That notion of paying workers a minimum salary of $70k seemed like a good idea at the time

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

YankeeFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
55,078
Remember this guy? I would have sworn we had a thread on this, but I couldn't find it.

Things aren't going so great:

Three months ago, Mr. Price, 31, announced he was setting a new minimum salary of $70,000 at his Seattle credit card processing firm, Gravity Payments, and slashing his own million-dollar pay package to do it. He wasn’t thinking about the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor, he said. He was just thinking of the 120 people who worked for him and, let’s be honest, a bit of free publicity. The idea struck him when a friend shared her worries about paying both her rent and student loans on a $40,000 salary. He realized a lot of his own employees earned that or less.

Yet almost overnight, a decision by one small-business man in the northwestern corner of the country became a swashbuckling blow against income inequality.
...
What few outsiders realized, however, was how much turmoil all the hoopla was causing at the company itself. To begin with, Gravity was simply unprepared for the onslaught of emails, Facebook posts and phone calls. The attention was thrilling, but it was also exhausting and distracting. And with so many eyes focused on the firm, some hoping to witness failure, the pressure has been intense.

More troubling, a few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase — despite repeated assurances to the contrary — also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Price’s announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees — now at a significantly higher cost — and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.

Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.

Then potentially the worst blow of all: Less than two weeks after the announcement, Mr. Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences, filed a lawsuit that potentially threatened the company’s very existence. With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...inst-the-raise-that-roared.html?smid=tw-share
 
I remember giving kudos to this guy when it happens but a good point is brought up.

Wouldn't it have been more fair to introduce a percentage, even something huge like 30, 40 percent or more instead of simply saying "Everyone gets $70,000!"

If I had been, say, a 15-year veteran making $67,000 and a fresh graduate suddenly went from $40,000 to $70,000, I'd be upset.

Of course, I'm the person who once had an intern making more money per hour than I was as a full-time worker.
 
Yeah, except that none of the reporting in the article backs it up.

Who's hoping to witness failure? Did the reporter talk to them? What did they say?

This response is the equivalent of hitting a person with their own arm and telling them to stop hitting themself.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
I remember giving kudos to this guy when it happens but a good point is brought up.

Wouldn't it have been more fair to introduce a percentage, even something huge like 30, 40 percent or more instead of simply saying "Everyone gets $70,000!"

If I had been, say, a 15-year veteran making $67,000 and a fresh graduate suddenly went from $40,000 to $70,000, I'd be upset.

Of course, I'm the person who once had an intern making more money per hour than I was as a full-time worker.

If it's not already in place at this company, that percentage of increase will probably occur next year, and be used thereafter during employees' annual reviews after the flat-rate increase of this year.

At least, that's what's going on at places using a lower pay scale, if what's going on at Walmart right now is any indication.

This issue of new hires coming in and making as much, or more than, what employees who have been working there for years is exactly what is being raised in the wake of recent pay-scale changes resulting from minimum-wage raise requirements.

Because, unless there is some benevolent CEO or other provider like Dan Price cutting into his own exorbitant money to pay for an across-the-board in order for everybody to be paid a certain, higher level, guess who is, essentially, paying for it? The employees already there.

The people who have already been there a while, who are only just above whatever the new starting pay is, or even those who have been there for many years, will get nothing because it's not required under the law, and, for this year, at least, their hours are being cut.

Voila, the new, improved starting pay is covered, at no, or certainly much less, expense to the company.
 
Think of that on a world-wide scale and in terms of money for a major company like Walmart or McDonalds and you get a real sense of the impact of the money, hours and manpower involved with this pay change, or any so-substantial increase as one up to $15 an hour.

In theory, it'd be nice if everybody made at least $15 an hour, no matter how lowly their job. But that increase has to be paid for. This is exactly how/why doing more with less begins.
 
Wouldn't it have been more fair to introduce a percentage, even something huge like 30, 40 percent or more instead of simply saying "Everyone gets $70,000!"
Each time you do that you widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. You're making it worse.
 
Frankly, the veteran employees upset over younger employees making that much money are stingy assholes.
 
Frankly, the veteran employees upset over younger employees making that much money are stingy assholes.

No. If everyone makes the same salary, we've rendered experience and job performance meaningless, and therefore rendered upward mobility nonexistent.
 
No. If everyone makes the same salary, we've rendered experience and job performance meaningless, and therefore rendered upward mobility nonexistent.
Wrong. Paying a $70k minimum salary is going to attract a high level of interest from job seekers, and will widen the talent pool available to that company considerably. If the executive assistant sucks, he or she can be easily replaced, putting a higher premium on their job performance and thus increasing productivity.

Experience was rendered meaningless long ago. Experience, and the salary that comes with it, can be a hindrance to an employee in today's job market already. How many times have you seen newspapers, or other companies lay off their most experienced — and high-priced — employees, while retaining the younger — and cheaper — workers to cut costs? I'm not saying it's right, but it's nothing new to see employers who don't place a higher value on experience.

They didn't create a $70k ceiling on salaries, so there's no way this renders upward mobility nonexistent. In fact, it's the opposite. The $40k worker can now afford to erase debt, buy a home instead of renting it, afford better schooling for their children. The $67k worker who received a $3k raise did not lose anything by their co-workers receiving an increase in pay, except a hit to their egos because now they make the same amount as the executive assistant.

Sorry, but if you're upset that someone else makes the same amount of money as you do, when it didn't take away from your bottom line, you're being a petty asshole.
 
Odd to see someone paraphrasing Matthew 20:13-15 'round here.

I am a Catholic. That's a pretty solid reference, Quant. Don't think I've heard "Are you envious because I am generous" since catechism, but I guess it's rattling around in my subconscious somewhere.
 
Sorry, but if you're upset that someone else makes the same amount of money as you do, when it didn't take away from your bottom line, you're being a petty asshole.

Not "someone else." "Someone" who's 23, while I'm closing in on 40? You're damn right I'd be pissed.

Not every industry is as hopelessly cold-hearted and ****ed up as newspapers are. Experience and institutional knowledge rightfully have a lot of value in most other civilized industries.

Also, if the starting point is $70K, the ceiling is going to be much lower than you apparently think. It's egalitarian, to be sure, but it's a crock of ****. No way someone who put in 5 years should make as much as someone who put in 20, as a matter of official policy.
 
Don't think I've heard "Are you envious because I am generous" since catechism, but I guess it's rattling around in my subconscious somewhere.

I've seen it referred to as the Parable of the Generous Employer or the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. But I think Parable of the Stingy Assholes works pretty good, too.
 
You can always tell those workers who are at the bottom end of the salary scale with little hope of making more.
 
Not "someone else." "Someone" who's 23, while I'm closing in on 40? You're damn right I'd be pissed.

Not every industry is as hopelessly cold-hearted and ****ed up as newspapers are. Experience and institutional knowledge rightfully have a lot of value in most other civilized industries.

Also, if the starting point is $70K, the ceiling is going to be much lower than you apparently think. It's egalitarian, to be sure, but it's a crock of ****. No way someone who put in 5 years should make as much as someone who put in 20, as a matter of official policy.

I personally agree that experience and institutional knowledge have a lot value, but sadly, I don't think that's necessarily the reality for most companies these days. When given the choice between a 23-year-old employee making $40k who can learn the ropes or a $67k employee who already knows them, most companies are going to take the $40k employee. That institutional knowledge is not worth $27k per year to most companies.

Of course, that's comparing two employees doing the same job. I get the sense here that it's a case of middle managers or someone like that who is upset their assistant or the custodial staff are making the same amount of money. So that employee has three choices:
  • Seek a new job making more money at a different company — which is a net gain.
  • Stay in the current job, with a $3k raise, but make the same amount as the custodian — net gain.
  • Make a lateral move to a different company with the same salary, where they'll make more than the custodian, but may have to move, or face a longer commute, etc. — maybe they feel better about themselves, but they're not doing any better financially.
In two of those scenarios, the $67k worker benefits financially. In one, he or she is shown to be a petty asshole. In none of them is the $67k worker worse off than they were before.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top