• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Remember the guy who gave his employees a $70,000 starting salary?

James972 said:
because companies that pay too much go bankrupt at the hands of competitors who don't.
Click to expand...

Over simplification.

As long as this company makes money, no matter what their competitor does, they can stay in business. The money to pay these employees is coming from the CEO's salary, not from a prince increase that makes the company less competitive. So it can offer the same services at the same price as it's competitor, and stay in business, it's just that the competitors CEO will earn more (but that won't necessarily make that CEO happier).

Not to mention, a happier workforce can lead to a competitive edge.
 
Nilly said:
Over simplification.

As long as this company makes money, no matter what their competitor does, they can stay in business. The money to pay these employees is coming from the CEO's salary, not from a prince increase that makes the company less competitive. So it can offer the same services at the same price as it's competitor, and stay in business, it's just that the competitors CEO will earn more (but that won't necessarily make that CEO happier).

Not to mention, a happier workforce can lead to a competitive edge.
Click to expand...


1000% absurd and 10000% liberal. Take a more mainstream typical big company like Walmart. If the CEO gave up his entire salary to be all liberal goofy and "happy" it would amount to $10 per employee. And, you want to attract the very best person in the entire world to that job as Walmart battles against Amazon to survive and save millions of jobs!! I say double his salary out of love for the at risk millions who work for Walmart.
 
James972 said:
1000% absurd and 10000% liberal. Take a more mainstream typical big company like Walmart. If the CEO gave up his entire salary to be all liberal goofy and "happy" it would amount to $10 per employee. And, you want to attract the very best person in the entire world to that job as Walmart battles against Amazon to survive and save millions of jobs!! I say double his salary out of love for the at risk millions who work for Walmart.
Click to expand...

Right but it isn't the CEO of Walmart who did it. No-one said this would be applicable at Walmart.
 
James972 said:
I can explain it to you. Politicians promise what they want to do, not what they can do in a divided govt that does not support what they want to do. Make sense now?
Click to expand...

YES! finally, it makes sense. Or that's just something you say to blame the other guy.


2003 vs 2004 vs 2005 vs 2006 vs 2007 - U.S. Federal Budget Comparison

The last time Republicans controlled both the legislature & executive branch was '05 and '06. During that period, the government outlays increased by 8.4%. Like I said, I'm a realist. I won't turn a blind eye to (what was) my party just because of their promises. I recommend you start holding them accountable for their actions rather than what you perceive their intentions to be.
 
Dittohead not! said:
His name was Dan Price, and his company was "Gravity."

Remember what was said about how foolish he was, how he was a "socialist", how his business would surely fail?

Well, that was six months ago. Now:



But, after all that, he must be going broke, right?



Guess not.

Maybe keeping all of the money at the top isn't such a great business plan. What do you think?

source
Click to expand...

not keeping his money didn't change how much his company was paying out.

what it did do was chase key people off.

why? because if you are the stock boy you are happy and great. if you were the system admin you are now making as much
as the stock boy for doing more work.

why not just be the stock boy?
that or find a different job.

the guy himself is having major financial issues.
 
James972 said:
If your business plan in not great, Republican capitalism bankrupts you at the hands of someone with a better plan.
Click to expand...

if your plan is not great then someone else takes your business. it has nothing to do with republican capitalism. it has everything to do with someone being incompetent
and not listening to the market.
 
Nilly said:
Over simplification.

As long as this company makes money, no matter what their competitor does, they can stay in business. The money to pay these employees is coming from the CEO's salary, not from a prince increase that makes the company less competitive. So it can offer the same services at the same price as it's competitor, and stay in business, it's just that the competitors CEO will earn more (but that won't necessarily make that CEO happier).

Not to mention, a happier workforce can lead to a competitive edge.
Click to expand...

not when people doing most of the work see people that don't do any work get the same raise or more raise than they do.

When I went to work for my company everyone starts off as an operator unless you have some really unique skills.
however the saying goes those that are good don't stay operators. once they learn the system they move up and they move out
of operations.

which is what I have done. Now I have my PMP. In the next few years I am going to stop doing this and
get into project management.
 
James972 said:
which is why they proposed 30 Balanced Budget Amendments and Democrats killed every one, why they sign the Pledge and Democrats don't, and why 100% of Republicans voted against Obamacare, and why Republicans will kill Obamacare now that they control govt!! Sorry to rock your world!
Click to expand...

My world is quite steady, thank you. Is yours experiencing earthquakes?
 
Claim: Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price rented his house in order to make ends meet after taking a $900,000 pay cut and raising the minimum salary at his company to $70,000.

mixture

WHAT'S TRUE: Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price rented out his house during part of the year via Airbnb after raising his company's minimum wage and taking a steep pay cut.
WHAT'S FALSE: Dan Price chose to rent out his house and did not have to do so as an austerity measure.
Click to expand...


Snopes
 
Nilly said:
The guy did this because research shows that once you hit around $70k, gains on income give diminishing returns on happiness.

Therefore, one of the most important indicators of success would be the happiness of his employees, rather than the performance of the business (although, of course, the business will have to stay afloat in order to provide those wages). Yet nobody is really tracking that?

The entire point of this move was to improve gross happiness, not gross revenue. So why are we still judging things by revenue?
Click to expand...

Because happiness drops to zero when you go bankrupt and everyone you employed have to go back to the real world and make reasonable salaries.
 
Anthony60 said:
Remember the Seattle CEO Who Raised All Salaries to $70K, Here's What Happened Next...

CEO Raises Salaries to $70K for EVERY Employee, Now has to Rent Out his Own Home to Make Ends Meet

Dan Price, 31, tells the New York Times that things have gotten so bad he’s been forced to rent out his house.
“I’m working as hard as I ever worked to make it work,” he told the Times in a video that shows him sitting on a plastic bucket in the garage of his house. “I’m renting out my house right now to try and make ends meet myself.”
The Times article said Price’s decision ended up costing him a few customers and two of his “most valued” employees, who quit after newer employees ended up with bigger salary hikes than older ones.

Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting
“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
The Times said customers who left were dismayed at what Price did, viewing it as a political statement. Others left fearful Gravity would soon hike fees to pay for salary increases.

Brian Canlis, co-owner of a family restaurant, already worried about how to deal with Seattle’s new minimum wage, told Price the pay raise at Gravity “makes it harder for the rest of us.”

Well, maybe it wasn't such a good idea.
Click to expand...

Shocker </sarcasm>

Nilly said:
The guy did this because research shows that once you hit around $70k, gains on income give diminishing returns on happiness.

Therefore, one of the most important indicators of success would be the happiness of his employees, rather than the performance of the business (although, of course, the business will have to stay afloat in order to provide those wages). Yet nobody is really tracking that?

The entire point of this move was to improve gross happiness, not gross revenue. So why are we still judging things by revenue?
Click to expand...

We're judging things by revenue because "happiness" is not quantitative - I can be happy making 25K and yet be miserable making 70K or vice versa. Secondly, when people are paid a high salary without earning that salary over time, it's meaningless, demotivates others who are hard working while rewarding those who may not be working as hard. I applaud the sentiment and action by this CEO, but it was doomed if he simply understood a portion of human nature. I think I supported his actions when this first came out (can't remember right now).

ludin said:
if your plan is not great then someone else takes your business. it has nothing to do with republican capitalism. it has everything to do with someone being incompetent
and not listening to the market.
Click to expand...

aka, competition. Yep! :thumbs:
 
jmotivator said:
Because happiness drops to zero when you go bankrupt and everyone you employed have to go back to the real world and make reasonable salaries.
Click to expand...

Right but no-one here has gone bankrupt.

Not to mention, you'll have to prove to me that happiness drops to zero upon bankruptcy. Happiness and money do not track like that.

Ockham said:
Shocker </sarcasm>

We're judging things by revenue because "happiness" is not quantitative - I can be happy making 25K and yet be miserable making 70K or vice versa. Secondly, when people are paid a high salary without earning that salary over time, it's meaningless, demotivates others who are hard working while rewarding those who may not be working as hard. I applaud the sentiment and action by this CEO, but it was doomed if he simply understood a portion of human nature. I think I supported his actions when this first came out (can't remember right now).
Click to expand...

Happiness is not quantitative, you're right, and that makes things difficult. However, research shows that happiness increases fairly linearly up until you can supply your basic needs. After that point (which is around $70k in the US) gains in income do not linearly mean gains in happiness. So while it depends on the individual case, in general we can say those who earn $70k are happier than those who earn $25k. But those who earn $700k are not demonstrably happier than those who earn $70k.

'Earning' your salary is relative. A Bangladeshi sweatshop kid who walks 10 miles to work then sews clothes for 10 hours to earn $50/month probably doesn't think many Americans 'earn' their $50k salary for sitting at a desk for 9-5. But that doesn't mean he doesn't go and walk 10 miles to work anyway.

I'd agree that knowing other peoples salaries is generally unhelpful, and if I were him, I would have staggered things a little bit more between employees. Maybe start at a little lower minimum ($50/60k), and pay people so that the median wage for employees is at $70k so people don't know exactly how much the janitor earns etc. It is a shame though that knowing someone else makes money would prevent you from doing your job? Maybe that's the kind of employee he doesn't really want anyway.
 
Nilly said:
Right but no-one here has gone bankrupt.

Not to mention, you'll have to prove to me that happiness drops to zero upon bankruptcy. Happiness and money do not track like that.
Click to expand...


Hahaha! Sooooo, raising income to $70k increases happiness... but losing a $70k job doesn't? Suuuuuuure.
 
jmotivator said:
Hahaha! Sooooo, raising income to $70k increases happiness... but losing a $70k job doesn't? Suuuuuuure.
Click to expand...

Not what I said.

I said there is a tangible generalizable difference in happiness between $70k and <$70k (in the US).

I also said that happiness doesn't drop to 0 if income drops to 0. Humans are resilient creatures.

I also said that the company didn't go bankrupt. So everyone didn't lose their jobs, so you're putting forward a hypothetical that didn't even come to be based on the CEO's choice.
 
When Henry Ford decided that mass production would increase the number of cars made, he ran into a problem unique to the times. All of his employees were craftsmen that would build a whole car each. When he told them about his plans to change to a mass production factory they all quit.

He had to double everyone's pay to get them to stay on and build one part of a car over and over again. Henry didn't know it at the time, but he had just screwed over American workers for all time. Henry Ford and agriculture were responsible for creating dissatisfaction, where there had been none. Serfdom is an analogy.
 
Nilly said:
Right but it isn't the CEO of Walmart who did it. No-one said this would be applicable at Walmart.
Click to expand...

great, so its really not applicable anywhere except at maybe 4 companies where the owner is really ripping everyone off and then decides not to.
 
d0gbreath said:
Henry didn't know it at the time, but he had just screwed over American workers for all time.
Click to expand...

how??? by being the super genius who figured out how to make cars cheap enough so that everyone could afford them; by being able to pay his workers a revolutionarily high wage???
 
James972 said:
great, so its really not applicable anywhere except at maybe 4 companies where the owner is really ripping everyone off and then decides not to.
Click to expand...

That's two strawmen you've taken down now.
 
ludin said:
if your plan is not great then someone else takes your business. it has nothing to do with republican capitalism. .
Click to expand...

only under Republican capitalism does this competition happen. Democrats support socialism or crony capitalism wherein competition is eliminated or diminished. Ever heard of Obamacare, for example?
 
Dittohead not! said:
My world is quite steady, thank you. Is yours experiencing earthquakes?
Click to expand...

Translation: As a liberal I made absurd point; I lost debate; so will talk gibberish.
 
James972 said:
what????
Click to expand...

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"


1. Applicable to Walmart
2. Applicable to 4 companies
 
Nilly said:
straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"


1. Applicable to Walmart
2. Applicable to 4 companies
Click to expand...

so the guy who gave $70,000 salary to each employee is totally irrelevant because his example is not replicable but you started a thread on him anyway??
 
James972 said:
so the guy who gave $70,000 salary to each employee is totally irrelevant because his example is not replicable but you started a thread on him anyway??
Click to expand...

Oooooh strawman number 3. I didn't start this thread.

It's not relevant for all businesses, no. In fact, in this thread we're discussing the success of this one business, and my post was about the indicators to measure the success, of this one business.

We then spoke about how this kind of thing may be applicable to other business types but in different ways and under specific circumstance. Follow yet? Or we still going too fast?
 
Nilly said:
Oooooh strawman number 3. I didn't start this thread.

It's not relevant for all businesses, no. In fact, in this thread we're discussing the success of this one business, and my post was about the indicators to measure the success, of this one business.

We then spoke about how this kind of thing may be applicable to other business types but in different ways and under specific circumstance. Follow yet? Or we still going too fast?
Click to expand...

You are trying to reason with a brick wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom