Dan Price raises minimum wage at his company to $70,000 a year

[WAB]

Some have wrongly called it an act of charity. Whatever his motives, the action he took is an example of what can be achieved in terms of fair play.

We can't read his mind, though we're free to guess. This is just the Peanut Gallery after-all. No harm done. Have a Foster's on my dime, DBT, ye mysterious being from the Underworld. I almost typed 'underwear."

Sorry if I typed rot, bilby. I'm not a super-genius, just a sub-genius. And I make a mean sub, by the way.

...sub, by the way...subway....

In touch with some Reality beyond the gilded cage. Yep. Where's my aluminum-foil hat?

 

[barbos]

What rot.

Nobody is going to quit a $100,000 a year job as a manager just because his subordinates also get $100,000 a year - not if the alternative is to do the same job for $90,000, with subordinates who get paid $40,000. You would need to have a very sick mind to fuck yourself over just for the pleasure of lording it over people who are being fucked over even more than you.

They would not quit but they would certainly view that as unfair and will try to fix it somehow, for example by working less and making subordinate work more.

 

[Togo]

Nobody is going to quit a $100,000 a year job as a manager just because his subordinates also get $100,000 a year - not if the alternative is to do the same job for $90,000, with subordinates who get paid $40,000. You would need to have a very sick mind to fuck yourself over just for the pleasure of lording it over people who are being fucked over even more than you.

They would not quit but they would certainly view that as unfair and will try to fix it somehow, for example by working less and making subordinate work more.

No, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a manager in very roughly that position. My subs aren't paid more than me, but they're a lot closer to my salary than I'm used to.

 

[WAB]

What rot.

Nobody is going to quit a $100,000 a year job as a manager just because his subordinates also get $100,000 a year - not if the alternative is to do the same job for $90,000, with subordinates who get paid $40,000. You would need to have a very sick mind to fuck yourself over just for the pleasure of lording it over people who are being fucked over even more than you.

They would not quit but they would certainly view that as unfair and will try to fix it somehow, for example by working less and making subordinate work more.

Of course it's unfair, and anyone using their brain knows that. It's the emotions that lead us into la-la land, as I have very often been led. At least I have the chutzpah*** to admit it, which many sparkly folk 'round these parts do not. Notice the dreaded silence, betimes. Sometimes I say to myself: OK Bill, this poster has put you on ignore. But then, to my surprise, they respond to me. So I scratch my head and stand in my shoes (Keats) and wonder.





***I have no special love (albeit a bit of sympathy - what with the little toothbrush-mustachioed tyrant from Germany and all that) for the state of Israel, nor am I Jewish, but I would trust a radical Israeli far more than I would trust a radical Muslim. As far as I know, Israelis don't bury women in the ground and lob rocks at them until they die, nor do they burn people alive, whilst trapped in cages, nor do they force women to walk about with only their beautiful eyes exposed. I realize this has nothing to do with the present OP. I mention it only for those whom I have discovered have certain misconceptions about me.

Moderators: feel free to rub this out, as it is not on topic, and purposefully so. I only hope that certain posters will catch it before it goes the way of the lemming and the Dodo byrd (odd spelling intended for lovers of awesome music everywhere).

 

[RavenSky]

Paying an unskilled employee the same as a skilled employee is going to curtail (or outright destroy) the skilled employee's incentive for sticking with that company.

Good ing that's not what he is doing then, isn't it?

 

[WAB]

They would not quit but they would certainly view that as unfair and will try to fix it somehow, for example by working less and making subordinate work more.

No, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a manager in very roughly that position. My subs aren't paid more than me, but they're a lot closer to my salary than I'm used to.

An employee with little or no skills, earning the same as an employee with advanced skills, is simply not right. This comes from a man (oh alright, I'm very in touch with my feminine side—not that there's anything wrong with that) who has never earned more than 35k a year.

I was in management for two years, but that was in Arizona, in the early 90's, and I was making about 20k a year, for doing a job that I should have gotten at least twice that amount for. I did the job well and I did it proudly, and I was a hard-ass, though not a tyrant. I realized that the industry I was in (Nursing Home/Dietary manager) was set up for failure, due to the state health department's complete disconnect with the reality of aging and inevitable death. I was in charge of 15-18 dietary workers who were earning pennies more than minimum wage, who were expected to learn and abide by an ever-expanding tome of regulations, and who were treated as wholly replaceable bottom-feeders by administration, who, by the way were oftentimes less intelligent and even less literate than the so-called wage-slaves they turned-up their well-powdered noses at.

Egads...the stories I could tell, being at department-head meetings, talking with RNs and/or LPNs who couldn't spell common words! And returning to my kitchen to commune with dietary aides who could recite passages from Shakespeare (albeit with boozy breath).

All that being said, you don't pay entry-level workers the same as skilled workers. It can't and won't work, ever.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm over 11 pages into this thread, and so far I've seen a bunch of posters say dismal has a problem with this, when really it's everyone else that has a problem with dismal calling this a move that is more akin to charity than a profit maximizing business decision. At no point did dismal say he has a problem with people who have goals other than profit maximization, so long as they are using their own money.

The group think tenancies and the personal attacks when someone strays from the group think line of thought are really well highlighted in this thread, and are more emblematic of religious behavior than of behavior from rational people.

I'm not saying everyone is doing this, there are some that are putting forth an argument that this move may actually increase profits and thus the above does not apply to them.

Unfortunately for you and dismal, Dan Price himself has explicitly stated that, in his own analysis of his own business, this is NOT NOT NOT charity. I've even quoted, with links, multiple sources of Dan Price explaining his reasoning and confirming that he is NOT NOT NOT doing this as charity.

For dismal to continue to claim this is charity is, at best, simply his own opinion with no basis in reality, or at worst, intellectual dishonesty since Dan Price has made his own motives crystal clear.

For you to finger wag at everyone else while trying to defend dismal's untenable position in the face of Dan Price's own words - quoted in this thread extensively - is simply pathetic.

 

[WAB]

Paying an unskilled employee the same as a skilled employee is going to curtail (or outright destroy) the skilled employee's incentive for sticking with that company.

Good ing that's not what he is doing then, isn't it?

Say again?

 

[RavenSky]

Some have wrongly called it an act of charity. Whatever his motives, the action he took is an example of what can be achieved in terms of fair play.

We can't read his mind, though we're free to guess. This is just the Peanut Gallery after-all. No harm done. Have a Foster's on my dime, DBT, ye mysterious being from the Underworld. I almost typed 'underwear."

Sorry if I typed rot, bilby. I'm not a super-genius, just a sub-genius. And I make a mean sub, by the way.

...sub, by the way...subway....

In touch with some Reality beyond the gilded cage. Yep. Where's my aluminum-foil hat?

We don't have to read his mind because we can read his words!!!! For fuck's sake people, I've repeatedly quoted the man stating his reasons and stating that he did not do this as charity. Are you and dismal and Aluxus accusing Dan Price of being a liar about his own motives?

 

[RavenSky]

They would not quit but they would certainly view that as unfair and will try to fix it somehow, for example by working less and making subordinate work more.

No, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a manager in very roughly that position. My subs aren't paid more than me, but they're a lot closer to my salary than I'm used to.

A few of the Gravity employees who were already making $70,000 plus have been quoted as saying that they are very happy for their co-workers getting raises. So far, not one have them has quick in a huff over the raises.

 

[RavenSky]

No, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a manager in very roughly that position. My subs aren't paid more than me, but they're a lot closer to my salary than I'm used to.

An employee with little or no skills, earning the same as an employee with advanced skills...

Let's stop right there. Go find evidence that any of the employees at Gravity have "little or no skills" and post it here with links back to the original source. Then you can continue your rant and we will parse further.

- - - Updated - - -

Good ing that's not what he is doing then, isn't it?

Say again?

Good thing that's not what he is doing then, isn't it?

 

[barbos]

No, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't, and I'm a manager in very roughly that position. My subs aren't paid more than me, but they're a lot closer to my salary than I'm used to.

A few of the Gravity employees who were already making $70,000 plus have been quoted as saying that they are very happy for their co-workers getting raises. So far, not one have them has quick in a huff over the raises.

People don't always say what they think

 

[dismal]

I'm over 11 pages into this thread, and so far I've seen a bunch of posters say dismal has a problem with this, when really it's everyone else that has a problem with dismal calling this a move that is more akin to charity than a profit maximizing business decision. At no point did dismal say he has a problem with people who have goals other than profit maximization, so long as they are using their own money.

The group think tenancies and the personal attacks when someone strays from the group think line of thought are really well highlighted in this thread, and are more emblematic of religious behavior than of behavior from rational people.

I'm not saying everyone is doing this, there are some that are putting forth an argument that this move may actually increase profits and thus the above does not apply to them.

Unfortunately for you and dismal, Dan Price himself has explicitly stated that, in his own analysis of his own business, this is NOT NOT NOT charity. I've even quoted, with links, multiple sources of Dan Price explaining his reasoning and confirming that he is NOT NOT NOT doing this as charity.

For dismal to continue to claim this is charity is, at best, simply his own opinion with no basis in reality, or at worst, intellectual dishonesty since Dan Price has made his own motives crystal clear.

For you to finger wag at everyone else while trying to defend dismal's untenable position in the face of Dan Price's own words - quoted in this thread extensively - is simply pathetic.

It's funny that you think we should all just take Dan Price at his word as if he reveals the gospel truth.

I can look at what he does instead of what he says. He is paying out 80% of his profits and foregoing his million dollar salary to pay more to the same people to do the same job.

This does not miraculously increase profit. Regardless of what he says.

 

[ksen]

It also doesn't miraculously equal charity. Regardless of what you say.

 

[dismal]

It also doesn't miraculously equal charity. Regardless of what you say.

True, given the amount of running his mouth off to the press he seems to be doing it could also be shameless self promotion.

 

[Rhea]

Unfortunately for you and dismal, Dan Price himself has explicitly stated that, in his own analysis of his own business, this is NOT NOT NOT charity. I've even quoted, with links, multiple sources of Dan Price explaining his reasoning and confirming that he is NOT NOT NOT doing this as charity.

For dismal to continue to claim this is charity is, at best, simply his own opinion with no basis in reality, or at worst, intellectual dishonesty since Dan Price has made his own motives crystal clear.

For you to finger wag at everyone else while trying to defend dismal's untenable position in the face of Dan Price's own words - quoted in this thread extensively - is simply pathetic.

It's funny that you think we should all just take Dan Price at his word as if he reveals the gospel truth.

I can look at what he does instead of what he says. He is paying out 80% of his profits and foregoing his million dollar salary to pay more to the same people to do the same job.

This does not miraculously increase profit. Regardless of what he says.

Some of us think it will increase profit, as we have described extensively, and that this is not a miraculous event. Regardless of what you say.

 

[ksen]

It also doesn't miraculously equal charity. Regardless of what you say.

True, given the amount of running his mouth off to the press he seems to be doing it could also be shameless self promotion.

:fistbump:

 

[Canard DuJour]

No prob. Neither LTOVs nor neo-classical make that claim per worker, which appears to be some persistent hobby horse of yours.

What are you talking about? When the hell have I ever made a claim about how much revenue a worker is generating?

All over the place as a misattribution to others and LTOV.

Rather, capitalism groupies claim that wage levels in profitable firms are determined by profitability (revenue minus costs) rather than labour market conditions (how easily a given type of worker is to replace). Price proposes to pay what revenues afford while remaining profitable rather than what the labour market lets him get away with.

Ah. So this shows two things. First, that you were talking about collectively paying workers according to the revenue they collectively generate. So you mean you aren't claiming the currently-under-70K workers are finally going to be paid according to the revenue they generate? For all you know Price may have already been paying that class of workers according to the revenue they generate?

And second, it shows you are equating the "revenues" in "what revenues afford" with "the revenue they generate". In your claim, "they" referred to "workers". So you are de facto claiming the revenue is generated by the workers; i.e., that it is not also generated by the owner's capital. Hence my questioning you about the LTOV. So, do you think the "capitalism groupies" you're talking about share your opinion that the revenue is generated by the workers and not by the owner's capital?

..and again.

No, I dispute whether such quantites are knowable or meaningful in a typical modern firm, hence I dispute claims about wages being determined by the worker's contribution. No, I don't mean "collectively," I mean can't be disaggregated (which I think is what you mean). No, I don't think capitalism groupies "share" with me an opinion I don't have. So long as we don't think the proportion of profits generated by labour can be disaggregated from those generated by capital, Price is doing "something more like paying workers according to the revenue they generate than simply paying as little as the labour market allows," as I said.

(Incidentally, I have no idea what "capitalism groupies" you heard claiming wage levels in profitable firms are determined by profitability. In my experience people who approve of capitalism generally seem to think wage levels are determined primarily by labor market conditions. But never mind that for now -- first let's see if we can get your logic to make sense.)

Then our experiences differ. Doesn't matter. Even if "people who approve of capitalism generally" think wages are mostly determined by how little employers can get away with paying, I doubt they think that's one of capitalism's positive features. So the objections are no less strange.

 

[ksen]

Even if "people who approve of capitalism generally" think wages are mostly determined by how little employers can get away with paying, I doubt they think that's one of capitalism's positive features.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Having doubts here too