a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen
wasoxygen  ·  3502 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: One Company’s New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year - NYTimes.com

On Apr 26, 2015, at 13:30, kzcondor wrote:

    As far as I can tell from the article, it's only those making less than $70k who are getting a raise. If I am making $75k, because my labor is worth that much, I am going to be pissed that some guy making $40k, because that is all his labor is worth, gets $30k/year for nothing. For that matter, I'd feel the same way if I were making $65k and only got $5,000/yr while a lesser producer got $30k. Not all labor is equally valuable, and treating it as if it is devalues your more productive employees.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 3:20 PM, wasoxygen wrote:

    Is that "I, kzcondor" or "I, imaginary and faintly straw-smelling employee" who holds a grudge against their boss who elects to transfer some of his income to lower-earning employees.

On Apr 26, 2015, at 16:14, kzcondor wrote:

    That's the odor of human nature you smell, not straw. Do you really doubt that the great majority of people would feel resentment at their co-workers getting an unearned $30k while they get nothing? Do you really? Really? I don't even mind breaking out an O veni on this one - come on, man! Of course this will generate resentment. Have you ever spent any time around humans?

    And the resentment isn't entirely unjustified:

    -- Maybe (generic) I am earning more because I went $100k into debt getting an MS degree, and since part of my salary goes to paying that loan down my disposable income was no more than that of the $40k guy. And now I am worse off than he is, precisely because I made myself more valuable.

    -- Giving undeserved raises to low earners leaves less money available to give merit raises to everyone else. Sure, dude said it's all coming from his own salary, but that is pretty much meaningless given that he owns the company. He also said his salary would return to its old value when the company had returned to its previous level of profitability, which means that the would-have-been merit raises will go towards restoring that profit level rather than to the owner's salary. Whatever, it's all the same pot.





thenewgreen  ·  3502 days ago  ·  link  ·  

What?

wasoxygen  ·  3502 days ago  ·  link  ·  

These are extracts from personal correspondence about this article, perhaps a bit confusing out of context.

Erstwhile Hubski contributor kzcondor points out that this scheme will likely cause some resentment among employees. He also observes that it is essentially an act of charity, and therefore commendable in principle, but "if you are going to give away a million bucks a year there are more worthy and needy recipients."

thenewgreen  ·  3502 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Are you spelling her/his username correctly? https://hubski.com/user?id=kzcondor

wasoxygen  ·  3502 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Alas.

I think it was the maternity leave discussion that did him in.