In reply to Strike_Zero:
Right on the money. Many times some hotshot will be brought in to 'turn around' a struggling company. That person will then collect a huge bonus for doing basically nothing and the employees take it in the shorts. It's refreshing to read about one guy who's not doing that.
Unemployement fraud? Close, tight knit office is on a sinking ship so they jack up wages just before she goes under so they can collect higher unemployment?
In reply to Flight Service:
Thus far the one proven to be true has been the one with more +1's. Tom knew what he was talking about when he said it.
Enyar wrote: Unemployement fraud? Close, tight knit office is on a sinking ship so they jack up wages just before she goes under so they can collect higher unemployment?
Nah. I seriously doubt it.
First off, I think he's legit. I think he honestly believes in this idea.
Secondly, he would have just bumped everyone to the full high rate (instead of phases).
But it also wouldn't work in some places. I don't know how it works in Seattle, but in GA there is no difference between the unemployment benefits for someone making $50K vs $70K. They are both maxxed out (at a pathetically low rate).
Datsun1500 - Please fix your formatting below. You misquoted me as saying something I did not. Correct this please.
INCORRECT QUOTE
Datsun1500 wrote:Xceler8x wrote: WTF is wrong with you people? Someone who had a chance to effect peoples lives, and did, on his own, because he thought it the right thing to do, and this is the response. Yeah, maybe it is time to get off of this board for awhile.
THE CORRECT QUOTATION:
Flight Service wrote:Xceler8x wrote: Owner of a Credit Card Processor Is Setting a New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year "Gravity Payments founder Dan Price surprised his 120 employees Monday: After reading that money fluctuations are a big problem for those earning less than $70,000, he decided to make that the minimum wage for all the employees at his credit-card payment-processing company. To do so, Price cut his own salary from $1 million to $70,000 (CEOs make on average 300 times an average company salary), and plans to cut into company profit. Thirty people at Gravity will see their salaries double as a result."I am the only one who +1 thismndsm wrote: And the award for hr department that suddenly hates their CEO due to flood of applications and calls.....6 +s on this. WTF is wrong with you people? Someone who had a chance to effect peoples lives, and did, on his own, because he thought it the right thing to do, and this is the response. Yeah, maybe it is time to get off of this board for awhile.
Fox News has an axe to grind. They are consistently against any situation that seeks to address the rising rate of income inequality. It would seem their stance is that we need to care for and coddle our own rich in the US of A. I mean if we don't who will? THINK OF THE RICH GUYS PEOPLE?! If we help the majority of our citizen's to earn more then those people won't be The Rich anymore. 
Fox News links are not trustworthy as Fox News is consistently biased. To their credit they managed to dig up two people who are unhappy with how generous this guy is to his employees. Proof positive that if you cast a wide enough net, say on this very forum, you'll find people who hate anything and everything.
We need a law like Godwins law for how quickly somebody bashes Fox News.
But thanks of the flounder. Think I'll go out tonight and have some since the Mrs. is still out of town.
In reply to Xceler8x:
They're a media outlet, it doesn't matter what they say/do/claim to be, they're always going to be slanted one way or the other....this statement goes to all of them, including several people here's favorite, NPR.
In reply to Xceler8x:
I hear there is almost no wage gap in north korea...
Xceler8x wrote: Fox News has an axe to grind. They are consistently against any situation that seeks to address the rising rate of income inequality. It would seem their stance is that we need to care for and coddle our own rich in the US of A
That’s just one of a nearly infinite number of possible explanations.
I’m critical of the idea too but not because I’m biased in favor of affluent people but because as a career Systems Engineer, I know that arbitrarily paying people more for the same good or service is utterly pointless.
No additional value is being added therefore, for every winner, there MUST be an equal and opposite loser. It’s a lot like physics where matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only change forms.
Please consider the following thought experiment…if 70K is good, why isn’t 700K better? Without a viable explanation for why the relationship between pay and the holistic good of the system is non-linear, the flaw in the logic is revealed with this simple question.
I suspect FOX is simply playing to the “there’s no free lunch / if it sounds too good to be true…” paradigm that many of their viewers have.
To me its like giving a trophy to everyboody just for competing.
spitfirebill wrote: To me its like giving a trophy to everyboody just for competing.
Yes. That is what it is like and the effect on some employees will be to not be as productive because they see a E36 M3stain co-worker getting paid $70k/yr who adds little to no value, so they figure why bust their butt. I think the man's heart may be in the right place, but in the real world he is going to end up driving away good employees by paying the bad ones so much. If this move was also coupled with a process to weed out the underperformers and only hiring the best, then maybe it could work out.
In reply to T.J.:
So is he an idealist who is detached from the real world, or perhaps would there be some type of tax benefit from claiming to be a co-op?
In reply to yamaha:
there could be so many possible explanations. he might be trying to expend resources to intentionally deny his brother of them, he might be on a social justice high.
the result would be the same regardless of his reasoning, tho...
Apparently, many WallyMart employees aren’t waxing philosophical on the whole “crabs in a bucket” thing.
RX Reven' wrote: Please consider the following thought experiment…if 70K is good, why isn’t 700K better? Without a viable explanation for why the relationship between pay and the holistic good of the system is non-linear, the flaw in the logic is revealed with this simple question.
I can answer that one. Beyond a certain point, more money doesn't really help people's lives or even make them happier (although it can infinitely inflate one's sense of self-worth), it just helps them buy more extravagant versions of the same stuff. That point is just over $70k (which is the reason the CEO chose that amount).
Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-for-happiness-75000-a-year/
In reply to GameboyRMH:
The "Perfect Salary For Happiness" is still flawed in regard to varied cost of living.....
yamaha wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: The "Perfect Salary For Happiness" is still flawed in regard to varied cost of living.....
Only in extreme cases. For most of north american society, $75k/year ANYWHERE will allow you to have a solid middle to upper-middle class life. Hell, there are only a few places (and really, I mean some spots in California, New York, and Washington DC) that that kind of money wouldn't provide for myself. That kind of money easily affords you an ok life even in Toronto and Vancouver. Not the best, but definitely nothing to sneeze at.
yamaha wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: The "Perfect Salary For Happiness" is still flawed in regard to varied cost of living.....
Not really. Costs of living vary for a reason, even if it's one you don't consider to be of any value to you.
Complaining about a higher cost of living is a lot like complaining that your car costs more to maintain, except you might not have made the decision to choose the car, and it can be a lot harder to get a different one.
You might have a Mazda2 and like it, you might have a BMW i8 and like it, or you might be stuck with a Brodozer truck and hate that it costs you so much with the fury of a thousand suns - but there's a reason it costs so much to run and certain kinds of people are happy to pay for it.
Metro area of Tulsa, Cincinnati or Knoxville is pretty damn cheap. $75k would pay for a decent house with some property and allow for some aggressive retirement funding.
Trouble would be keeping that salary in those places.
Metro areas are expensive because there are a lot of jobs there and a lot of people like to live in big cities for some incomprehensible reason. Like I said, there are reasons, but they're not things that everybody values.
Also, small aircraft are the rich man's only natural predator
PHeller wrote: Metro area of Tulsa, Cincinnati or Knoxville is pretty damn cheap. $75k would pay for a decent house with some property and allow for some aggressive retirement funding. Trouble would be keeping that salary in those places.
That's why they're more affordable.
Could you imagine having a stable job in Puerto Rico that paid $75k? That'd be the dream.
Keep it on the wraps, live modestly, retire early.
GameboyRMH wrote: Also, small aircraft and cocaine are the rich man's only natural predators
FTFY
TY 
You'll need to log in to post.
