Seattle Business offering $70K min wage is failing

[rw02kr43]

I kinda wondered if he did it to drum up support and interest so he could sell the company for more.

Jason

 

[JTScribe]

One's salary is generally a combination of how rare or replaceable your skillset is, combined with how good you are at negotiating.

There's a reason burger flippers make minimum wage and Michael Jordan made tens of millions of dollars a year. The former is eminently replaceable.

 

[Arthur Dent]

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

My whole building is a net drain on the company. There's several departments in it and all are a drain on company funds. For my department alone the budget is around $15 million and we always go over by a couple million. We've been in business for over twenty years and this building open for twenty.

 

[jamil]

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

Aside from all the asides, what's the going rate for security guards? How valuable is that function to you? If you can get someone to do what you want, for what you're willing to pay, then I think you've pretty much figured out the value. Now if it turns out you're not getting what you want, that's a different conversation altogether.

If by having a security guard, a computer programmer with a stalker is less distracted at work and performs better due to the reduced worry about personal safety, is that value added to the programmer or to the guard? If, absent the security guard, the programmer would have quit because the stalker knows where she works, how is that measured? Does the CPA learn how many people have such a worry? What about a manager getting death threats from a former employee who was fired and lost his visa, so is now living illegally in the US and has sent bomb threats in? How do you determine the value in having the guard in terms of productivity and retention of not just the manager, but people who are concerned about being attacked in an active shooter or bombing scenario? How does your CPA figure that in?

This isn't a hypothetical by the way, both occurred at the IT company I worked at. Prior to the stalking incident, we didn't even have access controls on the doors (swipe cards or codes, etc.)

Obviously having programmers who aren't being stalked is more valuable than having ones that are stalked. Having managers who can fire people without getting death threats is more valuable. Solution: Fire the guy who has the stalker. Fire the manager who's getting death threats. Replace them with better employees. Both problems solved.

Seriously, I think we're going in circles here.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It can't. At all. And that's another part of my point. If the janitor makes what I make, I'd start questioning the value of the degree I spent so much money and time earning.

I think that's the fundamental disagreement. I look at my own slice of pie and ask "does this slice support the standard of living I want?" If it does, then I am happy with my slice. From that point on, I'd rather have things like flexible schedules, more time off, etc. I don't look at my slice and then look at the next guy's and then validate my decisions based on how much bigger it is.

So to make your example closer to reality: Rookies make the same as you. The best cops, the worst cops, experienced, inexperienced, supervisors, detectives, parking ticket writers, they all make the same as you. Not even just cops. All employees. They all make the same. Janitors. Secretaries. Clerks. IT workers. Dispatchers.

I don't need my slice to be bigger than the next guy's to feel my choices were validated. If they came to me and said "you can be a dispatcher again, and we'll double your salary" I'd say no. For that matter, there ARE places were a dispatcher makes more. Louisville dispatchers were paid very well, more than rookie cops for LMPD, and more than almost any of the small town or university police around there. So what?

If you value by having a bigger slice of pie compared to the next guy, then you probably don't belong at that company. If you value having a bigger slice of pie than you had before, even if the other guys also got bigger slices, then you might. Seems simple enough.

 

[jamil]

I think that's the fundamental disagreement. I look at my own slice of pie and ask "does this slice support the standard of living I want?" If it does, then I am happy with my slice. From that point on, I'd rather have things like flexible schedules, more time off, etc. I don't look at my slice and then look at the next guy's and then validate my decisions based on how much bigger it is.



I don't need my slice to be bigger than the next guy's to feel my choices were validated. If they came to me and said "you can be a dispatcher again, and we'll double your salary" I'd say no. For that matter, there ARE places were a dispatcher makes more. Louisville dispatchers were paid very well, more than rookie cops for LMPD, and more than almost any of the small town or university police around there. So what?

If you value by having a bigger slice of pie compared to the next guy, then you probably don't belong at that company. If you value having a bigger slice of pie than you had before, even if the other guys also got bigger slices, then you might. Seems simple enough.

I guess we really do see this differently. I don't see it as a slice at all. There isn't a pie. Not that I don't like pie. And it's not that I value having a bigger slice than the other guy. It's that I want the best bang for my buck. It's harder to justify the cost of a degree if you can easily make the same money without in a job you're willing to work.

And if it's just a matter of me wanting to learn a job I like better, okay. I really like doing what I do. But, cost/benefit calculation I put into that will be different if the pay is the same as anything else. I'm not going to justify paying $50K in tuition just to like my job better. If everything pays the same, I can find something I like doing without having to invest the time and expense into a college education.

Ooh. I know. Make college free for everyone. (until we run out of other people's money)

 

[Leadeye]

College is useful, like any tool, but most of success is what you do with those tools during your working career. They don't teach patience, persistence and getting along with people in college, maybe psychology, and I've found those to be my most useful tools for success and staying happily married for 36 years.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess we really do see this differently. I don't see it as a slice at all. There isn't a pie. Not that I don't like pie. And it's not that I value having a bigger slice than the other guy. It's that I want the best bang for my buck. It's harder to justify the cost of a degree if you can easily make the same money without in a job you're willing to work.

And if it's just a matter of me wanting to learn a job I like better, okay. I really like doing what I do. But, cost/benefit calculation I put into that will be different if the pay is the same as anything else. I'm not going to justify paying $50K in tuition just to like my job better. If everything pays the same, I can find something I like doing without having to invest the time and expense into a college education.

Ooh. I know. Make college free for everyone. (until we run out of other people's money)

I'm having trouble following the flow of your argument here.

We start here:

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.

DThere will be exceptions but if you pay everyone the same, regardless of their performance, their productivity will decline towards the least common denominator.

Then we got to where perhaps that was overstated and it was not as binary as previously stated.

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

Up to that point, you were making that exact argument in writing, if not in your head.

Of course pay isn't the only incentive. It's the biggie though. You keep acting like most people are driven primarily by a sense of pride or ego, or whatever, more than more tangible intensives. They're not.

I think if you look into it, once a certain floor of income is reached, intangibles become very motivating, but let's ignore that for a moment and go with your theory. Almost everyone got a pay raise. Shouldn't they be more motivated?

I think in my original statement, it seemed I was making a more binary argument than I am. Pay is not the only incentive. It is the most important for most people. Fringe benefits and other non-tangible incentives have a value, but there is a price that most people would take that would make them forget those. Work is a part of our lives, it's a very important part of mine, but let's not forget that we work for a reason. And most people want more than they have. I'm not saying that in a selfish sense, but people want to work towards the next thing, the next step. If you're a janitor making $75K, what is the next step to work towards? He probably doesn't give a ****. HE'S MAKING $75K!

Agreed, and now we're completely off the binary thing. However now you are arguing that the janitor wants to work toward the next thing, so by paying him more we're ruining his motivation? You *just* argued that pay is the largest motivator. Maybe he'll be motivated to be a fantastic janitor so as to not lose his $70k/yr, or maybe he'll be motivated to move up the chain so he can make the same money without scrubbing toilets, or maybe he'll just keep scrubbing toilets for $70k/yr. So what? Are you arguing that the company is hurting him somehow by paying him enough to allow him to make those decisions?

In that company there are no distinctions in seniority, job classification, rank, or whatever. There are only people who make $75K per year, and "higher ups" who make more. The "higher ups" compensation is probably still tied to a more market based salary valuation.

They are making more than secretaries, janitors, web designers, etc. than people in other companies in similar positions. I would also challenge you to support the lack of distinction. Pay is not the only distinction, after all. Time off, preference on holidays off, shift preference, etc. etc. Let's ignore that, though. However, let's ignore that. So what? That's slice comparison instead of just enjoying your own pie.

So to make your example closer to reality: Rookies make the same as you. The best cops, the worst cops, experienced, inexperienced, supervisors, detectives, parking ticket writers, they all make the same as you. Not even just cops. All employees. They all make the same. Janitors. Secretaries. Clerks. IT workers. Dispatchers. Everyone except the other class, "them". The higher ups. From how I've seen that kind of thing play out in union shops, mediocrity is the eventual result. Initially I would think the receptionist would be pretty damn happy. Detectives might wonder why they invested so much in their career to get to that point.

Again, slice comparison. The implication seems that I must wonder why I've invested so much to get where I am, because my slice isn't bigger than other people's.

I guess we really do see this differently. I don't see it as a slice at all. There isn't a pie. Not that I don't like pie. And it's not that I value having a bigger slice than the other guy. It's that I want the best bang for my buck. It's harder to justify the cost of a degree if you can easily make the same money without in a job you're willing to work.

And if it's just a matter of me wanting to learn a job I like better, okay. I really like doing what I do. But, cost/benefit calculation I put into that will be different if the pay is the same as anything else. I'm not going to justify paying $50K in tuition just to like my job better. If everything pays the same, I can find something I like doing without having to invest the time and expense into a college education.

Ooh. I know. Make college free for everyone. (until we run out of other people's money)

If you don't see a slice, why the two previous comments about lack of distinction and about why would I wonder about my investment if dispatchers and janitors made the same as me. That's slice comparison, that I can't be happy with my salary if it's not better than the salary of others. It's not 'bang for your buck' or cost/benefit calculation. If you'd like, tell me your salary and I'll tell you a job that requires zero college or upfront costs and pays just as much or more and we can get past that argument pretty quickly. My neighbor is a commercial HVAC installer and makes quite a bit more than the average college grad, and with apprenticeships you get paid to learn that job. You knew, or should have known, what the pay was in your field before getting your degree and decided that was sufficient for you.

But let's ignore that. This is one company, and few industries or companies have the profitability to make this a wide spread occurence. So, again, in the context of this company...so what? People won't get a $50k college degree because they think they'll get to work here?

At this point I'm frankly a bit confused over what your argument here is about why this is bad.

So let's bring it all back to this one question:

Why the backlash against one company that, instead of trying to maximize pay for the owner or for shareholders, decided to try and maximize the pay for its employees? Why, if he'd pocketed the profit himself or went public and gave it to investors, would absolutely nothing be said about "sustainability" of 80% of the profits flowing into those hands?

 

[Twangbanger]

...Seriously, I think we're going in circles here.

Absotively. Have you ever watched a C-Span interview with someone like Robert Reich? They're cornucopias of Labor data, sociological data, and 37 other Baskin-Robbins flavors of data which are all chosen to support their emotional-bedrock position. And that is: when they have Equality, they want Guaranteed Subsistence. When they are given Guaranteed Subsistence, then they want Dignity. When they have Dignity, then they want Parity. It's like gun control. The argument is never over.

It's a waste of time trying to out-technocrat a Technocrat.

...So let's bring it all back to this one question:

Why the backlash against one company that, instead of trying to maximize pay for the owner or for shareholders, decided to try and maximize the pay for its employees? Why, if he'd pocketed the profit himself or went public and gave it to investors, would absolutely nothing be said about "sustainability" of 80% of the profits flowing into those hands?

There's not a "backlash," that I can see. "Gloating," maybe. "Backlash" would be, if it worked, and people hated him for it. What I actually see is just a bunch of people pointing out one, simple fact (some tactfully, some not): it didn't work. In microscopic practice. Just as predicted. Some are a bit immature in their gloating, but the point is, no macro-level experiment was even needed; because the micro-experiment blew up on the launch pad.

Don't like it? Feel free to choose your own vibrant example of a business-commune that _did_ work. Then we can have a real data-driven discussion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

You have raised some good points, but we do have to keep a few points in mind, fact that all generalizations break down notwithstanding:

1. Money is the reason most people go to work. Take my two hats for example. I enjoy farming for its own sake even if the financial rewards aren't there (and they haven't been realized at this point). By contrast, it would be a cold day in Hell I would drive a truck for the fun of it.

2. Military and LE are more likely than most to be motivated by the mission than the money. Soldiers in particular aren't in it for the money unless they are really bad at math! That said, there are some people who enlist seeing the military as an employer of last resort and there are police who are there for the perquisites and pay rather than the mission. By contrast, I can assure you that I feel no sense of accomplishing something meaningful out of hauling a steel coil from point A to point B. Now, on the other hand, when my favorite alpaca treats me to a new round of his personal creativity, usually expressed in the form of mischief, I do feel a sense of accomplishment and pleasure. The unfortunate truth is that most people I know do not particularly enjoy their jobs. They may be OK with them, but if they were independently wealthy, they wouldn't do it for free.

3. I would be remiss in failing to address the facts that there are some people who feel honor-bound to do good work regardless of their enjoyment of it or the specifics of their compensation. There are also people who are not motivated to do good work no matter how much you pay them.

4. Paying above street average and paying far in excess of any potentially realized return on the investment are two entirely different things. The former will get you the best employees while still penciling out. The latter will not pencil out no matter how good the employees are or how perfect their work.

5. As for the question of it merely being apportionment of the profit margin rather than dipping below profitability, I would have to question the understanding of a business owner who is willing to assume that kind of risk without a proportionate share of the profit, if nothing else, to set aside to compensate for potential problems rather than to be left broke. A smaller example of this is that if you want to buy a truck and work as an owner-operator, you need at least $10K set aside in case you have an engine, transmission, or other major component fail requiring extensive repair or replacement. The business model under consideration does not allow this. Unless he has already set back a significant amount of money which has not been mentioned, one good bump and he is done.

Don't like it? Feel free to choose your own vibrant example of a business-commune that _did_ work. Then we can have a real data-driven discussion.

It didn't work when Robert Owen tried it about 200 years ago and it won't work now. You may wish to review Mr. Owen and New Harmony, Indiana. It will make Twangbanger's point for him.

 

[oldpink]

Maybe the whole argument here is based upon the ideal vs. reality.
Let's say you get that degree, take on extra assignments beyond the bare minimum, work longer hours, and stay at it for ten to twenty years.
Then, up comes this fellow who never did any of that who comes right in the door, and he's now getting paid the exact same as you are.
Are we to believe that your degree, extra hours, harder work, and (most importantly) track record and loyalty shouldn't count for just a bit more than with someone just establishing himself?

 

[jamil]

I'm having trouble following the flow of your argument here.

We start here:





Then we got to where perhaps that was overstated and it was not as binary as previously stated.



Up to that point, you were making that exact argument in writing, if not in your head.



I think if you look into it, once a certain floor of income is reached, intangibles become very motivating, but let's ignore that for a moment and go with your theory. Almost everyone got a pay raise. Shouldn't they be more motivated?



Agreed, and now we're completely off the binary thing. However now you are arguing that the janitor wants to work toward the next thing, so by paying him more we're ruining his motivation? You *just* argued that pay is the largest motivator. Maybe he'll be motivated to be a fantastic janitor so as to not lose his $70k/yr, or maybe he'll be motivated to move up the chain so he can make the same money without scrubbing toilets, or maybe he'll just keep scrubbing toilets for $70k/yr. So what? Are you arguing that the company is hurting him somehow by paying him enough to allow him to make those decisions?



They are making more than secretaries, janitors, web designers, etc. than people in other companies in similar positions. I would also challenge you to support the lack of distinction. Pay is not the only distinction, after all. Time off, preference on holidays off, shift preference, etc. etc. Let's ignore that, though. However, let's ignore that. So what? That's slice comparison instead of just enjoying your own pie.



Again, slice comparison. The implication seems that I must wonder why I've invested so much to get where I am, because my slice isn't bigger than other people's.



If you don't see a slice, why the two previous comments about lack of distinction and about why would I wonder about my investment if dispatchers and janitors made the same as me. That's slice comparison, that I can't be happy with my salary if it's not better than the salary of others. It's not 'bang for your buck' or cost/benefit calculation. If you'd like, tell me your salary and I'll tell you a job that requires zero college or upfront costs and pays just as much or more and we can get past that argument pretty quickly. My neighbor is a commercial HVAC installer and makes quite a bit more than the average college grad, and with apprenticeships you get paid to learn that job. You knew, or should have known, what the pay was in your field before getting your degree and decided that was sufficient for you.

But let's ignore that. This is one company, and few industries or companies have the profitability to make this a wide spread occurence. So, again, in the context of this company...so what? People won't get a $50k college degree because they think they'll get to work here?

At this point I'm frankly a bit confused over what your argument here is about why this is bad.

So let's bring it all back to this one question:

Why the backlash against one company that, instead of trying to maximize pay for the owner or for shareholders, decided to try and maximize the pay for its employees? Why, if he'd pocketed the profit himself or went public and gave it to investors, would absolutely nothing be said about "sustainability" of 80% of the profits flowing into those hands?

Let's recap. First, we're having a conversation. Ideas get shared and debated. I made a general statement that encompasses things unsaid (usually general statements do that because we're not writing a textbook on the subject). So you take exception to, I guess what it says, and take it as a binary statement, which it was not intended as such. It's a general statement, as in, generally people will do that, implying there are different exceptions, which makes it not binary. So then, you go off dissecting it over several posts, not considering the unsaid things implied, while complaining that they weren't said. And you inferred some things not intended, and we go round and round.

So I'm going to make another general statement, which pretty much agrees with my first general statement said differently, hopefully with a mutual understanding that there are exceptions. If you pay everyone the same (total compensation), without regard to value, or something related to performance, in general, eventually, the workers' performance will tend to be not a whole lot better than the least common denominator.

That belief comes from decades of work experience in both union and non-union environments and comparing the work habits between both. In my experience the people who were paid more according to their performance tended to be more productive and better workers than in the union environment. There were a few exceptions, and I also worked with some exceptional union workers. But on average, union workers I've observed didn't really give a **** because they all 1) made way more than the value of their labor--how easy is it to replace people who push buttons and move levers? 2) were all paid the same whether they busted their asses or not. It's not the uniformity of the pay that mattered, or slices or pies. It was the fact that their compensation was determined by collective bargaining and not by what each individual produced. Their incentive was to make their union stronger so that they could gain more through a stronger bargaining position, rather than gaining more through their individual productivity.

So that brings us to the CEO and his experiment. I have nothing against this company. I'm not disparaging him or his company or his workers. It's his company. He can do what he wants. I commend him for his heart, while believing his business sense has left the building. I'm just saying it's not sustainable. Granted, it's not exactly the same as my experience with unions. These employees aren't being overpaid according to the results of collective bargaining. But they are being overpaid by an arbitrary number that the CEO concocted as a social experiment. Okay, fine. More power to him. Don't expect it to cause a revolution to a $35/hour minimum wage. I'm sure the employees who were making much less than that before, are really, really happy. For now. How sustainable is their gratitude, and what's his end game? I'm willing to bet that their happiness is somewhat proportional to the raise they got. Like it or not that's human nature.

So let's talk about pies. You seem to be trying to make a moral case of it, that the "good" people don't bother to look at someone else's slice and are just happy with their own. Which implies the bad people are just selfish and jealous poopyheads who can't be satisfied with their slice unless it is bigger than others. I suppose if you think in terms of pies and slices, the morality of all that being what you think, seems like a natural conclusion. However slices of pie are not a feature of my point. Irrelevant.

But since you want to talk about pie, okay. Some people care way too much about what other people have. Yep. It happens. I get that. But it is never immoral to want to be paid according to your value. And it is a natural instinct not to think kindly of making the same wage as someone else and watching them not earn it. That is in no way the same as being the jealous poopy heads. The exceptional union workers I mentioned, resented the their coworkers who didn't do **** and still made the same money. It had nothing to do with pies and slices and the jealousy your slice argument implies. I don't see those people as being jealous. I see them recognizing the injustice of those taking a paycheck that they didn't earn. I look at it as those people's sense of justice overpowering their incentive.

 

[jamil]

... I enjoy farming for its own sake ...

Oh, you're one of THOSE. So was my dad. And with me and my brother at early ages, he decided that WE would also like farming. Let me tell you. I couldn't wait to be old enough not to like farming. I suppose it taught me not to mind hard work. Which is beneficial. But I wouldn't choose to do farming now.

 

[oldpink]

This is what happens when idealism and genuinely good intentions collide with reality and basic human nature.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh, you're one of THOSE. So was my dad. And with me and my brother at early ages, he decided that WE would also like farming. Let me tell you. I couldn't wait to be old enough not to like farming. I suppose it taught me not to mind hard work. Which is beneficial. But I wouldn't choose to do farming now.

I understand. My dad enjoyed being a mechanic and therefore thought everyone should. I can do it when necessary, but only when necessary. My grandparents enjoyed getting up at hours early enough to scandalize most roosters and spent most of my early years trying to make me an early riser, which I am not. I may work long after most people are in bed, but I get my soundest sleep just at or after sunrise. If you think I can be a bit temperamental in INGO you should see me after a few days without good sound sleep!

The bottom line is that most parents fail to understand that their job is to assist and prepare their children for success in being who they are, not who the parents want them to be.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Let's recap. First, we're having a conversation. Ideas get shared and debated. I made a general statement that encompasses things unsaid (usually general statements do that because we're not writing a textbook on the subject). So you take exception to, I guess what it says, and take it as a binary statement, which it was not intended as such. It's a general statement, as in, generally people will do that, implying there are different exceptions, which makes it not binary. So then, you go off dissecting it over several posts, not considering the unsaid things implied, while complaining that they weren't said. And you inferred some things not intended, and we go round and round.

So I'm going to make another general statement, which pretty much agrees with my first general statement said differently, hopefully with a mutual understanding that there are exceptions. If you pay everyone the same (total compensation), without regard to value, or something related to performance, in general, eventually, the workers' performance will tend to be not a whole lot better than the least common denominator.

That belief comes from decades of work experience in both union and non-union environments and comparing the work habits between both. In my experience the people who were paid more according to their performance tended to be more productive and better workers than in the union environment. There were a few exceptions, and I also worked with some exceptional union workers. But on average, union workers I've observed didn't really give a **** because they all 1) made way more than the value of their labor--how easy is it to replace people who push buttons and move levers? 2) were all paid the same whether they busted their asses or not. It's not the uniformity of the pay that mattered, or slices or pies. It was the fact that their compensation was determined by collective bargaining and not by what each individual produced. Their incentive was to make their union stronger so that they could gain more through a stronger bargaining position, rather than gaining more through their individual productivity.

So that brings us to the CEO and his experiment. I have nothing against this company. I'm not disparaging him or his company or his workers. It's his company. He can do what he wants. I commend him for his heart, while believing his business sense has left the building. I'm just saying it's not sustainable. Granted, it's not exactly the same as my experience with unions. These employees aren't being overpaid according to the results of collective bargaining. But they are being overpaid by an arbitrary number that the CEO concocted as a social experiment. Okay, fine. More power to him. Don't expect it to cause a revolution to a $35/hour minimum wage. I'm sure the employees who were making much less than that before, are really, really happy. For now. How sustainable is their gratitude, and what's his end game? I'm willing to bet that their happiness is somewhat proportional to the raise they got. Like it or not that's human nature.

So let's talk about pies. You seem to be trying to make a moral case of it, that the "good" people don't bother to look at someone else's slice and are just happy with their own. Which implies the bad people are just selfish and jealous poopyheads who can't be satisfied with their slice unless it is bigger than others. I suppose if you think in terms of pies and slices, the morality of all that being what you think, seems like a natural conclusion. However slices of pie are not a feature of my point. Irrelevant.

But since you want to talk about pie, okay. Some people care way too much about what other people have. Yep. It happens. I get that. But it is never immoral to want to be paid according to your value. And it is a natural instinct not to think kindly of making the same wage as someone else and watching them not earn it. That is in no way the same as being the jealous poopy heads. The exceptional union workers I mentioned, resented the their coworkers who didn't do **** and still made the same money. It had nothing to do with pies and slices and the jealousy your slice argument implies. I don't see those people as being jealous. I see them recognizing the injustice of those taking a paycheck that they didn't earn. I look at it as those people's sense of justice overpowering their incentive.

So we went through all that to end up saying it's not bad for this company? Or it is?

You're still trying to hang your hat on performance decreases, although now with exceptions. The guy is paying over market rate. He can get better employees, and the employees he has know no one else is going to pay them the same. The company doesn't exist in a vacuum. What incentive did the union workers you talk about have to do better, other than pay? As we've already agreed upon (I think) leadership, benefits, work environment, etc. play into motivation. I'm not really that motivated if the only thing is salary and I can walk out today and get another job making the same pay. His company doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I think people are going to compare their job as an accountant with other jobs as an accountant, not vs what the janitor makes.

Sustainability? Again, why not? If he was paying 80% of profits in dividends it wouldn't be a story. 80% is often the bar for safe dividend payouts, so giving up 80% of profits seems sustainable to investors. I really like dividend stocks, and hold quite a few. Let's take a look at some companies that have paid out 80% or more in dividends:

Duke Energy Corporation	DUK	$3.36	$3.06	$65.19	4.70%	91.07%
NiSource Inc.	NI	$1.06	$0.96	$25.09	3.80%	90.57%
Microchip Technology Inc.	MCHP	$1.55	$1.40	$31.65	4.50%	90.32%
Equity Residential	EQR	$1.50	$1.35	$56.42	2.40%	90.00%
Dominion Resources, Inc.	D	$2.35	$2.11	$52.71	3.90%	89.79%
Exelon Corporation	EXC	$2.34	$2.10	$36.41	5.70%	89.74%
The AES Corporation	AES	$0.18	$0.16	$10.74	1.40%	88.89%
Paychex, Inc.	PAYX	$1.52	$1.28	$32.89	3.90%	84.21%
Simon Property Group Inc.	SPG	$5.04	$4.20	$151.14	2.70%	83.33%
Northeast Utilities	NU	$1.66	$1.37	$39.18	3.50%	82.53%
FirstEnergy Corp.	FE	$2.68	$2.20	$45.67	4.80%	82.09%
Altria Group Inc.	MO	$2.16	$1.76	$32.38	5.40%	81.48%
The Dow Chemical Company	DOW	$1.58	$1.28	$28.80	4.30%	81.01%
American Tower Corporation	AMT	$1.15	$0.92	$73.67	1.20%	80.00%
Johnson & Johnson	JNJ	$3.05	$2.44	$71.12	3.40%	80.00%

The final number is the total percentage of profits paid in dividends. The chart is from 2012, and only includes S&P 500 stocks.

So why is paying 80% of profits in dividends considered sustainable, and obviously doesn't cause anyone to bat an eye, but giving the same percentage back to workers not be and is cause for radio talking heads to make it a political issue? Easy. Because it's "normal" to run your company to maximize the return for investors, and generally the top employees who have a significant part of their income as stock options. It's "abnormal" to run it to maximize the return for your workers. Then it's socialism!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

1. Money is the reason most people go to work

Of course. But that's not the whole story as we've discussed.

But I'll say the same thing to that I did to Jamil. The company does not exist in a vacuum.

You are a web designer. Averages are all over the place depending on you source, but let's say the average pay is roughly $50k. Average salary, not average starting salary, so of course that counts experienced guys as well. So, let's say you are leaving your current job and have 4 years experience. You get the following offers:

Company A: $70k/yr, janitor also makes $70k/yr

Company B: $45k/yr, janitor makes $30k/yr

Company C: $55k/yr, janitor makes $32k/yr

Who do you go work for, assuming benefits, work environment, etc. all equal out? More importantly does what the janitor makes influence your decision at all?

 

[jamil]

So we went through all that to end up saying it's not bad for this company? Or it is?

You're still trying to hang your hat on performance decreases, although now with exceptions.

I didn't say the company was bad. Ever. And I also didn't say it wasn't bad for the company. I think my words were somewhere to the effect that this is foolish. But he's the CEO and he gets to decide those things. I think time will prove if this is folly or not.

And I am unmoved on where I should hang my hat. I think you shouldn't have inferred that there wouldn't be exceptions, though I admit I could have originally worded it better.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I didn't say the company was bad. Ever. And I also didn't say it wasn't bad for the company. I think my words were somewhere to the effect that this is foolish. But he's the CEO and he gets to decide those things. I think time will prove if this is folly or not.

And I am unmoved on where I should hang my hat. I think you shouldn't have inferred that there wouldn't be exceptions, though I admit I could have originally worded it better.

So there will be performance decreases, with exceptions, but that isn't bad for the company?

Ok, why is it foolish?

 

[Twangbanger]

…So why is paying 80% of profits in dividends considered sustainable, and obviously doesn't cause anyone to bat an eye, but giving the same percentage back to workers not be and is cause for radio talking heads to make it a political issue? Easy. Because it's "normal" to run your company to maximize the return for investors, and generally the top employees who have a significant part of their income as stock options. It's "abnormal" to run it to maximize the return for your workers. Then it's socialism!

Have you ever stopped to wonder why it's "abnormal" to run a company as a commune? There is no law against it. In fact, other than some insignificant ribbing from posters on right-wing gun discussion boards, there's really nothing to prevent somebody from doing it.

So, why can't you produce a similar list of companies who operate that way?

There has to be a reason.