Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 1st Aug 2015 11:12 UTC
In the News

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

Yet almost overnight, a decision by one small-business man in the northwestern corner of the country became a swashbuckling blow against income inequality.

Whether you support his actions or not, ask yourself this question: what does it say about our society that a young man slashing his own salary to increase that of his employees draws more ire than a CEO raising his own salary to 70 times that of an average employee?

Most mystifying of all, though, are the employees leaving because their coworkers got a pay raise to $70000, while they themselves already earned $70000. I don't understand this mindset. You still have your salary. You still get your $70000, except now your fellow men and women on the work floor also get it. Is your self-worth really derived from earning more than the people around you? Is your sense of self really dictated by how much more you earn than Jim from accounting or Alice from engineering?

Maybe I'm just too Dutch and too little American to understand this mindset, but I firmly believe this world would be a massively better place if more CEOs cut their own salaries to raise that of their employees.

Thread beginning with comment 615152
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 1st Aug 2015 18:17 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

"The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them."

-Louis CK

Quitting because somebody suddenly makes almost as much as you, when they previously couldn't afford food, rent, and student loans all at once, is selfish.

Wanting more is fine; wanting more than the next guy has isn't.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by Athlander on Sat 1st Aug 2015 18:36 in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

"The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them."

-Louis CK

Quitting because somebody suddenly makes almost as much as you, when they previously couldn't afford food, rent, and student loans all at once, is selfish.

Wanting more is fine; wanting more than the next guy has isn't.


But isn't that what happens in a society that turns everything into a competition?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by daveak on Sat 1st Aug 2015 19:54 in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Quitting because somebody suddenly makes almost as much as you, when they previously couldn't afford food, rent, and student loans all at once, is selfish.

Wanting more is fine; wanting more than the next guy has isn't.


Nothing wrong with wanting a fair days pay for a fair days work. If the next guy isn't doing the same amount of work it is right you should want more.

If a unit of work is worth 10k compensation to the worker for their effort and one worker completes 10 units of work, but another completes 5 units of work to the same standard should they both receive 75k?

No that simply isn't fair. This is why people will have quit, their work is no longer valued to the same extent it was. Why should they work more for the same compensation?

If the lower paid need a wage increase to cover basics such as food, rent etc. then it is right that the employer increases their pay. But pay should be increased across the board to maintain fairness in pay per work unit.

Thom states in another comment about working to live not living to work. If I have to work less for the same amount I can live more. So why would I want to stay in a job making me work more than the next guy for the same pay?

Edited 2015-08-01 19:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Delgarde on Sun 2nd Aug 2015 01:57 in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

If the lower paid need a wage increase to cover basics such as food, rent etc. then it is right that the employer increases their pay. But pay should be increased across the board to maintain fairness in pay per work unit.


And that's exactly what the mistake was here. Raising the minimum is a good thing, no question. But when people are expecting to be paid in proportion to the value of their contribution, raising *only* the minimum skews the scale, devaluing the contribution of people who now find themselves back at the bottom of the scale.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by jido on Mon 3rd Aug 2015 14:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
jido Member since:
2006-03-06

No that simply isn't fair. This is why people will have quit, their work is no longer valued to the same extent it was. Why should they work more for the same compensation?

If you are expecting fairness from your employer (or whoever is in position of power in regards to you), you are condemned to be always unsatisfied with your position.

Tell me, do you consider your current remuneration "fair"?

Is that because of your perception or do you know the actual figures for other people in the company? (hint: usually the two do not agree)

It is better to give up on being treated fairly. Just see that what you are getting works for you. You will be happier and more satisfied, and others around you will be happier too.

Otherwise keep struggling, not that I really care....

Reply Parent Score: 1