And the CEO of the year award goes to....

yamaha wrote: In most places in this country, you can actually have a decent living on $35k/yr.....which if I read the article correctly, was what the lowest paid there received before hand. Sure, you can't buy a giant 4 bedroom house in the Hamptons, a shiny new Benz every year, family season tickets for the Red Sox, and so on.....but 35k is by no means knocking on requiring government assistance in most of the US.

But in many major metropolitan areas, $35k won't pay rent in a one bedroom apartment, and certainly won't sustain a family. You could move out of those areas, but then your commute cost goes up or your job opportunites go down, which means a lower housing cost of living won't matter.

After reading the article, I notice that the CEO knew the problem existed because he was talking about it with mere mortals...I wonder how many other companies would do this if their execs didn't live in a Country Club bubble?

In reply to Chris_V:

Not all major metropolitan areas, but you are correct. The simple answer has always been to GTFO of them all.

I'm just pointing out that the percentage area wise of the US where 35k wouldn't be enough is hilariously small. Its also why a flat minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Chris_V: Not all major metropolitan areas, but you are correct. The simple answer has always been to GTFO of them all. I'm just pointing out that the percentage area wise of the US where 35k wouldn't be enough is hilariously small. Its also why a flat minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense.

Percentage area-wise, sure. But put it up against a population map (You know, where you can actually get a job) and the area where $35k would be enough is MUCH smaller.

mtn wrote: Frankly, the guy who worries about what his neighbor is being paid isn't a guy I want working at my company. I want employees to be worried about them and their work--and if they are worried about their neighbors, it should be that they are doing well.

I'm not worried about the amount my neighbor is being paid. I worry about what we are being paid relative to our responsibilities and output - that everybody's pay is fair. If I am working in a job that is worth $100k a year, and I am doing $100k worth of work to earn it, great. If the lower-level job is worth $70k and they are doing $70k worth of work, I will be glad they're finally getting paid what they've earned. But if they're arbitrarily getting a 100% raise to make somebody feel good, but still only adding $35k in value to the company, I'm not going to think that's fair, I am going to be pissed off, and I am going to start looking elsewhere.

Duke wrote:

mtn wrote: Frankly, the guy who worries about what his neighbor is being paid isn't a guy I want working at my company. I want employees to be worried about them and their work--and if they are worried about their neighbors, it should be that they are doing well.

I'm not worried about the amount my neighbor is being paid. I worry about what we are being paid relative to our responsibilities and output - that everybody's pay is fair. If I am working in a job that is worth $100k a year, and I am doing $100k worth of work to earn it, great. If the lower-level job is worth $70k and they are doing $70k worth of work, I will be glad they're finally getting paid what they've earned. But if they're arbitrarily getting a 100% raise to make somebody feel good, but still only adding $35k in value to the company, I'm not going to think that's fair, I am going to be pissed off, and I am going to start looking elsewhere.

I get it. I understand the sentiment of it. But at the end of the day, you need to pull up your big boy underroos and get over it. Would your situation improve elsewhere?

Duke wrote: I'm not worried about the amount my neighbor is being paid. I worry about what we are being paid relative to our responsibilities and output - that everybody's pay is fair. If I am working in a job that is worth $100k a year, and I am doing $100k worth of work to earn it, great. If the lower-level job is worth $70k and they are doing $70k worth of work, I will be glad they're finally getting paid what they've earned. But if they're arbitrarily getting a 100% raise to make somebody feel good, but still only adding $35k in value to the company, I'm not going to think that's fair, I am going to be pissed off, and I am going to start looking elsewhere.

With this mindset, it must be impossible to work at any company with an executive making 7+ digits per year, unless you think making high-level decisions and having practically no consequences to fear are worth that much.

And since you've suggested that people's work is worth some absolute amount regardless of how much the company can afford to, or would like to pay, how do you decide on these amounts?

If my administrative assistant\clerk is getting paid $70k when they normally would get paid $35k, and my salary of $80k stays at $80k, I sure as hell better not get any lip when I ask that my clerk to learn a new program or instead of giving me paper copies I ask that she provide them in PDF scans that are saved on a server.

I get equally enraged when the guy who makes far more than me asks me to make him a report that he requires to do his job. If its a requirement of his job he should sure as hell better know how to do said report and do it quickly. It's one thing if he knows how to do it and he's helping me learn, it's another when he has no idea how to do it himself.

Then again my job is solely based on the fact that I can answer questions that no-body else in the company can, so ha.

This is what I was referring to in my post on page 1.

Average salary is $48,000, and the owner makes $1,000,000, and he's a hero? He pays himself 20% of the entire payroll.

He didn't say he plans to pay himself $70K. He said he planned to keep his own salary low until the company earned back the profit it had before the new wage scale went into effect.

I like it, but it's a publicity stunt, and some folks are not too good at math.

The average salary is $48K, with 120 employees. That's a $5.76 payroll.

He says he is going to fund it with 80% of the profits (2.2 million) from next year (1.76 million) plus his own salary (930,000). $2.69 in payroll increase plus the existing $5.76= $7.52 million in anticipated payroll.

Divided by 120 employees would mean an average salary of $62,667. How is that possible if the MINIMUM salary is $70K?

Methinks big layoffs are coming, but he is getting a massive amount of free publicity.

It will be easy to get huge productivity increases from people who just got their salary doubled. "Do more work, or go find another job". Bye-bye any dead wood.

He's a hero by CEO standards

He's still a hero. haha

He's a hero because he can dupe the general public with funny math?

In reply to SVreX:

Do you want his balance sheet?

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote: I'm not worried about the amount my neighbor is being paid. I worry about what we are being paid relative to our responsibilities and output - that everybody's pay is fair. If I am working in a job that is worth $100k a year, and I am doing $100k worth of work to earn it, great. If the lower-level job is worth $70k and they are doing $70k worth of work, I will be glad they're finally getting paid what they've earned. But if they're arbitrarily getting a 100% raise to make somebody feel good, but still only adding $35k in value to the company, I'm not going to think that's fair, I am going to be pissed off, and I am going to start looking elsewhere.

With this mindset, it must be impossible to work at any company with an executive making 7+ digits per year, unless you think making high-level decisions and having practically no consequences to fear are worth that much. And since you've suggested that people's work is worth some absolute amount regardless of how much the company can afford to, or would like to pay, how do you decide on these amounts?

In short, duke believes in the American dream; if he works "harder" than other people, he will earn more. This is a patently false idea, and is sold by corporations to the minions on the premise that if they fight amongst themselves for the crumbs (rather than the corporations who earn untold sums of money off the backs of their employees), eventually a few out of the many will be rewarded (but only by the masters who deem it so).

Like how the USA is one of the only countries in the world with no minimum vacation time. Lol. berkeleying. Lol

PHeller wrote: In reply to SVreX: Do you want his balance sheet?

Nope. But the numbers he's given don't add up.

If I just got my salary doubled, I'd be concerned.

Hey, I like this.

"What!? You're a crazy right wing nutjob who goes to tea party events!"

Yeah, but this is a private entity, and the CEO is, under no pressure from a politician, giving something a try. I wonder how it will turn out. I am totally against rules mandating things like this, and I don't think income parity is a good answer, but if I ran a company I would experiment with the low/high paid ratio. I bet he sees some positive results, although I am not sure it will result in a net benefit. I'd love to see how it works out.

Found what you're missing, he's using an existing $2.2m in profits to help pay for the increase, with presumably more expected, which more than makes up the ~$900k shortfall.

SVreX wrote: He's a hero because he can dupe the general public with funny math?

Yes, it IS terrible that he values other peoples hard work. Awful.

Apparently the guy is such a socialist that people will work hard to poke holes in his idea. Good thing it's a private company. Making good money just processing information.

commie bastard.

Poe effect

HiTempguy wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote: I'm not worried about the amount my neighbor is being paid. I worry about what we are being paid relative to our responsibilities and output - that everybody's pay is fair. If I am working in a job that is worth $100k a year, and I am doing $100k worth of work to earn it, great. If the lower-level job is worth $70k and they are doing $70k worth of work, I will be glad they're finally getting paid what they've earned. But if they're arbitrarily getting a 100% raise to make somebody feel good, but still only adding $35k in value to the company, I'm not going to think that's fair, I am going to be pissed off, and I am going to start looking elsewhere.

With this mindset, it must be impossible to work at any company with an executive making 7+ digits per year, unless you think making high-level decisions and having practically no consequences to fear are worth that much. And since you've suggested that people's work is worth some absolute amount regardless of how much the company can afford to, or would like to pay, how do you decide on these amounts?

In short, duke believes in the American dream; if he works "harder" than other people, he will earn more. This is a patently false idea, and is sold by corporations to the minions on the premise that if they fight amongst themselves for the crumbs (rather than the corporations who earn untold sums of money off the backs of their employees), eventually a few out of the many will be rewarded (but only by the masters who deem it so). Like how the USA is one of the only countries in the world with no minimum vacation time. Lol. berkeleying. Lol

Actually, he never said anything about working harder.

I think it is less about Duke gilding the American Dream, then it is about you expressing your disdain for it.

I think the case could be made that your disdain is equally patently false in it's presumptions.

Duke said $100K worth of work. In other words, adding that dollar amount in value to the company. Consumers determine the value with their dollars. It's NOT the big bad CEO, nor working harder.

I have accepted that what I do is inherently less valuable in the marketplace than what a computer programmer does, or a banker.

I hope the CEO of my company profits. I hope he profits sufficiently to make it worthwhile to keep the doors open, so I can continue to do what I do and provide value to the company.

It's about VALUE. And each person brings certain financial value to a company, and everyone is different.

Bottom line, I doubt the buying public will value the services of a clerical worker to be $70K.

SVreX wrote: I have accepted that what I do is inherently less valuable in the marketplace than what a computer programmer does, or a banker.

I'm sure some computer programmers and bankers generate negative value.

(I'm only half-joking...I think...)

HiTempguy wrote: In short, duke believes in the American dream; if he works "harder" than other people, he will earn more. This is a patently false idea, and is sold by corporations to the minions on the premise that if they fight amongst themselves for the crumbs (rather than the corporations who earn untold sums of money off the backs of their employees), eventually a few out of the many will be rewarded (but only by the masters who deem it so). Like how the USA is one of the only countries in the world with no minimum vacation time. Lol. berkeleying. Lol

Something related to think about...

So you have many fields of tomatos- would you agree that it's really hard work to pick tomatos for an 8 hour shift? Very physically demanding.

The next person up the pay scale are people who watch those tomatos input into the plant, and make sure the automation system is processing and canning those tomatos correctly. Hard work, but not like working outside all day bending an picking tomatos.

The next ones up are their supervisors. And/or the tech's who have to keep the plant running. Maybe close to them are the engineers who keep track of the system, and the accountants who deal with the numbers. Mentally hard work, but certainly not physically.

Then the management structure. They drive a desk all day. Yes, there is repsonibiluty to keep things running, but it's all mental. This is the group that makes the big bucks.

So the people who actually work physically hard for a living get paid a lot less than the people who just make sure things are working by watching a computer. How does that Puritan ethic play into that?

Above all of that are the people who are gambling their money to finance these companies. They get paid the most by a wide margin.

We value skin that means means money over skin that means physical labor. By a rather wide margin.

Ever wonder why labor movements and communism got started? There you go.