In reply to mtn:
Plenty of jobs in the outlying smaller communities.....they just might not be fancy nation wide recognized conglomerations. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you could live in some inner city metropolitan neighborhoods for under $750/mo....its just you might want Seal Team 6 on protection detail. 
alfadriver wrote: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.
I'd rather you go ahead and poke holes in my idea than make me the bad guy.
I never called the guy a socialist (I don't think he is, and don't care if he is). I like the idea.
I'd just like it to be presented without lies, so I might be able to see something sustainable in it.
I posted the math. Tell me what I am missing.
GameboyRMH wrote: 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.
I included the $2.2 million.
GameboyRMH wrote: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...)
You may be right, but the marketplace still values them more.
SVreX wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: 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.I included the $2.2 million.
I'm saying it looks like it should be $2.2m x 2, he's used an existing $2.2m and he's assuming he'll make at least as much in the coming year.
Saying that "you can't see the balance sheet, so the math is funny"
is like saying "you don't work the job, so you don't know how hard it is to earn those millions."
What I mean is that I always get beat down when I insinuate that some of countries biggest earners may not truely be "working" for their money anymore. I think once you get to a point where you can pretty much work the way you want to, when you want to, how you want, for however much money you want, you're not really "working" the way the $35,000 food service industry earner is working.
GameboyRMH wrote:SVreX wrote:I'm saying it looks like it should be $2.2m x 2, he's used an *existing* $2.2m and he's assuming he'll make at least as much in the coming year.GameboyRMH wrote: 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.I included the $2.2 million.
Not sure where you got that. I don't see it.
The article said: He would pay for the wage increases by cutting his own salary from nearly $1 million to $70,000 and using 75 to 80 percent of the company’s anticipated $2.2 million in profit this year.
It doesn't say $2.2 million in anticipated growth this coming year. Is says $2.2 in anticipated profits. this coming year.
Where is the extra $2.2 million?
OK it's not clear whether this 2.2m is from the financial year that just finished or the one that's coming up. Let's assume it should be $2.2m x1.
He said the raises will be phased in over the next 3 years, so if he doesn't have to cover the pay increases all at once, they shouldn't run over their budget for any one year.
Edit: Yes this assumes that profits will eventually rise enough to cover all employees' increased pay.
PHeller wrote: What I mean is that I always get beat down when I insinuate that some of countries biggest earners may not truely be "working" for their money anymore. I think once you get to a point where you can pretty much work the way you want to, when you want to, how you want, for however much money you want, you're not really "working" the way the $35,000 food service industry earner is working.
We've got a system that lets a cat lounging on a car's dashboard for a few minutes make more than a skilled worker would in a lifetime, the people shouting you down are denying reality.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Good point on the 3 year phase-in. That could change things.
But, it doesn't change the appearance of a publicity stunt. In fact, for me, it makes it more likely.
A 3 year phase in is often hard to prove.
I worked for a company about the same size, started about the same time. The owner was really good at working the media. He'd talk about projected job growth, and the media would eat it up. He'd say things like "We are adding 40 jobs over the next year", or "We will be adding 3 divisions and 200+ jobs in the next 3 years". He got front page headlines and awards all the time.
It's now 3 years later. He has sold 1 division, sold off most of the equipment, and is operating on a staff that has been cut 70%, with average salaries down by about 50%. Now he says, "It's just good business", or "We are more efficient now".
None of those newspapers has ever written an article about his cuts in staffing.
So yeah, I'm a bit of a skeptic, especially when it involves multi-year phase-ins and the (very gullible) media.
GameboyRMH wrote:PHeller wrote: What I mean is that I always get beat down when I insinuate that some of countries biggest earners may not truely be "working" for their money anymore. I think once you get to a point where you can pretty much work the way you want to, when you want to, how you want, for however much money you want, you're not really "working" the way the $35,000 food service industry earner is working.We've got a system that lets a cat lounging on a car's dashboard for a few minutes make more than a skilled worker would in a lifetime, the people shouting you down are denying reality.
^This. We live in a world that values a lot things, labor isn't one of them. While I love boobs and butt as much or more than most, the fact that the Kardashian clan stands to be worth billions before their fad is over with for simply being Kardashians IMO kind of proves my point
mtn wrote: 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?
If I got a similar job for similar pay, except I was being treated fairly instead of unfairly, then yes, my situation would improve.
Let me ask this...
Regardless of whether you are Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or whatever, if the going rate for a gallon of gasoline is $2.50, would you pay $5.00 per gallon under any circumstances? Better service, better quality, you know the owner, whatever. ANY circumstances.
So, if there are multiple millions of clerical workers across the country capable of providing particular services and 90% of them are compensated at $35K or less, why would anyone pay $70K? Would you?
Is it possible that they would do twice as much work? Where is the value?
Sooner or later it doesn't add up.
BTW, the earlier Ford reference doesn't work either.
Yes, Henry Ford nearly doubled the potential hourly rate. But his working conditions were so miserable that he had to employ 52,000 people to maintain a workforce of 14,000, so it was really about reducing his turnover rate.
Half of the "pay" was not pay at all, but bonuses based on lifestyle choices, which were monitored in intrusive, paternalistic ways. Perhaps many of them were never even paid.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/
In reply to SVreX:
I agree from a strictly dollars and cents stance, if the company does not grow eventually it won't add up. I think there's more at play here than just the money. It's a relatively small company and there's the intangibles to consider, IMO the CEO is interested in keeping this team of people together for whatever reason and this is his means to that end. As you point out, this is a pretty pricey way to do it (labor is considered an expense) and unless this firm can continue to perform this policy may mean layoffs instead of worker retention. But it's refreshing to see someone who values their employees contributions instead of thinking of them as a number on a balance sheet that should be made as small as possible.
Capitalism is far from perfect and its casualties (folks that barely scrap by doing unsavory jobs) are tough to bear but the alternatives have consistently shown to be far worse.
At best, “fairness” produces a disincentive to be productive, innovative, and take chances…nobody is going to Berkleying bother trying if they know they’ll wind up making 70K regardless.
At worst, “fairness” produces a new ruling class of individuals the claim the moral high ground under the guise of compassion but are every bit as self-serving as the capitalist.
Bottom line, until we evolve beyond the lust for power and wealth, there will always be somebody in charge.
If the person in charge is dressed in IBM blue, there is a some consistency and transparency to the process which gives you a fighting chance to one day join their ranks.
If the person in charge is dressed in comrade green, you’re hosed.
In reply to 06HHR:
I agree completely.
I guess my point is that a company's primary responsibility to it's employees is to maintain their jobs.
Sustainability is a balancing act which is very difficult to juggle.
There is absolutely no formula or direct line from "higher wages" to "worker retention" or "better workforce".
It's a bold move. I like that.
But if it is unsustainable, then the owner has just gambled everyone's jobs for his own pride.
In 1914, it worked for Ford. High wages equaled higher production numbers. It worked again in 1919. In 1929 when Ford tried it again, it didn't work.
Dan Price is making the kind of bold business move I like, I admire, and I try to do. But this is so big, it is kind of hard to believe it is sustainable. I've seen way too many businessmen do similar things for the publicity only.
And publicity is good for business too.
SVreX wrote: Let me ask this... Regardless of whether you are Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or whatever, if the going rate for a gallon of gasoline is $2.50, would you pay $5.00 per gallon under any circumstances? Better service, better quality, you know the owner, whatever. ANY circumstances. So, if there are multiple millions of clerical workers across the country capable of providing particular services and 90% of them are compensated at $35K or less, why would anyone pay $70K? Would you? Is it possible that they would do twice as much work? Where is the value? Sooner or later it doesn't add up.
Well people pay more for higher-octane gas, and I imagine they might pay more for carbon-neutral gas (whether by offset or as biogasoline) or ethically sourced gas (vs, say, middle-eastern gas or turning some African delta into more of an oil-slicked hellhole - in theory anyway, this wouldn't work IRL due to OPEC for one thing).
The last one is applicable here, paying more just to make things better for the people who produced it.
RX Reven' wrote: Capitalism is far from perfect and its casualties (folks that barely scrap by doing unsavory jobs) are tough to bear but the alternatives have consistently shown to be far worse. At best, “fairness” produces a disincentive to be productive, innovative, and take chances…nobody is going to Berkleying bother trying if they know they’ll wind up making 70K regardless. At worst, “fairness” produces a new ruling class of individuals the claim the moral high ground under the guise of compassion but are every bit as self-serving as the capitalist. Bottom line, until we evolve beyond the lust for power and wealth, there will always be somebody in charge. If the person in charge is dressed in IBM blue, there is a some consistency and transparency to the process which gives you a fighting chance to one day join their ranks. If the person in charge is dressed in comrade green, you’re hosed.
No need to restrict yourself to a false dichotomy, or fall into this line of thinking:
BTW, I don't think Dan Price is malicious in intent.
I suspect he believes he will get a strong, committed, productive workforce which will lead to more production and more profits.
And he might.
But if it doesn't pan out, there is a plan B. Those harder working, more productive employees will be able to be leaner and more efficient (even if they are more tired). If the growth doesn't happen, it will be VERY easy to downsize the staff and maintain the current productivity levels and overall payroll costs, while increasing the profits back to where they need to be.
(This is EXACTLY what happened in my old company. And ALL of the higher salaries were the first to go).
I am not sure I can measure this (necessarily) as valuing employee contributions. I think it is still about the bottom line. It HAS to be (or else everyone's job is at risk).
alfadriver wrote: Something related to think about... 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 money over skin that means physical labor. By a rather wide margin. Ever wonder why labor movements and communism got started? There you go.
With an understanding like that, it's easy to see how communist movements got started. I'm theoretically at work, so I can't go into lengthy detail, but here are some bullet points:
Interesting assumption that primarily mental work isn't "work", or at the very least isn't hard work. Tell that to Steven Hawking.
A guy who picks tomatoes for 8 hours gets done his shift, goes home, has a beer, eats dinner, goes to bed. He has responsibility for a couple hundred pounds of tomatoes. The guy "watching the computer" may have responsibility for thousands of tons of tomatoes and a large network of interconnected people and equipment that is dependent upon the key players to make sure it integrates smoothly. Even off the clock, he has to worry about a hundred details that need to be right the next morning. He's probably got a company cell phone that he's not allowed to turn off. Which is a "harder" job?
What is valued most in the market place is either rarity or productivity. As I said in the last one of these Woody-Guthrie-esque threads, unskilled labor is common and easy to come by. It breeds itself! 99.9% of the people on the planet are born capable of providing unskilled physical labor. So that's not rare. If everybody can do the valuable jobs, WHY DON'T THEY? I guess da man be keepin them down.
What about productivity? By that we mean value added to the venture. Sure, there are no tomatoes if the guys in the field don't pick them. But each laborer only adds a few hundred pounds of tomatoes in value to the system. But the guy "watching the computer" may be in charge of logistics and is responsible for moving the thousands of aggregate tons of tomatoes to market. Say all the noble laborers in the field struggle mightily and deliver their harvest. What do they have? A large pile of rotting tomatoes. Are you honestly trying to convince me that the guy in the "watching the computer" logistics role doesn't add something of more value?
GameboyRMH wrote:SVreX wrote: Let me ask this... Regardless of whether you are Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or whatever, if the going rate for a gallon of gasoline is $2.50, would you pay $5.00 per gallon under any circumstances? Better service, better quality, you know the owner, whatever. ANY circumstances. So, if there are multiple millions of clerical workers across the country capable of providing particular services and 90% of them are compensated at $35K or less, why would anyone pay $70K? Would you? Is it possible that they would do twice as much work? Where is the value? Sooner or later it doesn't add up.Well people pay more for higher-octane gas, and I imagine they might pay more for carbon-neutral gas (whether by offset or as biogasoline) or ethically sourced gas (vs, say, middle-eastern gas or turning some African delta into more of an oil-slicked hellhole - in theory anyway, this wouldn't work IRL due to OPEC for one thing). The last one is applicable here, paying more just to make things better for the people who produced it.
I'll take that as a "No". (As in, No, you wouldn't pay double for the same product or service either).
06HHR wrote: This. We live in a world that values a lot things, labor isn't one of them. While I love boobs and butt as much or more than most, the fact that the Kardashian clan stands to be worth billions before their fad is over with for simply being Kardashians IMO kind of proves my point
Let it be known that the majority of the Kardashians' fame and money comes from their value to and status within the downtrodden, uneducated masses that you are claiming are subjugated by this very system. I agree it's idiotic that anyone even has heard their names... but people vote with their wallets. If these same people said "ain't nobody got time for that E36", the Kardashians would disappear back into obscurity just like whoever was in hairdresser magazines in the '70s, and the '80s, and the '90s.
SVreX wrote: I'll take that as a "No". (As in, No, you wouldn't pay double for the same product or service either).
I'm broke as hell though so I'm not a good example 
But, I do often pay more for more-ethically produced goods or to support libre software when there's no immediate practical benefit over a closed alternative. I can't think of any opportunity I've had to pay for more-green goods but I'd do that too - if biogas were available, I'd put it in the tank before every event for carbon-neutral racing.
But gas is already too big a chunk of what I have to spend to pay twice as much, sorry. If it were somewhat affordable maybe I'd pay double for green/ethical gas on a regular basis.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
So, we agree.
I also am willing to pay more for similar products and services produced in an ethical manner.
Not double.
You'll need to log in to post.
