One Companys New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year
Smart guy!
This is right up there on the social experiments I'd like to see done.
Seventy k, the new minimum
- Thread starter El_Machinae
- Start date
One Companys New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year
Smart guy!
This is right up there on the social experiments I'd like to see done.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Is it also the maximum wage at Gravity?
I'd actually applaud more equitable remuneration. Normative incomes policies have always baffled me.
But I don't see this catching on more widely.
In fact, even greater disparities between top and bottom might be a good thing in the long run. As the system implodes under its own contradictions.
I'd actually applaud more equitable remuneration. Normative incomes policies have always baffled me.
But I don't see this catching on more widely.
In fact, even greater disparities between top and bottom might be a good thing in the long run. As the system implodes under its own contradictions.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Hoping they stay profitable so they can afford it.
Perfection
The Great Head.
It will be interesting to see out how this plays out in the future.
The big thing that I'd note is this means people are likely to stay in their positions much longer than they normally would have. I'll be curious if that means people will get super good at their positions or get complacent. It also means they'll gaurd their position jealously, which could be very problematic.
The big thing that I'd note is this means people are likely to stay in their positions much longer than they normally would have. I'll be curious if that means people will get super good at their positions or get complacent. It also means they'll gaurd their position jealously, which could be very problematic.
sophie
Break My Heart
Is that 70k (from the study) in general? I don't know about Seattle, though I heard the housing market and cost of living over there is pretty steep too, but here in the Bay Area 70k would put you pretty squarely in lower-middle class territory, where your average yearly mortgage payments are going to be somewhere in the realm of 37-38k/yr. 90-110k is probably around the threshold for solid middle class. I guess if you have a couple both making 70k/yr it wouldn't be so bad.
That's true, ICBM. Before they all got crummy wages, and the CEO's wage would flit around by the demands of the company's success. Now they all only get their high salaries if the company stays profitable.
Hopefully The Market demands they lower the price of their product if they're so profitable!
Perfection
The Great Head.
It also means people who hate their positions won't budge.
I see that as the big problem, the superstars will move to greener pastures because of lack of advancement opportunities while losers will hold onto their jobs for dear life.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Maybe it's just me, but I make less than $70k (won't say by how much), and extra money isn't really a huge incentive for me. Sure, if it was a $30k raise, I'd jump on it, but I'd prefer an increase in benefits and working conditions over extra pay.
It also seems that
the $70k depends on where you live. I'm sure that this amount differs greatly between those who for example live in.. San Francisco (it's expensive, right?) and rural Idaho (nobody lives there and it's cheap, right?)
It also seems that
from the article said:
the $70k depends on where you live. I'm sure that this amount differs greatly between those who for example live in.. San Francisco (it's expensive, right?) and rural Idaho (nobody lives there and it's cheap, right?)
It's a problem, but I don't know that this particularly makes it worse. The biggest contributing cause I've seen is when companies offer generous buyout packages to reduce headcount.
Yeah, your travels made me think about the time off work I get, and the amount I'm paid... I've received yearly raises (or salary increases when switching jobs) since finishing school but no increase in vacation time. Last raise I got was enough to pay for a month of vacation and travel, so I'm planning on starting to take a month of unpaid leave every year to travel.
Well, their superstars still make big money. It's the CEO that took a pay cut. They didn't even out salaries to $70k
sophie
Break My Heart
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I thought so.
My last vacation time increase was a week (from 3 to 4), and as far as I know I'm only going to see that go up once I've worked at the place for.. maybe 2 more decades? Unless the union manages to negotiate a better deal for us at some point down the line, which would be amazing, but I'm not counting on it. The pay does go up on a regular basis, no complaints there.. but I wouldn't mind an increase in vacation time instead. And having said that we get like a week and a half off during Christmas time on top of that, so overall it's actually almost comparable to a bunch of European countries.
The best part about my work's vacation system is that it accumulates and never goes away. So I just wait until I have 4-5 weeks off, and take my vacation time in larger chunks. There's technically a rule that you can't have more than 25 days saved up, but it's not really enforced. Some managers eventually ask their employees to take Fridays off for a couple months until they're at a reasonable level.. and that happens more than you'd think - people suck at taking time off. Most people will take a day here, a day there, maybe go with the family somewhere for a couple days, and that's it... although I dare say I might have inspired coworkers to use up more of their vacation time in chunks. I think I've seen more and more people leave for a week or two in the last couple years.
My philosophy is that my trips are times of great potential for personal growth. I value this ability that I have to make these trips happen quite a bit - I'm not sure I could put a number on it, but you probably couldn't pay me more and reduce my vacation time to 2 weeks a year. $200k a year? I dunno, I wouldn't see the point. I make enough money now. $100k and 4 weeks vacation time? That would appeal to me a lot more I think. I'd rather spend 4 weeks in Madagascar than be able to buy a really nice flashy car or whatever.
An unpaid month off work to travel is a great idea, if that's something that's in your contract. Paid vacation time helps, but your idea to treat the increase in your income as "extra" money is a good one - with enough research & planning most of the world is probably at your fingertips.
My work just recently started this cool program where you go work at some other university somewhere else on the planet for a couple months. One girl from my office applied and.. I think she's going to Australia for 4 months? I forget where now.. but either way - a great opportunity - and something I might try to apply for at some point in the future too. It's also another example of how benefits can be more appealing to some people than pay increases - it depends on what your lifestyle is, where your interests lie, and what you value.
My last vacation time increase was a week (from 3 to 4), and as far as I know I'm only going to see that go up once I've worked at the place for.. maybe 2 more decades? Unless the union manages to negotiate a better deal for us at some point down the line, which would be amazing, but I'm not counting on it. The pay does go up on a regular basis, no complaints there.. but I wouldn't mind an increase in vacation time instead. And having said that we get like a week and a half off during Christmas time on top of that, so overall it's actually almost comparable to a bunch of European countries.
The best part about my work's vacation system is that it accumulates and never goes away. So I just wait until I have 4-5 weeks off, and take my vacation time in larger chunks. There's technically a rule that you can't have more than 25 days saved up, but it's not really enforced. Some managers eventually ask their employees to take Fridays off for a couple months until they're at a reasonable level.. and that happens more than you'd think - people suck at taking time off. Most people will take a day here, a day there, maybe go with the family somewhere for a couple days, and that's it... although I dare say I might have inspired coworkers to use up more of their vacation time in chunks. I think I've seen more and more people leave for a week or two in the last couple years.
My philosophy is that my trips are times of great potential for personal growth. I value this ability that I have to make these trips happen quite a bit - I'm not sure I could put a number on it, but you probably couldn't pay me more and reduce my vacation time to 2 weeks a year. $200k a year? I dunno, I wouldn't see the point. I make enough money now. $100k and 4 weeks vacation time? That would appeal to me a lot more I think. I'd rather spend 4 weeks in Madagascar than be able to buy a really nice flashy car or whatever.
An unpaid month off work to travel is a great idea, if that's something that's in your contract. Paid vacation time helps, but your idea to treat the increase in your income as "extra" money is a good one - with enough research & planning most of the world is probably at your fingertips.
My work just recently started this cool program where you go work at some other university somewhere else on the planet for a couple months. One girl from my office applied and.. I think she's going to Australia for 4 months? I forget where now.. but either way - a great opportunity - and something I might try to apply for at some point in the future too. It's also another example of how benefits can be more appealing to some people than pay increases - it depends on what your lifestyle is, where your interests lie, and what you value.
Sure, but if they hate their position, wouldn't that eventually turn up in their work? Then you can just fire them.
Doing this puts a lot of faith in your middle management.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Firing employees for poor performance is expensive (you need to pay unemployment) and tricky (Lawsuit risk).
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Keep in mind we are talking about a company that is single facility and only has 120 employees. The guy can actually keep fairly good tabs on what is going on.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not to mention cost of finding a replacement. That's far more costly than people realize.
Mise
isle of lucy
I'm sure there are plenty of potential problems with this, but a CEO taking a massive paycut and distributing it all to his lowest paid staff is not something I'm willing to criticise.
