12 ms·
A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared
- jefurii 11y agoIt's interesting to see him being accused of being "socialist" or "communist" when his decision seems to flow from his conservative Christian upbringing.
- wmboy 11y agoInteresting and even nonsensical. He's an entrepreneur, owns a for-profit business and is choosing to compensate how he wants to. It's actually the definition of how capitalism can improve quality of life for everyone, is it not?
- mistermann 11y agoNot really, because he's pushing towards a completely arbitrary minimum $70k salary for everyone. That's certainly his right as the business owner, and that sentiment shared more widely might be better for society, but there's nothing particularly "capitalistic" about it.
- Frondo 11y agoIt's his money, he's the capital-holder, he can do what he wants with it. If he thinks it's better for his business to do this, that's entirely up to him. Capitalism doesn't mean "pay your employees out according to some made-up scheme of who's-worth-what," though the weird calvinist pseudo-capitalism we love in the U.S. sure likes that kind of ranking.
- sneak 11y agoI thought the article was about how he fucked his business with this nonsense, was it not?
- cheald 11y agoIt's absolutely capitalistic, but there are many people who would call it economically inefficient or irrational. After all, a capitalist can choose to freely exchange his capital for higher-priced goods of the same quality as lower-priced goods instead of those lower-priced goods.
- vancouverwill 11y agoHe hasn't limited upper cap he has imply set a higher base salary.
- walshemj 11y agoAnd Saettle is like Manchester in the UK in having a traditional of worker coops
- dopamean 11y agoAm I crazy for thinking it seems naive to not anticipate that current employees may not take kindly to people who earn half as much as them getting bumped up to their salaries?
- jameshart 11y agoDoesn't seem to be that he didn't anticipate problems, just that he was willing to work through them.
- DarkTree 11y agoNo, not at all. I think it would have made more sense to give each employee a raise based on a percentage of their income. That way, everyone gets a pay raise, and you can give more money to the lower earners without offending employees because it is an equal percentage increase.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoThe "higher earners" would receive an even larger increase in that case.
- hueving 11y agoThey would need a slightly larger raise to offset taxes, but you're a percentage match is probably too much.
- DarkTree 11y agoNot if you take into account taxes.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoTaxes won't matter. The higher earners receive a larger increase than they would have under a different regime (where everyone receives a constant $ increase [normalized for the "lowest earner"]).
- deleted 11y ago
- jwise0 11y agoThe title from the article is somewhat less clickbait: "A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared"
- sctb 11y agoThanks, we updated the submission title.
- scarmig 11y agoI would love to see a more in depth case study of this. I also wonder how much of the issue is because it was in some respects a publicity stunt. If instead it had been quietly phased in over two years, I doubt there'd be as many negative ramifications.
- JamesBarney 11y agoThe article mentions that the change was phased in over 3 years but it was easy to miss.
- ForHackernews 11y agoCrab Mentality[0]: Not just for people earning slightly-above minimum wage anymore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
- jsprogrammer 11y agoAnthropomorphize much? Are the crabs aware of their situation? Are they actually consciously preventing the other crabs from escaping? Or are they just trying to grab on to anything they can get get out of the crab-pile? Seems like a deeply flawed metaphor that will likely lead you astray.
- thuuuomas 11y agoThe crab's "intentions" are immaterial! Like, if a human meerely intends "to grab on anything they can to get out of the [human]-pile", & they're quite rude/destructive while doing so, they're still rude/destructive regardless of how sympathetic we may judge their intentions to be.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoCertainly. The linked reference argues otherwise though: >is a phrase that describes a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you." >Individually, the crabs could easily escape from the pot, but instead, they grab at each other in a useless "king of the hill" competition which prevents any from escaping and ensures their collective demise.
- ekanes 11y agoInteresting. He would have done well to have read The Hard Thing about Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, which conveys nicely that much of being a CEO is realizing that when you think you're talking to person X (about their salary, etc), you're also sending messages to everyone else in the company. You have to keep everyone in mind, all the time.
- jbigelow76 11y agoIt seems (based on the Horowitz reference, pardon me if I am wrong) you're implying that Mr Price was wrong to make the change based on losing two key employees (and probably more that didn't up and quit). Maybe at the time he didn't anticipate that some would feel slighted but he also didn't know really what the change mean to the lives of other of his employees. An interesting question would be "if you could go back in time would you do it all over again?" (PR and ego would probably indicate "yes" but we would never know the real truth).
- ekanes 11y agoIt's not so much that the change was wrong or right, but that Mr Price didn't anticipate how big a deal it would be, both internally and externally. While a couple employees might have left, it sounds like the company may now be in a financial crisis which is a bigger deal. I'm mostly saying he should have thought it through more, even if he did go through with it.
- kitwalker12 11y agoexactly the same thing I thought of while I was reading this. he got the first part about being open right though.
- paulhauggis 11y agoThat's why you shouldn't make foolish and quick decisions like this and at least give it some forethought.
- Killswitch 11y agoWhile I commend his desire to help people afford to live, I agree with you.
- buerkle 11y agoWhether it was foolish is a bit too soon to declare; he already is getting more business. And that's harsh to say "give it some forethought". I didn't read anywhere in the article about how much time he spent thinking over the decision.
- paulhauggis 11y agoPaying everyone this amount of money just isnt practical and wont really help the employee in the long run.
- Daishiman 11y agoYou don't really know that. You're essentially talking out of your ass while this guy is walking the walk.
- serve_yay 11y agoThe reaction to what seems like an unalloyed good are dismaying.
- mentos 11y agoI think incentives like this [0] could help achieve this affect. [0] - Tax Credit for Businesses That Share Profits - http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/16/profit-sharing-makes-good-business-sense-hillary-clinton-says/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/16/profi...
- jetskindo 11y agoThis reminds me of a few months ago when gas price was down to a mere $2.00 . It was wonderful for the public, but all I heard on TV is how bad it was for the economy. We shouldn't let this be the norm, these employees complaining or those who quit are angry that their "inferior" coworkers are getting the same wages.
- mcphage 11y ago> a few months ago when gas price was down to a mere $2.00 . It was wonderful for the public, but all I heard on TV is how bad it was for the economy. That really pissed me off. When the gas prices were high, then the damage to the economy was clear—everyone was paying more, prices for everything across the board were going up, because the cost of doing everything went up. And then when prices dropped? Suddenly it was "bad for the economy". I'm sure there were companies it was bad for—specifically, the companies that were riding high when prices were gigantic. But for the rest of the economy, it was a breath of fresh air.
- bsder 11y ago> This reminds me of a few months ago when gas price was down to a mere $2.00 . It was wonderful for the public, but all I heard on TV is how bad it was for the economy. WTF? Low gas prices are almost uniformly good for the economy. The only companies it isn't good for are oil companies. And they make so damn much money no matter what that it really doesn't hurt them very much.
- jonas21 11y agoLink to the HN thread when the raise was first announced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9371854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9371854
- austenallred 11y agoWhile I have no idea whether this will work (or if it's a good idea), the most interesting part of all of this, to me, is the backlash from people calling it "unbridled Socialism." I'm still not sure how a CEO of a profitable company electing to pay his employees more becomes a political debate. If it fails, perhaps it's a failed experiment in Capitalism? It's not like anyone is forcing the business owner to do this. Theoretically, economics would dictate that by paying people $70K who would get paid $40K would make them fight like crazy to keep their jobs, wouldn't it? And if that's the case, wouldn't one conclude that their productivity would increase, and the company would be much better off? Unwise investment? Perhaps. Unbridled "Socialism?" Definitely not. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/15/ceo_buys_short_term_love http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/15/ceo_buys_short_...
- buerkle 11y agoBecause it makes a good story in their circle of people who don't know the meaning of socialism. If the CEO of a company is not making 200-300 times their average employee, they think it's socialism.
- mindcrime 11y agoBecause it makes a good story in their circle of people who don't know the meaning of socialism. The thing is, like most words in English, "socialism" has taken on multiple meanings. Like it or not, there's the "textbook" definition and then then colloquial usage. And in America, "socialism" has come to refer to anything that involves redistributing wealth, providing social safety net(s), or otherwise trying to actively manage social inequality. It's a broader, more expansive definition, and I understand why purists hate seeing words diluted, but what can ya do? You can't put the horse back in barn, that ship has already sailed, can't un-ring a rung bell, etc., etc.
- omonra 11y agoI'll try to explain. People call it socialism because a starting salary of 70k is likely to be uneconomic. Ie the cost of the employee is set above their value to the company. This is done at the expense of other stakeholders (ie management and investors, possibly other employees who would be paid less). That's kinda the basic premise of socialism - whereby an employee's salary is dissociated from the economic benefit they bring. Ie the backlash is because he chose to set everybody's salaries fairly high, regardless of seniority, etc.
- apsec112 11y agoTalking about "cost of living" in a place like Seattle, as if it were an ordinary economic issue, masks the real problem, which is that liberal US cities have made it very difficult to construct new housing. If a million families want to live in a city, and the city only allows half a million houses to be built, then a lot of people are going to be forced out. It's not a question of economics, it's a simple question of arithmetic. It doesn't matter how much you pay people or what minimum wage you have or what other policies you enact. It's like a giant game of musical chairs - if there are more people than chairs, it doesn't matter what else you do, because someone's going to wind up without a chair. Increase salaries, and rents go up to compensate. Subsidize housing for the poor, and landlords will charge more. Enact rent control, and watch as everyone converts rental buildings into super expensive condos. It's like trying to squeeze Jell-O to death: you can't beat the fundamental law that, if there are houses for X people, only X people can live there.
- sharkweek 11y agoOof don't get me started. I like to consider myself a regular at my neighborhood council's meetings (NE Seattle). When the city shows up to present development plans, only older generations who feel somewhat entitled to their neighborhood's "culture" show up and berate the plans. At the last one, some lady was pissed because a new apartment building might block partial sunlight in her yard, which is apparently more important than 400 market priced units becoming available in a city starved for housing. Then these same people get upset at Amazon (I have no affiliation) for bringing in tech money and causing a massive housing shortage. They then allow their short term memories to forget what a shithole South Lake Union was before Amazon bought and developed on the land.
- Vexs 11y agoThere's an entire economic theory that progress only happens when the older generation dies off. A bit grim, but I can believe it. There's a subdivision near my house that allows only 55+, and anytime anyone wants to do anything it's a massive shitshow. They stalled a much needed bond for a local highschool for two years (during which said highschool got really, really overcrowded) and actually ran insane smear campaigns against the school board. Not fun.
- goldenchrome 11y agoI think this is half the problem for the backlash: "“What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Ms. Brajcich said they asked." It relies on the assumption that the only motivation people would have to work, is that they will be homeless if they don't. I think the idea that you can work towards something bigger than you is a foreign concept to the majority of people.
- a3voices 11y agoAlso some people like to work mainly for lifestyle reasons, not for some greater purpose.
- elektromekatron 11y agoI have noticed that lots of the people who are rich enough to relax for the rest of their lives work very hard. This has always made me suspect that without the motivation of survival tokens, boredom would still keep society running just fine.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoGiven the drubbing that "greater purpose" has been given in the last 100 years, no wonder.
- guan 11y agoIf you are being overpaid (in some sense), you might work harder than before because you have more to lose if you get fired. Any alternative job would most likely come with lower pay.
- jkestner 11y agoRight. From the article: Several employees who stayed, while exhilarated by the raises, say they now feel a lot of pressure. “Am I doing my job well enough to deserve this?” said Stephanie Brooks, 23, who joined Gravity as an administrative assistant two months before the wage increase. “I didn’t earn it.” (edit) I understand the gut feeling of unfairness from the people who were already earning more than $70K, but some of the quoted assume their fellow employees who got raises "for nothing" will just slack off, and that shitty attitude seems to underscore a class division.
- dmitrygr 11y agoThe departure of most values employees is not surprising. In their place I'd do the same. I want no part of working in a place where salary is based 100% on politics and 0% on merit. curious all the quitters said the same thing (if you read the article)
- Daishiman 11y agoMerit-based salaries is bullshit. Salaries are based on what the market will bear. Employee performance is extremely hard to quantify, and there's not reason to believe that this changes that aspect of the equation too much. Seems like people in the US have completely forgotten that collective bargaining was a key piece to advancing workers' rights.
- a3voices 11y agoI don't see why the CEO feels the need to fix problems with capitalism instead of just doing what's best for the company.
- swyman 11y agoSome people care about things other than what's immediately in front of their faces on a day-to-day basis
- a3voices 11y agoTrue but paying people more than necessary in a lot of ways contradicts his role as CEO.
- hanspeter 11y agoYou can't say so without looking at the bottom line. Henry Ford did the same and it worked out quite well for the company.
- pm24601 11y agoThat's his call on what's best for his company.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoI could point out, as others have, that he knows better than you do what's "best for the company"; that people who are under financial stress have been proven to be significantly worse at intellectual tasks; that by erasing his employees' worries about rent and student loans and feeding the kids, he could be dramatically increasing their productivity and thus improving the company's bottom line in the long run. But I shouldn't have to do that, because I shouldn't have to make an economic argument for being a decent human being. I mean, Jesus Christ, come on.
- sologoub 11y agoOne scenario this article doesn't address is a situation where an employee who previously earned a lot less comes to rely on the higher salary and adjusts his/her expenses accordingly, but then for whatever reason ends up having to look for another job, which is unlikely to pay nearly as much. I'm guessing that while the situation would be extremely unfortunate, the overall higher income should still help cushion the blow, provided the money was not completely spent, and leave that person better off.
- andrewvc 11y agoI'm not sure if you realize that the poor hold on to a ton of debt in this country, and a large part of it is their inability to dig themselves out of the holes they're in. Now, it is true that financial literacy is tends to be low among those who make little, but it is also the case that many people who are financially literate, but poor, just can't dig themselves out of debt. Medical expenses, for instance, are one of the leading costs of bankruptcy in this country.
- sologoub 11y agoI do realize that and am fairly familiar with how the cycle works, largely fueled by pay-day loans. Is your hypothesis that the higher income, even if temporary, may afford significant relief from this?
- zekevermillion 11y agoBetter to give everyone the same % raise, out of your pocket, then create a reason for jealousy and other silliness within the company. It seems irrational for someone to care about what other people make. As long as you're OK in absolute terms, what does it matter? But I've seen people get really pissed and quit over the perceived slight of a coworker getting a nominal bonus that was not "deserved".
- kdamken 11y agoSomething I hadn't seen discussed with much clarity is what happened to the employees who were already making 70k+? If I was working there making that much, would I see a similar percent increase? If not, then I'd be pretty angry about the situation and would probably leave as well. I think part of it is that what you get paid is mostly based on your experience and skill set, as well as what you bring to the company. Let's compare a customer service rep and a web developer. They're both important parts of the company, but one has a highly specialized skill set that takes a while to develop, while the other person answers the phones. The developer has taken the time to invest in themselves professionally so that they could be a higher earner. The customer service rep needs about a week of training. To put them on the same pay grade seems unfair and illogical.
- vwcx 11y agoSome of the comments on the NYT piece touch on this -- that higher-earning, hard-working employees were off-put when their "just-barely-cruising-along" employees were receiving the equivalent of a promotion.
- hanspeter 11y agoSo you would leave for another job paying you the same? You would actually leave just to find another job, where your colleagues were payed less?
- kdamken 11y agoI probably would leave, but mainly because I feel that by paying most of the employees the same amount, the company is showing they don't value the employees who are actually worth more to the business. This shows poor management in my opinion. If they had increased everyone's wages accordingly by the same percentage I would feel differently.
- kdamken 11y agoSomething I hadn't seen discussed with much clarity is what happened to the employees who were already making 70k+? If I was working there making that much, would I see a similar percent increase? If not, then I'd be pretty angry about the situation and would probably leave as well. I think part of it is that what you get paid is mostly based on your experience and skill set, as well as what you bring to the company. Let's compare a customer service rep and a web developer. They're both important parts of the company, but one has a highly specialized skill set that takes a while to develop, while the other person answers the phones. The developer has taken the time to invest in themselves professionally so that they could be a higher earner. The customer service rep needs about a week of training. To put them on the same pay grade seems unfair and illogical.
- eps 11y agoDo you know what happens when Paul McCartney gives to charity and charity leaks his name? He cancels the donation. That's how you do good deeds when you genuinely want to help people and not pull a little PR on a side. If this guy wanted to help his under-40K employees, there were multiple ways to do it (a) quietly (b) without pissing off other people who worked for him. I don't know if it's a poorly throught through PR stunt or if it's just a vanity / mid-life crisis thing, but it sure wasn't executed smartly.
- gknoy 11y ago> He cancels the donation. Isn't that literally un-doing a good deed?
- plorkyeran 11y agoPresumably he would then give the money to some other charity.
- alukima 11y ago>I don't know if it's a poorly throught through PR stunt or if it's just a vanity / mid-life crisis thing, but it sure wasn't executed smartly. Or he just wanted to do what he thought was the right thing. I hire day laborers through a local service on a regular basis. I pay the workers directly and I am supposed to give them $9 an hour. I typically pay them $15-$20hr an hour at the end of the day.
- Daishiman 11y agoThis is ridiculous. Any change in pay structure is going to cause someone to get the short end. Who doesn't want more money? Who doesn't have getting less? One thing's for certain: there's a whole bunch of people who are butthurt about lower class people getting more money. Wonder what that reflects about them...
- rhizome 11y agoThe short end? That sounds like the kind of right-to-profits thinking that is working on getting us the TPP's ISDS.
- zafka 11y agoThe part that bothered me was the fact that the Web developer made 40K to start, and he worried that getting a boost to 70K might make him too satisfied to better himself. I was under the impression that west coast salaries where a bit higher.
- hueving 11y agoIn tech companies they tend to be. It sounds like the dev was inexperienced which is why he was talking about improving skills to work at a tech company.
- _yosefk 11y agoGiving the same raises as secretly as possible would avoid a whole lot of trouble. If it was considered important to announce it, it would work much better if done after a couple of years when at least you could claim that it proved itself and customers wouldnt have to worry about its impact on pricing.
- _yosefk 11y agoGiving the same raises as secretly as possible would avoid a whole lot of trouble. If it was considered important to announce it, it would work much better if done after a couple of years when at least you could claim that it proved itself and customers wouldnt have to worry about its impact on pricing.
- pbreit 11y agoWouldn't a simple stated policy of having generous compensation have been sufficient without creating all the problems from the blunt, arbitrary minimum?
- pessimizer 11y agoThe cool thing about how incentives work: instead of being angry that relative slackers are now making $70K, be happy that when they are fired, they will be replaced from a pool of hopefuls an order of magnitude larger then when the company had to settle on hiring those slackers in the first place. It's funny how libertarian conservatism gets apoplectic when wealthy people make the wrong choice. Then they get all "Virtue of Selfishness" on your ass.
- MaysonL 11y agoVery interesting result from DuckDuckGo for "unbridled socialism" (without the quotes). It asks "do you mean unbridled capitalism?" and then gives me only results for unbridled capitalism.
- paragpatelone 11y agoHis biggest issue was this "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." If he was going to double the salary for the new hires, he should also doubled the salary of everyone else too. Whatever pay gaps existed still should be there for the best employees not to get demotivated. If he had done this and told his employees not to tell people on the outside. He would have been in a much stronger position.
- shoo 11y ago> Roger Reynolds, a co-owner of a wealth management company, said his discussion of the pay plan with Mr. Price got heated. “My wife and I got so frustrated with him at a cocktail party, we literally left,” said Mr. Reynolds, who complained that Mr. Price unfairly accused him of measuring his self-worth solely in terms of money and trying to hold somebody else down. Everyone may have equal rights, but not equal talent or motivation, Mr. Reynolds said. “I think he’s trying to bring in some political and aspirational beliefs into the compensation structure of the workplace.” Curious. The status quo is inherently political. There is already a heavy political stance built into the structures of the workplace. (edit: see Jeff Schmidt's book Disciplined Minds)
- Spooky23 11y agoIronic that a wealth management advisor, who essentially peddles mutual funds and pats clients on the head in exchange for 2% of their wealth is concerned about paying for talent. My grandfather owned a bar years ago. He paid the bartenders a good wage, way more than what he was required to by law. He did it because it kept good people around and reduced pilferage.
- sopooneo 11y agoSo compared to his contemporaries, was your grandfather a better man, a more prudent man, or both?
- Spooky23 11y agoA bit of both. He was a great guy who loved people, selling stuff to them was just a thing you did to keep the conversation going. But, he wasn't unique in doing this... plenty of business owners, especially smaller businesses, pay for better employees. Ever go to a hardware store where the clerk has worked there for 20 years? She doesn't make minimum wage. I think the discussion here is a demonstration of how bean counters have conquered the world.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jrs235 11y agoSo a discussion concerning making payments, primarily living expenses and student debt is what triggered this idea to help alleviate financial burdens for entry level staff. Instead of raising starting salaries to $70k, why not keep the starting market rate salaries but offer to pay $1500-$2000 per month towards an employee's student loan debt until it is paid off?
- morgante 11y agoI hope some academics are doing a study on this, as it's an almost prefect real-world example of efficiency wages.[1] I wouldn't be surprised if they see large increases in productivity amongst downmarket employees, as they now have an extremely strong incentive to kick ass at their job (any other job they could get would pay significantly less). That being said, I also sympathize with the workers who were making $70k. If I were making $70k and a junior developer making $30k before (all hypothetical) got a raise to $70k I would absolutely be pissed off that I am now apparently considered equally valuable to them. Probably a better way to handle this with total buy-in from all employees would have been to give an $Xk raise, where $Xk is the amount required to bring the lowest paid employee up to $70k. This would have preserved proportional productivity values while giving everyone an awesome reward (and introducing efficiency wages). Of course, it probably also would have been much more expensive. Tangent: a salary of $50k seems absurdly low for a web developer in Seattle. That guy should be looking for a new job immediately. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage
- jkestner 11y agoI've always wondered how pro athletes in their weird economy deal with this issue. With salary caps, max contracts and scarcity there are all sorts of constraints that change from year to year, and a superstar on a max contract signed a few years ago can be making less than a merely good player who just signed a contract. (One of the rare cases where one's actually voiced displeasure: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2015-07-14/john-wall-mystified-hes-now-getting-paid-the-same-as-reggie-jackson http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2015-07-14/john-wall-m... )
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoI expect many simply do not. It's a lot of work having money. Athletes don't have a whole lot of control over their time. There is a Ken Burns film about Mark Twain, who went broke trying to fund a printing process ahead of its time in the manner of a bad gambler. It's heartbreaking. Bob Wills went broke on a failed entertainment venture, but made it good at considerable personal cost. "Life entails a parcel of risk" - Mr. Merriwether, "Little Big Man".
- littletimmy 11y agoThe most repulsive thing to read here is the reaction of some of the customers. “What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Really? Do you ask that same question when a CEO gets millions of dollar in bonus? Nah, the CEOs simply "deserve" it. The employees though, they must hustle. Roughly transposed to the 17th century, that statement reads "What's the incentive for this n* to pick more cotton if he is well-fed?" Repulsive and sickening. How about observing how well they perform before bringing in your Ayn Rand propaganda. This sort of thought must be eradicated from the American mindset.
- api_or_ipa 11y ago> How about observing how well they perform before bringing in your Ayn Rand propaganda. While I agree with the rest of your post, your portrayal of Ms. Rand's work is woefully inaccurate. No where do I recall she wrote of demeaning blacks, suppressing wages and preventing the equal participation of all capable people in a common market. Rand was very clear that racism and discrimination hindered the free market by preventing, under threat of violence, the equality of all in participating in market transactions and deals. It's a shame Atlas Shrugged is so long, because I think most people would be far more humbled by what she wrote compared to what people think she wrote about.
- mistermann 11y ago> most people would be far more humbled by what she wrote compared to what people think she wrote about That's a good way to put it. Most people it seems have extremely negative opinions of her, but I'd wager that most of these people have read only opinions of others about her rather than anything actually written by her. Although, I can definitely agree with the sentiment that her fiction is...weird, especially reading it today with the significant cultural changes that have occurred since it was written. But her non-fiction I think is pretty well written - whether you agree with it or not, it's far from a joke as most people who've never read any of it make it out to be.
- DannoHung 11y agoHahahahah fuck off "They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."
- pm24601 11y agoFor all the people complaining. Please remember this: 1. It is his company; not yours. 2. He doesn't have to check with you 3. He pays the consequences of any bad decisions; not you. 4. He reaps the benefits; not you. 5. Your (and my) opinion does not matter.
- jacquesm 11y agoJealousy is quite common. You see plenty of instances of this, people can't wait to measure their self-worth relative to others and would happily affect the lives of others in a negative way simply because it makes them feel better about themselves. After all if you determine your status by the pay you receive and the stuff you can buy then it's better for you if your colleagues earn less than you and your self-worth will suffer if your colleagues earn the same. Human nature is predictable and depressing.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- noir_lord 11y agoI had this at one job, I was a developer and earnt considerably more (though market rate) than the office manager. She had a vendetta against me from day one with constant jibes about pay and such as prior to me starting she'd earnt the most out of the staff there. It progressed into her making a landgrab (decided that I had to clear all days off and holidays through her etc) which I countered by speaking to my boss (and the company owner) who then told her that I was nothing to do with her and she should get back to managing the job of an office manager. If I were not so thick skinned it would have been a deeply unpleasant experience.
- noir_lord 11y agoSince I can't edit and forgot to say, should my company ever grow to the size where an office manager role is needed it will not be called Office Manager since you give some people the word Manager anywhere in their job title and they start planning to invade Poland. Not sure what I would call it, Office Support Specialist or something suitably ambiguous I guess, the role is largely one of keeping the lights on, making sure the ISP is paid etc it's not a management role in the sense of dealing with staff etc. Title inflation is a pernicious problem.
- kelukelugames 11y agoPower trips scare me. I wonder I'd be just as bad.
- petersontimr 11y agoThat there is a video is interesting for the NYT. That it's using Flash player is doubly interesting.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago> 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. Man, that must have been awkward to explain to anyone who stopped by while you were cleaning out your desk. "Yeah, I'm quitting because you don't deserve more money, peasant. It was really nice working with you, though!"
- alexqgb 11y ago"I mean, Jesus Christ! If there are a bunch of really happy and super loyal people working here and that does great things for the company then maybe it'll turn out that I'm not as important as I think I am and then what?!" "Uh, you'll try not to let the door hit you on the way out?"
- indymike 11y agoActually, about that Jesus Christ guy, there is a parable about this exact situation. Short version: laborers hired in the afternoon were paid the same as those hired in the morning. Morning hired complained. Farm owner: it's my money, you were paid as agreed. Nice day, have one. Interesting that people have struggled with this concept for at least 2000 years...
- vacri 11y agoCEO with a salary package of over a million; 120 employees, 12,000 customers; processing 6.5 billion in transactions... ... is a 'small business'!?
- tangerine_beet 11y agoSeems there are some fundamental but overlooked assumptions running through these comment threads, the stance that companies "should" pay higher salaries to workers who create more value for the company being one. The assumption is that the company, or its management, is like a parent that must treat each of its children equally. Why should this be the case? Who says a company should be a full-fledged meritocracy? If you work for me and I wish to pay your colleague more money than you, even though you produce more, why shouldn't I? I may have good reason to. Your colleague, I may think, simply needs the money more. Of course I understand you might choose to leave. I may even feel that would be best for you, that you have more to offer the world than you'll be able to give it in your current role. At any rate, you're free to make your life choices, including where you work. I'm free to make my life choices, including how I run my company. CEOs are not moms or dads. A second assumption is that companies "should" reward people who have invested in educating themselves and cultivating valuable skills. You're in danger if you think like this. Companies pay good money for such knowledge and skills usually because they need to, not because they "should". That is why most will ask you to tell them your salary expectations when you apply, rather than tell you up front what they are willing to pay you. By letting you speak first, they may find you're willing to accept a less-than-market rate.
- stdbrouw 11y agoI think you might be misinterpreting the meaning of "should" in these discussions. Nobody's claiming that a CEO is ethically obligated to adhere to a certain remuneration strategy or that employees with certain skills legally should be paid a certain wage... people are just giving their opinion on what they believe is sensible or stupid. Sort of like "you probably shouldn't eat that entire box of cookies."
- asgard1024 11y agoI guess it's OK for you not to treat your employees fairly but it's also OK for the society at large to shun you for that. You should not forget that you being able to have a company is a social contract too.
- lumberjack 11y agoProbably the same kind of people who say that relative wealthy/income inequality does not matter, when discussing other topics.
- rasz_pl 11y agoAnd this is why you (USians) cant have nice things like universal and _free_ healthcare/education. You were raised to believe you deserve more than your peers, its kind of sick.