Gravity Payments: $70k minimum wage (1 Viewer)

[Gawain]

I'm curious as to what the Exec team does.

If you're the CFO, do you take a hit for solidarity?

What about managers? Generally there is a compensation increase for moving to a managerial role.

If CSR rep made 35K and CSR manager made 50K, do they both make 70? Why would anyone want to be a manager and take on the added pressure without the compensation?

I'm curious to see the implementation.

As am I. Relative pay is a big deal in a typical office. Stress & responsibility typically increase as you move up the ladder. If there isn't much of an incentive to work harder, then the average person wont.

How do you incentivize someone you're already paying decidedly over market rate?

If the current employee expects a 5% raise, do you have to budget this in?

Secondly, if your Exec budget is impacted by this decision, how do you attract any talent where market rate is more than 70K?

If the company doesn't have everyone up to 70K in three years, what's going to happen to morale?

ETA: How do you differentiate your top performers over the next three years. Two guys both making 40K, one killing it the other OK. Both are brought to 50 immediately...do you bring the top performer higher? If both expect lockstep to 70, where's the motivation?

It reminds me a bit of big law with lockstep increases on years, but there's partnership and bonus requirements to keep people geared up. What other motivation can Gravity provide?

 

[Quez]

70k for an admin staff... That might ruffle the feathers of the guys paying off student loans.

Not sure I understand this - You believe that none of the other people that were making the "average" pay had any schooling?

Most corporate companies I have worked at have had a revolving door of administrative staff. I'm sure some do, but I don't think it's a requirement.

 

[Cjw_55106]

If this is supposed to happen over the next three years, wouldnt the company have in exccess of 6M in profits in which to pull the money from? For those calling the guy stupid when it comes to money, I assume this is why he isnt starting it tomorrow.

 

[NCCommish]

If he's the sole owner of the company, he can do whatever he wants.

That said, he's clearly an economic illiterate.

Started a company that handles billions in transactions and millions in profit. Yeah what does he knew?

 

[The General]

The guy making 70K right now is polishing his resume.

Oh no. How will the company survive the loss of some middle manager schlub who is bent out of shape because he feels his salary is out of whack.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I'll bet this doesn't end well.

 

[jonessed]

The guy making 70K right now is polishing his resume.

Oh no. How will the company survive the loss of some middle manager schlub who is bent out of shape because he feels his salary is out of whack.

That obviously depends on how many of them eventually leave.

If you limit salary growth, you limit career growth. They would likely lose their best managers first, but eventually they will lose more than just that. I have to assume they have a plan in place to make sure pay and career progression isnt hindered though.

 

[jonessed]

After doing a bit of reading I think this is largely a publicity stunt. I doubt this ends up being implemented as proposed.

 

[The General]

After doing a bit of reading I think this is largely a publicity stunt. I doubt this ends up being implemented as proposed.

Yeah, I was thinking this as well. Did read the guy gave all his employees making under a 100K a 2% raise to counter balance a payroll tax increase a few years back though.

We'll see.

 

[msommer]

So what happens when these folks inevitably leave the company and venture back into the real world?

Not sure what you are getting at. What happens when anyone leaves a company? Your skill set is worth something and he just happens to compensate more than most other companies. If you want to leave, you are foolish to assume you'd be paid a similar salary elswhere.

Sure, it's easy to say that from the outside looking in, but people are going to get used to the lifestyle that the $70k salary gives them. When they're really worth a $40k salary, they're going to have a big adjustment to make when they leave the company.

Its a cool idea on the surface, but I think it's dangerous too.

why would they leave?

Of course this will probably lock a lot more folks in for the long haul, but there are plenty of reasons why someone would leave regardless of how much they're being paid.

This whole thing is interesting. Do you take a 100% pay bump today in exchange for a stagnant salary for say, the next 10 years?

If you do a net present value calculation on this it will probably scream "Take the money NOW!!!!" unless you have a really high expectation of pay rises.

ETA: just did it and with an inflation rate of 2% and a starting salary of 40k you'd have to get a payrise of USD 6,900 every year for nine years to reach the approximate same NPV. your end salary would be something like 102k. Not sure that is particularly realistic for every employee.

ETA2: And this doesn't even count the 8k interest you can get if you inflation secure (getting 2%) your savings (70K-40K+cumulative raises>0). A bird in the hand generally wins

 

[cstu]

70k for an admin staff... That might ruffle the feathers of the guys paying off student loans.

Fine, leave.

I don't get this concern - there are plenty of people in this world who would love to work for this company knowing this is how much value people even...can I say it...support staff.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How do you incentivize someone you're already paying decidedly over market rate?

People already making decidedly over market rate are already extremely incentivized by that fact alone. They do not want to lose their jobs.

 

[jonessed]

So what happens when these folks inevitably leave the company and venture back into the real world?

Not sure what you are getting at. What happens when anyone leaves a company? Your skill set is worth something and he just happens to compensate more than most other companies. If you want to leave, you are foolish to assume you'd be paid a similar salary elswhere.

Sure, it's easy to say that from the outside looking in, but people are going to get used to the lifestyle that the $70k salary gives them. When they're really worth a $40k salary, they're going to have a big adjustment to make when they leave the company. Its a cool idea on the surface, but I think it's dangerous too.

why would they leave?

Of course this will probably lock a lot more folks in for the long haul, but there are plenty of reasons why someone would leave regardless of how much they're being paid.This whole thing is interesting. Do you take a 100% pay bump today in exchange for a stagnant salary for say, the next 10 years?

If you do a net present value calculation on this it will probably scream "Take the money NOW!!!!" unless you have a really high expectation of pay rises.ETA: just did it and with an inflation rate of 2% and a starting salary of 40k you'd have to get a payrise of USD 6,900 every year for nine years to reach the approximate same NPV. your end salary would be something like 102k. Not sure that is particularly realistic for every employee.

ETA2: And this doesn't even count the 8k interest you can get if you inflation secure (getting 2%) your savings (70K-40K+cumulative raises>0). A bird in the hand generally wins

It's an effective plan for starting young talent and/or keeping mediocre employees who seek no advancement beyond their annual COLA. They still have to have a compensation/promotion plan that rewards those that want to grow their careers though.The money is going to have to come out of investors pockets (or re-investment in the company) or price increases.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

 

[msommer]

It's an effective plan for starting young talent and/or keeping mediocre employees who seek no advancement beyond their annual COLA. They still have to have a compensation/promotion plan that rewards those that want to grow their careers though.The money is going to have to come out of investors pockets (or re-investment in the company) or price increases.

I'm not sure why that comment is directed at me.

The numbers show that the employees making about 40k, even on an upward trajectory, should go for it.

Not sure what the Gravity CEO was making before, but that might go a ways to mitigate. The annual accounts to shareholders might show it if you feel interested in finding facts to see if your assertations hold water

 

[PIK95]

70k for an admin staff... That might ruffle the feathers of the guys paying off student loans.

Fine, leave.

I don't get this concern - there are plenty of people in this world who would love to work for this company knowing this is how much value people even...can I say it...support staff.

FBG's just don't like to feel threatened by the 99%. This is how it starts. Next, people will want to lower executives pay.

 

[jonessed]

It's an effective plan for starting young talent and/or keeping mediocre employees who seek no advancement beyond their annual COLA. They still have to have a compensation/promotion plan that rewards those that want to grow their careers though.

The money is going to have to come out of investors pockets (or re-investment in the company) or price increases.

I'm not sure why that comment is directed at me.The numbers show that the employees making about 40k, even on an upward trajectory, should go for it.

Not sure what the Gravity CEO was making before, but that might go a ways to mitigate. The annual accounts to shareholders might show it if you feel interested in finding facts to see if your assertations hold water

I was just pointing out that good employees will outgrow the system and be forced to leave if the money is distributed out of the rest of the pay (with the exception of the owner who might be fine with the profits). The money will have to come from elsewhere.

 

[The General]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

Haters gonna hate.

 

[Gawain]

So what happens when these folks inevitably leave the company and venture back into the real world?

Not sure what you are getting at. What happens when anyone leaves a company? Your skill set is worth something and he just happens to compensate more than most other companies. If you want to leave, you are foolish to assume you'd be paid a similar salary elswhere.

Sure, it's easy to say that from the outside looking in, but people are going to get used to the lifestyle that the $70k salary gives them. When they're really worth a $40k salary, they're going to have a big adjustment to make when they leave the company.

Its a cool idea on the surface, but I think it's dangerous too.

why would they leave?

Of course this will probably lock a lot more folks in for the long haul, but there are plenty of reasons why someone would leave regardless of how much they're being paid.

This whole thing is interesting. Do you take a 100% pay bump today in exchange for a stagnant salary for say, the next 10 years?

If you do a net present value calculation on this it will probably scream "Take the money NOW!!!!" unless you have a really high expectation of pay rises.

ETA: just did it and with an inflation rate of 2% and a starting salary of 40k you'd have to get a payrise of USD 6,900 every year for nine years to reach the approximate same NPV. your end salary would be something like 102k. Not sure that is particularly realistic for every employee.

ETA2: And this doesn't even count the 8k interest you can get if you inflation secure (getting 2%) your savings (70K-40K+cumulative raises>0). A bird in the hand generally wins

You're overlooking a couple of factors from the rate being well above market.

First, everyone that gets to 70K isn't going to stay there. Some of them will be fired/laid-off and will have to go back to a market paying job after being artificially propped up. The guy who gets canned after two years isn't better off.

Second, there's a disincentive to advance your career with such a large increase that isn't market supported. Why better yourself if the new job within the company pays the same? When someone leaves, they will be worse off than if they improved for higher pay.

My wife has been working for 10 years come June 2016. In that time she's increased her salary by 285.7%

 

[Captain Quinoa]

First, everyone that gets to 70K isn't going to stay there. Some of them will be fired/laid-off and will have to go back to a market paying job after being artificially propped up. The guy who gets canned after two years isn't better off.

Yeah having that extra 60 grand that he wouldn't otherwise is gonna suck.

 

[roadkill1292]

How do you incentivize someone you're already paying decidedly over market rate?

People already making decidedly over market rate are already extremely incentivized by that fact alone. They do not want to lose their jobs.

Also, turnover is expensive for a company.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm curious as to what the Exec team does.

If you're the CFO, do you take a hit for solidarity?

What about managers? Generally there is a compensation increase for moving to a managerial role.

If CSR rep made 35K and CSR manager made 50K, do they both make 70? Why would anyone want to be a manager and take on the added pressure without the compensation?

I'm curious to see the implementation.

As am I. Relative pay is a big deal in a typical office. Stress & responsibility typically increase as you move up the ladder. If there isn't much of an incentive to work harder, then the average person wont.

About 20 years ago, I faced this exact situation. I was in a management position overseeing 4-6 people.

One day, the owner announced that he was cutting my salary and raising the salaries of the 4-6 workers so that we would all make the same salary.

What do you think I did?

Became a bitter message board poster after being discovered as seriously overpaid in your job.

 

[James Daulton]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever. We had all of things 20 years, 30 years, 80 years ago and CEO pay was nowhere near as out of balance with the typical worker as it is now. It's almost like anything that's not 100% decided by the "free" market (which CEO pay is definitely not part of) we've decided can't possibly be correct.

I applaud this dude.

 

[Galileo]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

While I agree with your "at best" summation, I think your "at worst" analysis falls a little shy. I don't know if it is so much people being critical of charity as it is people criticizing it as a bad business plan with possible negative impact on the company in terms of personnel and financial stability. Time will tell...

 

[cstu]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

It goes against everything we've been taught to believe about capitalism - that it should be every man for himself, scratching and clawing to make as much money as he can, gotta make more money than the next guy to feel good about myself.

 

[jonessed]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

It goes against everything we've been taught to believe about capitalism - that it should be every man for himself, scratching and clawing to make as much money as he can, gotta make more money than the next guy to feel good about myself.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It goes against everything I've been lead to believe about straw men.

 

[msommer]

The Gravity CEO used to pay himself USD 1m, 30 guys got their salary doubled, they are paid for by that move

The other 40 that got raises go from the profits.

 

[Bonfire]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

 

[psychobillies]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

 

[Jack White]

I'm curious as to what the Exec team does.

If you're the CFO, do you take a hit for solidarity?

What about managers? Generally there is a compensation increase for moving to a managerial role.

If CSR rep made 35K and CSR manager made 50K, do they both make 70? Why would anyone want to be a manager and take on the added pressure without the compensation?

I'm curious to see the implementation.

As am I. Relative pay is a big deal in a typical office. Stress & responsibility typically increase as you move up the ladder. If there isn't much of an incentive to work harder, then the average person wont.

About 20 years ago, I faced this exact situation. I was in a management position overseeing 4-6 people.

One day, the owner announced that he was cutting my salary and raising the salaries of the 4-6 workers so that we would all make the same salary.

What do you think I did?

Became a bitter message board poster after being discovered as seriously overpaid in your job.

It's considered bad form to laugh at your own jokes, but that is funny.

 

[James Daulton]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with no limit once you reach the CEO circle since you're essentially setting the salary scale for yourself. Again, for those of you who think nothing is out of whack, why was the CEO to regular worker multiplier relatively steady until fairly recently? Hmmm...

 

[GoFishTN]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

There's a huge leap by many that he's lifting everyone up to $70k who's below that figure and freezing everyone at or above that figure. That's not what the article says at all. It says he's raising the minimum salary to $70k over the next 3 years. He says he's going to make $70k (down from $1M) to help cover it, which has some thinking he won't pay folks more than that figure. Massive assumptions that are highly unlikely.

He's probably run projections out at least 3 years and has a reasonably reliable model. To think that the sole shareholder of a business is only making his salary is a bit naive. He can write himself a bonus check for whatever he wants whenever he wants, so the assumption that he will gross $70k is more than a little misplaced.

Also the article does not say anything about what he's doing for those employees north of $70k. To assume that he's going to ignore them completely isn't supported by anything.

What he's done is generate a ####-ton of positive PR/marketing that will get him opportunities with new customers. No one is satisfied, let alone happy, with what their card processor is charging them. Here's a guy so unworried about making money off his customers that he'd rather reduce his own pay by 93% to pay his people better than raise his prices for his customers. Think that won't help him get meetings? It also helps with attracting talent.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

There's a huge leap by many that he's lifting everyone up to $70k who's below that figure and freezing everyone at or above that figure. That's not what the article says at all. It says he's raising the minimum salary to $70k over the next 3 years. He says he's going to make $70k (down from $1M) to help cover it, which has some thinking he won't pay folks more than that figure. Massive assumptions that are highly unlikely.

He's probably run projections out at least 3 years and has a reasonably reliable model. To think that the sole shareholder of a business is only making his salary is a bit naive. He can write himself a bonus check for whatever he wants whenever he wants, so the assumption that he will gross $70k is more than a little misplaced.

Also the article does not say anything about what he's doing for those employees north of $70k. To assume that he's going to ignore them completely isn't supported by anything.

What he's done is generate a ####-ton of positive PR/marketing that will get him opportunities with new customers. No one is satisfied, let alone happy, with what their card processor is charging them. Here's a guy so unworried about making money off his customers that he'd rather reduce his own pay by 93% to pay his people better than raise his prices for his customers. Think that won't help him get meetings? It also helps with attracting talent.

Yeah, if he ignores them he's going to have a mutiny. Not sure if he's isn't going to be creating more internal strife by doing this. If someone with a degree is making the same (or close) as the mail clerk, then this isn't going to go over well.

 

[GoFishTN]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

There's a huge leap by many that he's lifting everyone up to $70k who's below that figure and freezing everyone at or above that figure. That's not what the article says at all. It says he's raising the minimum salary to $70k over the next 3 years. He says he's going to make $70k (down from $1M) to help cover it, which has some thinking he won't pay folks more than that figure. Massive assumptions that are highly unlikely.

He's probably run projections out at least 3 years and has a reasonably reliable model. To think that the sole shareholder of a business is only making his salary is a bit naive. He can write himself a bonus check for whatever he wants whenever he wants, so the assumption that he will gross $70k is more than a little misplaced.

Also the article does not say anything about what he's doing for those employees north of $70k. To assume that he's going to ignore them completely isn't supported by anything.

What he's done is generate a ####-ton of positive PR/marketing that will get him opportunities with new customers. No one is satisfied, let alone happy, with what their card processor is charging them. Here's a guy so unworried about making money off his customers that he'd rather reduce his own pay by 93% to pay his people better than raise his prices for his customers. Think that won't help him get meetings? It also helps with attracting talent.

Yeah, if he ignores them he's going to have a mutiny. Not sure if he's isn't going to be creating more internal strife by doing this. If someone with a degree is making the same (or close) as the mail clerk, then this isn't going to go over well.

As I mentioned, he most likely doesn't want people with this attitude at his company. We should be trying to raise each other up, not make sure others are beneath us.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

There's a huge leap by many that he's lifting everyone up to $70k who's below that figure and freezing everyone at or above that figure. That's not what the article says at all. It says he's raising the minimum salary to $70k over the next 3 years. He says he's going to make $70k (down from $1M) to help cover it, which has some thinking he won't pay folks more than that figure. Massive assumptions that are highly unlikely.

He's probably run projections out at least 3 years and has a reasonably reliable model. To think that the sole shareholder of a business is only making his salary is a bit naive. He can write himself a bonus check for whatever he wants whenever he wants, so the assumption that he will gross $70k is more than a little misplaced.

Also the article does not say anything about what he's doing for those employees north of $70k. To assume that he's going to ignore them completely isn't supported by anything.

What he's done is generate a ####-ton of positive PR/marketing that will get him opportunities with new customers. No one is satisfied, let alone happy, with what their card processor is charging them. Here's a guy so unworried about making money off his customers that he'd rather reduce his own pay by 93% to pay his people better than raise his prices for his customers. Think that won't help him get meetings? It also helps with attracting talent.

Yeah, if he ignores them he's going to have a mutiny. Not sure if he's isn't going to be creating more internal strife by doing this. If someone with a degree is making the same (or close) as the mail clerk, then this isn't going to go over well.

As I mentioned, he most likely doesn't want people with this attitude at his company. We should be trying to raise each other up, not make sure others are beneath us.

So every job should pay the same? Why would I want to work harder making the same amount as the mail clerk?

Not being a sarcastic- just really curious why you would think making everyone equal pay for positions that clearly aren't equal.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

There's a huge leap by many that he's lifting everyone up to $70k who's below that figure and freezing everyone at or above that figure. That's not what the article says at all. It says he's raising the minimum salary to $70k over the next 3 years. He says he's going to make $70k (down from $1M) to help cover it, which has some thinking he won't pay folks more than that figure. Massive assumptions that are highly unlikely.He's probably run projections out at least 3 years and has a reasonably reliable model. To think that the sole shareholder of a business is only making his salary is a bit naive. He can write himself a bonus check for whatever he wants whenever he wants, so the assumption that he will gross $70k is more than a little misplaced.

Also the article does not say anything about what he's doing for those employees north of $70k. To assume that he's going to ignore them completely isn't supported by anything.

What he's done is generate a ####-ton of positive PR/marketing that will get him opportunities with new customers. No one is satisfied, let alone happy, with what their card processor is charging them. Here's a guy so unworried about making money off his customers that he'd rather reduce his own pay by 93% to pay his people better than raise his prices for his customers. Think that won't help him get meetings? It also helps with attracting talent.

Yeah, if he ignores them he's going to have a mutiny. Not sure if he's isn't going to be creating more internal strife by doing this. If someone with a degree is making the same (or close) as the mail clerk, then this isn't going to go over well.

Why do you assume he's not going to take care of his higher earners? That assumption runs counter to everything he's doing -- paying his employees more at the expense of profits. It's incongruous to think he won't increase his higher earners accordingly.

 

[GoFishTN]

I didn't read the article, but from the OP it sounds like the owner of a company wants to give extra money to his employees. At best, it's an innovative business decision that will improve morale and benefit the company in the long run. At worst, and much more likely, it is charity. Why are you people criticizing charity?

There's a huge leap by many that he's lifting everyone up to $70k who's below that figure and freezing everyone at or above that figure. That's not what the article says at all. It says he's raising the minimum salary to $70k over the next 3 years. He says he's going to make $70k (down from $1M) to help cover it, which has some thinking he won't pay folks more than that figure. Massive assumptions that are highly unlikely.

He's probably run projections out at least 3 years and has a reasonably reliable model. To think that the sole shareholder of a business is only making his salary is a bit naive. He can write himself a bonus check for whatever he wants whenever he wants, so the assumption that he will gross $70k is more than a little misplaced.

Also the article does not say anything about what he's doing for those employees north of $70k. To assume that he's going to ignore them completely isn't supported by anything.

What he's done is generate a ####-ton of positive PR/marketing that will get him opportunities with new customers. No one is satisfied, let alone happy, with what their card processor is charging them. Here's a guy so unworried about making money off his customers that he'd rather reduce his own pay by 93% to pay his people better than raise his prices for his customers. Think that won't help him get meetings? It also helps with attracting talent.

Yeah, if he ignores them he's going to have a mutiny. Not sure if he's isn't going to be creating more internal strife by doing this. If someone with a degree is making the same (or close) as the mail clerk, then this isn't going to go over well.

As I mentioned, he most likely doesn't want people with this attitude at his company. We should be trying to raise each other up, not make sure others are beneath us.

So every job should pay the same? Why would I want to work harder making the same amount as the mail clerk?

Not being a sarcastic- just really curious why you would think making everyone equal pay for positions that clearly aren't equal.

Why do you assume they have equal pay? The CEO is making 70k, but he said he's looking to raise it back up as the company does better. So, I don't know why people think everyone is capped at 70k. But why should they care what the mail clerk or janitor makes anyway? I suppose if they made more, I could see that, but that's not the case here.

Regardless, if they don't like it then they're free to leave.

P.S. No way you work harder than the mail room guys.

 

[roadkill1292]

The smart thing for the guys making $70,000 already to do is quit and go to work somewhere else for less pay. As long as it's more than the janitor there is getting.

 

[cstu]

Brother suing him (no, Jim Webb, not a black guy, his actual brother).

 

[AAABatteries]

You are making this complicated when it really isnt. You are somehow arguing that is better to climb the ladder to eventually get to the double salary vs getting double the salary immediately? I'll take the $400K over the next ten years and see where you're at with your ladder climb.

LOOK AT ME, I MAKE $200K A YEAR!!!!

 

[=Smackdown=]

The CEO gets it - IMO this pays off in the long run.

Happy engaged employees will become embassadors of the company. Productivity and better interaction with their clients will lead to higher profits.

If he's looking to attract/retain better talent out of college . . . applicants will be breaking down his doors.

Win win.

 

[psychobillies]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

No.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

CEO salaries are a much lower multiple of the average worker's in Europe.

Does Europe have better corporate performance than the US? More upward mobility? A more sustainable economic situation?

 

[Warrior]

The guy making 70K right now is polishing his resume.

Because 'lesser' employees are making as much as him?

don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I think someone would have a right to be upset if they took on massive student loan debt, started at a low paying entry level position, worked their way up to 70k because they were innovative and hard working, then suddenly were getting paid the same as the janitor. Especially if it impacts their ability to get a raise.

There is nothing wrong with being a janitor, and they might not be lesser people, but they definitely are lesser employees.

But hey, if everyone there is cool with it, what do I care?

 

[James Daulton]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

CEO salaries are a much lower multiple of the average worker's in Europe.

Does Europe have better corporate performance than the US? More upward mobility? A more sustainable economic situation?

Somehow German CEOs are able to survive on less than 1/2 of the multiple of their US counterparts. Their economy seems to be pretty strong, no?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

CEO salaries are a much lower multiple of the average worker's in Europe.

Does Europe have better corporate performance than the US? More upward mobility? A more sustainable economic situation?

Somehow German CEOs are able to survive on less than 1/2 of the multiple of their US counterparts. Their economy seems to be pretty strong, no?

It was an open-ended question.

European companies tend to be a lot more risk-averse than US companies and their executives tend to be under less pressure in general.

Germany is doing fine, and quite well relative to the rest of Europe, but structural unemployment is an issue there. The other thing to remember about Germany is that all other things being equal, a weak Euro is better for Germany than it is for most of the rest of Europe because Germany's economy is more levered to exports outside the Eurozone (benefits from a weak Euro) than most of its peers.

Also, the CEO pay in Italy, France and Spain is similar to Germany's. Those economies are doing a lot less well. (I don't think that you can make a straight cause and effect argument about any of this stuff).

 

[James Daulton]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

CEO salaries are a much lower multiple of the average worker's in Europe.

Does Europe have better corporate performance than the US? More upward mobility? A more sustainable economic situation?

Somehow German CEOs are able to survive on less than 1/2 of the multiple of their US counterparts. Their economy seems to be pretty strong, no?

It was an open-ended question.

European companies tend to be a lot more risk-averse than US companies and their executives tend to be under less pressure in general.

Germany is doing fine, and quite well relative to the rest of Europe, but structural unemployment is an issue there. The other thing to remember about Germany is that all other things being equal, a weak Euro is better for Germany than it is for most of the rest of Europe because Germany's economy is more levered to exports outside the Eurozone (benefits from a weak Euro) than most of its peers.

Also, the CEO pay in Italy, France and Spain is similar to Germany's. Those economies are doing a lot less well. (I don't think that you can make a straight cause and effect argument about any of this stuff).

I agree with you. I'm just noting that it's not unreasonable to think the US has gotten out of whack regarding CEO pay multiples (particularly when you look at ourselves across time) and this MAY have negative consequences for our economy. I'm not suggesting the impact is huge, just that when people (average worker) feel they're not being treated "fairly" (CEO makes upteen millions) it's likely not great for our economy.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Why are we so afraid to say that CEO pay is out of control in this country? I don't want to hear it's capitalism, free-market, whatever.

Why is it that when I throw something up in the air, it comes back down? I don't want to hear about gravity or whatever.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers really meant to put a limit on a person's upward mobility. They just forgot. Should have read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness up to a point to be be determined by some guys on a message board".

Has it occurred to you that ridiculously high CEO salaries are hurting everyone else's upward mobility?

CEO salaries are a much lower multiple of the average worker's in Europe.

Does Europe have better corporate performance than the US? More upward mobility? A more sustainable economic situation?

Somehow German CEOs are able to survive on less than 1/2 of the multiple of their US counterparts. Their economy seems to be pretty strong, no?

It was an open-ended question.

European companies tend to be a lot more risk-averse than US companies and their executives tend to be under less pressure in general.

Germany is doing fine, and quite well relative to the rest of Europe, but structural unemployment is an issue there. The other thing to remember about Germany is that all other things being equal, a weak Euro is better for Germany than it is for most of the rest of Europe because Germany's economy is more levered to exports outside the Eurozone (benefits from a weak Euro) than most of its peers.

Also, the CEO pay in Italy, France and Spain is similar to Germany's. Those economies are doing a lot less well. (I don't think that you can make a straight cause and effect argument about any of this stuff).

I agree with you. I'm just noting that it's not unreasonable to think the US has gotten out of whack regarding CEO pay multiples (particularly when you look at ourselves across time) and this MAY have negative consequences for our economy. I'm not suggesting the impact is huge, just that when people (average worker) feel they're not being treated "fairly" (CEO makes upteen millions) it's likely not great for our economy.

I don't disagree that CEO pay has gotten out of whack. It really is a failure on the part of corporate Boards of Directors in demanding accountability. Which is unsurprising, in that those same boards are (typically) insufficiently independent.

It really falls on the large institutional investors to demand that corporate America institute better corporate governance policies.