof to make E-5, you aren't getting promoted. You can be a slacker who does well at boards, tests well, and in a shortage MOS and get promoted much faster.

So, again, if human nature is to hit the lowest common denominator if you are all getting paid the same, why are some soldiers more motivated than others? It certainly doesn't explain why some units are so much better than others. Did they just get more than their share of hard workers? Does the leadership have no influence, since they can't mete out more pay for their higher performers?

Or is pay only one factor, especially once a certain floor is met?

I'm not saying there's only one factor. I've said before on another topic that leadership has a lot to do with job satisfaction, which indeed influences performance. The military and police may be your primary frame of reference, but leadership matters in civilian employment too. I also understand that in any job, military or civilian, the best performing people don't always get the promotions. It's often needs of the employer, opportunity, perception, favoritism, even overt collusion.

I've worked a large portion of my employed life working in unionized factories. I was a union member for ~2 years and a salaried employee the rest. I have seen most workers perform no better than the lowest common denominator, but with a few exceptions. Some people just like to do a good job no matter their circumstances, and I've noted throughout my working life that those workers are rare.

On topic, paying everyone at least $75K will certainly make those who got a raise very happy. For awhile at least. And I'm sure that's going to affect their morale positively. But 1) that sentiment won't last forever, 2) the people whose pay wasn't affected probably aren't as happy as they were. If you bust your ass to get somewhere, and then see someone else got to essentially the same place without busting their ass, we,ll there are understandable feelings associated with that. A good leader can help mitigate that. But just as in the military, not every group can have a great leader.

 

[HoughMade]

In a business context, it is almost always possible to determine the value produced by each employee. There are several ways to do this. The simple truth is this- an employee who produces $40,000 in value for the business can't be paid $70,000 and that business had employees producing less value than that who were arbitrarily raised to $70,000. Sure, it's the business owner's right, but everyone has to play by the rules of economic reality.

So not only do we have employees making far in excess of their economic value, but we have more senior employees who were making $70,000 or more who got little or no raises because they were over the arbitrary number already. Say you're a skilled and experienced worker who started at $25,000 and worked over years up to $75,000. Now, the receptionist they hired 3 months ago at $30,000 gets bumped to $70,000 and you went from $75,000 to $77,000- true story. Does that make for happy workers? Now, in a very real sense, it is no employee's business what another employee makes, but this CEO, by going public, made the minimum wage of his workers everyone's business.

You want to pay your employers more? Certainly your right, but your personal beliefs don't rewrite the principles of economics and human behavior.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not saying there's only one factor.

Human nature dictates that if they're compensated equally, their performance will equalize towards least common denominator.

Which is it? There's more than one factor or human nature says they'll equalize toward the least common denominator? That comment is what brought this whole "other factors" argument out in the first place.

How does a secretary equalize with a web site designer?

On topic, paying everyone at least $75K will certainly make those who got a raise very happy. For awhile at least. And I'm sure that's going to affect their morale positively. But 1) that sentiment won't last forever, 2) the people whose pay wasn't affected probably aren't as happy as they were. If you bust your ass to get somewhere, and then see someone else got to essentially the same place without busting their ass, we,ll there are understandable feelings associated with that. A good leader can help mitigate that. But just as in the military, not every group can have a great leader.

So again, I can't be happy with my slice of the pie unless it is bigger than the next guys? Then how am I personally happy with my slice even though everyone else on the PD with the same seniority has the exact same base rate as me? When I get a raise, they all get a raise. Why did so few people quit, and why did the IT guy quit because the money was TOO good so he was afraid he'd get used to that level of income and not leave to pursue something else? Why were they able to hire over 30 new people?

I have seen most workers perform no better than the lowest common denominator, but with a few exceptions. Some people just like to do a good job no matter their circumstances, and I've noted throughout my working life that those workers are rare.

Going back to this:

I'm not saying there's only one factor.

Why do you think that was?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

In a business context, it is almost always possible to determine the value produced by each employee.

I own a small IT company. What value is produced by my security guard?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As typical on forums such as this, the arguments tend to become so binary as everybody takes sides and makes their cases. Compensation alone is not the sole indicator of performance or job satisfaction. To deny it doesn't play a crucial role is silly. To assume if you throw enough money at people they'll be happy, highly productive employees is equally silly. I can tell anybody, from my personal experience and observations, people will lay down on you if they think you're ****ing them on pay raises, bonuses, benefits, paid days off, or what have you. I've seen barely moderately competent people get promotions and then seen teams become virtually ineffective because of demoralization the promotion caused.

The last group I managed has some real problems with motivation now. They're relatively highly paid and get compensated for working weekends. Partly because of all the overtime they're being forced to work, partly because of the job assignments the corporation has decided to shift around, and partly because of their perceived slighting during recent pay raise time, they're hitting bottom now. It was bad enough when I left, but it's only gotten worse as time has rolled on.

Right. Which is why I took issue with:

You can't defeat human nature. Turns out, employees aren't all equal. The best employees should be rewarded. The worst, not so much. Human nature dictates that if they're compensated equally, their performance will equalize towards least common denominator.

1) Compensation is a factor, but not the sole factor.
2) Rewards are not always a raise, and in many instances are not the best motivator.

When I worked IT, rewards were a mixture of financial and fun/time away. Sometimes I got a cash bonus, but sometimes the rewards were tickets to some attraction and time off to do it or a department outing for the team, such as a canoe outing on company time. Once I hit a certain level of income, I'd rather have the time away from work and the fun.

From the look of this guy's company, he's not attempting to motivate solely with money, yet that's what the focus has become because now its apparently a political statement to give your employees a raise above market standards. Pepsi must not have had as good a PR team.