Remember the company that instituted a $70,000 minimum wage? Profits have doubled.

[barbos]

Here's What Really Happened at That Company That Set a $70,000 Minimum Wage

The 20 percent raises Price implemented in 2012 were supposed to be a one-time deal. Then something strange happened: Profits rose just as much as the previous year, fueled by a surprising productivity jump -- of 30 to 40 percent. He figured it was a fluke, but he piled on 20 percent raises again the following year. Again, profits rose by a like amount. Baffled, he did the same in 2014 and profits continued to rise, though not quite as much as before, because Gravity had to do more hiring.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Do they already have $70k minimum?

 

[ksen]

You may be one of the few in American capitalism that can just quit any time you want and suffer nothing because of it.

But for most it would mean hardship and possibly serious hardship.

People are not as "free" as you pretend.

I said I can quit one group and join another. Capitalism allows for freedom of groups to form as they please with their own rules and membership requirements.

Well, except for unions.

 

[Trausti]

I said I can quit one group and join another. Capitalism allows for freedom of groups to form as they please with their own rules and membership requirements.

Well, except for unions.

People can form unions all they want. They just can't compel others to join and pay fees. (Unless the government allows them to coerce their coworkers.)

 

[untermensche]

Well, except for unions.

People can form unions all they want. They just can't compel others to join and pay fees. (Unless the government allows them to coerce their coworkers.)

Nobody has ever once been forced to pay union dues.

People are always free to not pay and work somewhere else.

 

[untermensche]

You may be one of the few in American capitalism that can just quit any time you want and suffer nothing because of it.

But for most it would mean hardship and possibly serious hardship.

People are not as "free" as you pretend.

I said I can quit one group and join another. Capitalism allows for freedom of groups to form as they please with their own rules and membership requirements. You are free to join a communist commune or start one yourself, for example, or be the founder of a town on unincorporated land where the requirement is that all businesses must be co-ops as you envision them with whatever taxation rules you and the other founders deem best.

There are even some places in the US where you can obtain free land and begin creating your utopia with other like-minded people:

http://www.outsideonline.com/1924886/cheapest-land-country

People have many times been free to leave one dictatorship and go to another.

That never made the idea of dictatorship a good one.

 

[Axulus]

I said I can quit one group and join another. Capitalism allows for freedom of groups to form as they please with their own rules and membership requirements. You are free to join a communist commune or start one yourself, for example, or be the founder of a town on unincorporated land where the requirement is that all businesses must be co-ops as you envision them with whatever taxation rules you and the other founders deem best.

There are even some places in the US where you can obtain free land and begin creating your utopia with other like-minded people:

http://www.outsideonline.com/1924886/cheapest-land-country

People have many times been free to leave one dictatorship and go to another.

That never made the idea of dictatorship a good one.

According to you, but not according to the people who voluntary join up under those conditions. We all have freedom to make the choice for ourselves and when we no longer like it we can quit the group and find another to join.

What you don't get to do is force everyone else to join the group you want or forcibly remove the groups you don't like and aren't a part of but others are. If you want people to join what you think are better groups, you and others like you need to form them and attract people to them so that they join voluntarily, whether it be a social organization, an economic production endeavor, a non-profit community organization, or what have you. Give them a better option and they'll join naturally if the option really is better.

 

[DBT]

Yes.

Unless this one experiment last forever, like all capitalist endeavors, it proves that a tiny few at the top should be paid hundreds of times what others are paid.

We have all these top-down dictatorships.

And amazingly all the dictators are worth hundreds of times what the peasants are worth.

I hate to say it, but top down works.

It certainly works for those at the top....not so much for the rest:

Gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''

 

[Axulus]

I hate to say it, but top down works.

It certainly works for those at the top....not so much for the rest:

Gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''

So why don't more people create non top-down organizations and get the people to voluntarily join up with the better option?

 

[barbos]

Inequality is bad, no question about that. But mindless or random "equality" is bad too (Socialism failed in large part because of that).
I am all for descent minimum wage but $70k company minimum wage is just ridiculous. As I mentioned before there are cancer researchers who get less than that. You want me to believe that monkey who answers phone calls should be rewarded more than people who worke on cancer research? I am sorry but I subscribe to meritocracy.

In any case, I understand he is not paying $70K yet, so this thread is premature.

 

[DBT]

It certainly works for those at the top....not so much for the rest:

Gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''

So why don't more people create non top-down organizations and get the people to voluntarily join up with the better option?

Working for a pay rate that just meets an employees needs may not allow them that option. The average worker may be struggling to just pay the bills yet alone face the risks of taking that pathway.

So it's those who are in the position of investor or upper management that hold the cards, that have greater influence with government, industrial affairs, workplace regulations, etc, etc. They have the time and luxury to sit in boardrooms to plan strategies for reducing costs.

 

[Axulus]

So why don't more people create non top-down organizations and get the people to voluntarily join up with the better option?

Working for a pay rate that just meets an employees needs may not allow them that option. The average worker may be struggling to just pay the bills yet alone face the risks of taking that pathway.

So it's those who are in the position of investor or upper management that hold the cards, that have greater influence with government, industrial affairs, workplace regulations, etc, etc. They have the time and luxury to sit in boardrooms to plan strategies for reducing costs.

If reducing costs isn't necessary to be economically viable, then why don't we see more passionate people starting co-ops or whatever alternative form of organization they envision and attracting a bunch of people by giving them a better option?

 

[DBT]

Working for a pay rate that just meets an employees needs may not allow them that option. The average worker may be struggling to just pay the bills yet alone face the risks of taking that pathway.

So it's those who are in the position of investor or upper management that hold the cards, that have greater influence with government, industrial affairs, workplace regulations, etc, etc. They have the time and luxury to sit in boardrooms to plan strategies for reducing costs.

If reducing costs isn't necessary to be economically viable, then why don't we see more passionate people starting co-ops or whatever alternative form of organization they envision and attracting a bunch of people by giving them a better option?

I meant my remark on 'reducing costs' to be in relation to the issue of keeping employee incomes/costs down in order to maximise company profits, which doesn't appear to be a consideration for upper management, board of directors and CEO.

America's working poor;

''2013 is the year many Americans discovered the crisis of the working poor. It turns out it’s also the crisis of the welfare poor. That’s tough for us: Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight.''

''So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or welfare – a proportion that’s much higher in some of the fastest-growing sectors of the workforce. Or that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed.''

''Fully 52 percent of fast-food workers’ families receive public assistance – most of it coming from Medicaid, food stamps and the earned income tax credit — to the tune of $7 billion annually, according to new research from the University of California-Berkeley’s Labor Center and the University of Illinois.''

''But it’s not just fast food and Wal-Mart: One in three bank tellers receives public assistance, the Committee for Better Banks revealed last week, at a cost of almost a billion dollars annually in federal, state and local assistance. That’s right: One of the nation’s most profitable, privileged and high-prestige industries, banking, pays a sector of its workers shockingly low wages and relies on taxpayers to lift them out of poverty. In New York alone, 40 percent of bank tellers and their family members receive public assistance, costing $112 million in state and federal benefits.''

''We still spend a pittance helping low-wage workers compared to the social support enjoyed by their counterparts in other prosperous nations. Progressives are rightly proud of a recent study that found anti-poverty programs do indeed lift people out of poverty – roughly a quarter of Americans would live below the poverty line without social support, as opposed to a still dismal 16 percent today. That should obliterate Reagan’s ugly canard that “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.''

 

[Axulus]

If reducing costs isn't necessary to be economically viable, then why don't we see more passionate people starting co-ops or whatever alternative form of organization they envision and attracting a bunch of people by giving them a better option?

I meant my remark on 'reducing costs' to be in relation to the issue of keeping employee incomes/costs down in order to maximise company profits, which doesn't appear to be a consideration for upper management, board of directors and CEO.

America's working poor;

''2013 is the year many Americans discovered the crisis of the working poor. It turns out it’s also the crisis of the welfare poor. That’s tough for us: Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight.''

''So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or welfare – a proportion that’s much higher in some of the fastest-growing sectors of the workforce. Or that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed.''

''Fully 52 percent of fast-food workers’ families receive public assistance – most of it coming from Medicaid, food stamps and the earned income tax credit — to the tune of $7 billion annually, according to new research from the University of California-Berkeley’s Labor Center and the University of Illinois.''

''But it’s not just fast food and Wal-Mart: One in three bank tellers receives public assistance, the Committee for Better Banks revealed last week, at a cost of almost a billion dollars annually in federal, state and local assistance. That’s right: One of the nation’s most profitable, privileged and high-prestige industries, banking, pays a sector of its workers shockingly low wages and relies on taxpayers to lift them out of poverty. In New York alone, 40 percent of bank tellers and their family members receive public assistance, costing $112 million in state and federal benefits.''

''We still spend a pittance helping low-wage workers compared to the social support enjoyed by their counterparts in other prosperous nations. Progressives are rightly proud of a recent study that found anti-poverty programs do indeed lift people out of poverty – roughly a quarter of Americans would live below the poverty line without social support, as opposed to a still dismal 16 percent today. That should obliterate Reagan’s ugly canard that “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.''

So if keeping employee incomes/costs down isn't necessary to be economically viable, where are all the alternative organizations with a passion for equity and justice that would be able to attract a bunch of people by offering them a better option?

The great thing about capitalism is that it is agnostic as to which form of production and organization is best or, if not best, at least economically viable. Anyone is free to offer any deal to people that they want and make up any form of organization with whatever rules and norms they want to attract people into joining them and getting them to leave those organizations that do not offer acceptable options in the dust.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Working for a pay rate that just meets an employees needs may not allow them that option. The average worker may be struggling to just pay the bills yet alone face the risks of taking that pathway.

So it's those who are in the position of investor or upper management that hold the cards, that have greater influence with government, industrial affairs, workplace regulations, etc, etc. They have the time and luxury to sit in boardrooms to plan strategies for reducing costs.

If reducing costs isn't necessary to be economically viable, then why don't we see more passionate people starting co-ops or whatever alternative form of organization they envision and attracting a bunch of people by giving them a better option?

We DO. Co-ops and alternate organizational strategies have been on the rise for years. Crowdfunding and social media campaigns have made it possible for such organizations to exist without having to justify their business models to more conservative investors that otherwise wouldn't provide the startup capitol without first demanding a more traditional structure.

The great thing about capitalism is that it is agnostic as to which form of production and organization is best or, if not best, at least economically viable. Anyone is free to offer any deal to people that they want and make up any form of organization with whatever rules and norms they want to attract people into joining them and getting them to leave those organizations that do not offer acceptable options in the dust.

Except you don't start a company if all you own is an idea. Starting a company requires a sufficient amount of CAPITAL. That is literally the difference between capitalism and idealism.

It is possible for a passionate idealist to convince a capitalist to provide some startup capital for a new venture (almost every member of my family has done this at least once). Many times, the result is a new company that manages to provide excellent services without resorting to childish penny-pinching and the systematic screwing of its employees. But a company founded by managers that believe that they will get more business if their employees are healthy, well-paid and well-rested is not going to be able to start a business without a huge amount of startup capitol to OPEN his business in the first place.

The combination of idealism and huge amounts of disposable income is not all that common to inject into a small business venture, it turns out, but it's been known to happen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I hate to say it, but Chris Christie works.

FIFY.

 

[Rhea]

Except you don't start a company if all you own is an idea. Starting a company requires a sufficient amount of CAPITAL. That is literally the difference between capitalism and idealism.

Just wanted to quote this paragraph because I love it on so many levels. Mostly the absolutely correct use of the word "literally".

 

[untermensche]

People have many times been free to leave one dictatorship and go to another.

That never made the idea of dictatorship a good one.

According to you, but not according to the people who voluntary join up under those conditions. We all have freedom to make the choice for ourselves and when we no longer like it we can quit the group and find another to join.

What you don't get to do is force everyone else to join the group you want or forcibly remove the groups you don't like and aren't a part of but others are. If you want people to join what you think are better groups, you and others like you need to form them and attract people to them so that they join voluntarily, whether it be a social organization, an economic production endeavor, a non-profit community organization, or what have you. Give them a better option and they'll join naturally if the option really is better.

What I am advocating is an increase in the choices people have.

Right now the choice for most is to be a peasant in one dictatorship or another.

You like this limitation.

I would like to see people have the choice to join democracies.

But this is a sea change and the dictators will not just let it happen. The have basically destroyed the labor movement presently. But they have done that many times before.

And where worker ownership and control springs from is a widespread and deep labor movement.

Not by scattered individuals trying to take down the system.

 

[coloradoatheist]

According to you, but not according to the people who voluntary join up under those conditions. We all have freedom to make the choice for ourselves and when we no longer like it we can quit the group and find another to join.

What you don't get to do is force everyone else to join the group you want or forcibly remove the groups you don't like and aren't a part of but others are. If you want people to join what you think are better groups, you and others like you need to form them and attract people to them so that they join voluntarily, whether it be a social organization, an economic production endeavor, a non-profit community organization, or what have you. Give them a better option and they'll join naturally if the option really is better.

What I am advocating is an increase in the choices people have.

Right now the choice for most is to be a peasant in one dictatorship or another.

You like this limitation.

I would like to see people have the choice to join democracies.

But this is a sea change and the dictators will not just let it happen. The have basically destroyed the labor movement presently. But they have done that many times before.

And where worker ownership and control springs from is a widespread and deep labor movement.

Not by scattered individuals trying to take down the system.

You mean by the same system that has been tried in the past which is bullet holes in people's foreheads or "re-education" camps?

- - - Updated - - -

This company is an example of trying something new. The others here should take note and copy the system and start their own company doing it.

 

[ksen]

The great thing about capitalism is that it is agnostic as to which form of production and organization is best or, if not best, at least economically viable. Anyone is free to offer any deal to people that they want and make up any form of organization with whatever rules and norms they want to attract people into joining them and getting them to leave those organizations that do not offer acceptable options in the dust.

This capitalism thing sounds nice. We should try it some day.

 

[untermensche]

What I am advocating is an increase in the choices people have.

Right now the choice for most is to be a peasant in one dictatorship or another.

You like this limitation.

I would like to see people have the choice to join democracies.

But this is a sea change and the dictators will not just let it happen. The have basically destroyed the labor movement presently. But they have done that many times before.

And where worker ownership and control springs from is a widespread and deep labor movement.

Not by scattered individuals trying to take down the system.

You mean by the same system that has been tried in the past which is bullet holes in people's foreheads or "re-education" camps?

- - - Updated - - -

This company is an example of trying something new. The others here should take note and copy the system and start their own company doing it.

Is that what the Spanish Anarchists did?

"Re-education camps"?