Financial security does not come solely out of giving someone more money. Go ask the Ferrari dealer who pays for a $250,000 car with cash. It is the lottery winners. Wealthy people know that they can pay 4% interest to the bank while investing their money and earning 12%. They get the extra 8% plus the car. You must teach a man to fish versus giving him the fish.[/quote]
We have already covered this aspect. Money management is important. So is career training. You’re covering ground that’s already been plowed in an attempt to give a sermon.
Again, I salute this guy’s altruism, and his desire to live to his conscience and act on a small scale to affect the larger scale.[/quote]
Ok, Got it. We just read the article and shut the hell up because no opinions are allowed on a forum or else we are giving a sermon. I think the guy has already made his wealth off of the backs of his employees. If he really cared he would have paid them the same salary as he was making all along. I guess I’m done preaching now.
Financial security does not come solely out of giving someone more money. Go ask the Ferrari dealer who pays for a $250,000 car with cash. It is the lottery winners. Wealthy people know that they can pay 4% interest to the bank while investing their money and earning 12%. They get the extra 8% plus the car. You must teach a man to fish versus giving him the fish.[/quote]
We have already covered this aspect. Money management is important. So is career training. You’re covering ground that’s already been plowed in an attempt to give a sermon.
Again, I salute this guy’s altruism, and his desire to live to his conscience and act on a small scale to affect the larger scale.[/quote]
Ok, Got it. We just read the article and shut the hell up because no opinions are allowed on a forum or else we are giving a sermon. I think the guy has already made his wealth off of the backs of his employees. If he really cared he would have paid them the same salary as he was making all along. I guess I’m done preaching now.[/quote]
I think you’ve made some solid points (that I don’t fully agree, or disagree with) in this thread, but that’s just a stupid statement.
Minimum wage hikes is the next thing that sounds good on paper, but will suck for most if not all of us.[/quote][/quote]
I’d like to point out that the belief that a raise in the minimum wage actually harms economic growth and middle class families has been largely debunked by most peered reviewed journals the past 15 years. Much like trickle down economics, this is a vestige of a particular economic theory of the 80’s. It just doesnt bear out in the reality of local municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.[/quote]
If the minimum wage jumped to $15/hour you are not jumping it for just those making minimum wage. You are jumping it for those making minimum wage up to $15/hour. This will affect every consumer good on the market, including those manufactured abroad. Yes they are made there, but those goods come to a US port, then to a US train, ship, or truck. It is warehoused in a Distribution Center where it is moved and managed by fork truck drivers and possibly case pick staff. It is then moved again by truck to the store where workers off load it and place it on shelves.
When raising minimum wage on the national level, just think about the supply chain for the products made abroad. Now go even deeper in the supply chain for manufactured goods down to the raw material level. Inflation is calculated by looking at the cost of goods for particular products and averaging out the increase rate. I don’t see how any of those products wouldn’t see a substantial jump with doubling the minimum wage. A slower, stepped approach balancing the economic impact would be preferred by me.
Yeah, I think the concept is that someone making $7.50/hr doubles their salary. This creates a 100% increase in the labor portion of cost of good sold. Same thing for someone making $10 an hour, they go to $15 and it is a 50% increase in the labor portion of cost of goods sold. Somewhere is the aggregate increase in the price of cost of goods sold, let’s say 35% for a made up number. In order to maintain profit margins, the price of all the goods affected by the labor cost increase has to go up as well. Now, that pair of jeans you bought at Belk are 35% more expensive.
You make $50,000 a year, but the price of your jeans, and everything else has gone up by 35% (again, made up number for sake of illustration). Do you believe that because wages have increased at the bottom, that you will receive a 35% increase? Unless middle and upper middle income earners receive increases to offest the higher price of goods and services, while you are doing a benefit at least initially to the low earners, you are causing long-term harm because the market is way too slow to adjust everyone else because minimum wage went up.
Also, just food for though, what about the technician who’s been at a company for 15 years and just got to $18/hr. Minimum wage goes to $15, so new jack down the corridor who was making minimum wage is now making $15. Do you think that senior technician is going to get a 100% raise to make his pay, relative to the new guy, the same as it was before? If he doesn’t get a corresponding raise, does he feel cheated?
Also, if you assume that it will trickle up, and everyone gets raises proportional with the increased cost of goods and services on the market due to the increase from the bottom, are the minimum wage workers who got the increase now in any better position? You have increased the dollars, but essentially you just moved the whole scale, leaving them with the same respective buying power they had before.
I’ll add that whatever newer data or studies have come out, how could they possibly be more than hypothesis? We haven’t seen systematic, nationwide, high percentage increases in the minimum wage, so how could we know the actual effect?[/quote]
This - what I was saying but better articulated.[/quote]
I will be less articulate and say that raising the minimum wage significantly will F the middle class.
No need for that. Just staying on topic would be appreciated though. The story doesn’t mention or discuss minimum wage laws in any fashion. That argument is a red herring; deflectionary.
If he really cared he would have paid them the same salary as he was making all along.
Interesting article, but sad at the same time sad to think that more money increases happiness. Sure it’s nice to have but it should not be the focus of someone’s happiness. I would have offered full health coverage, improved 401K offering, bonus plan, more vacation time, company cafeteria, gym, etc. This way you are not disrupting the pay scale.
Financial security does not come solely out of giving someone more money. Go ask the Ferrari dealer who pays for a $250,000 car with cash. It is the lottery winners. Wealthy people know that they can pay 4% interest to the bank while investing their money and earning 12%. They get the extra 8% plus the car. You must teach a man to fish versus giving him the fish.[/quote]
We have already covered this aspect. Money management is important. So is career training. You’re covering ground that’s already been plowed in an attempt to give a sermon.
Again, I salute this guy’s altruism, and his desire to live to his conscience and act on a small scale to affect the larger scale.[/quote]
Ok, Got it. We just read the article and shut the hell up because no opinions are allowed on a forum or else we are giving a sermon. I think the guy has already made his wealth off of the backs of his employees. If he really cared he would have paid them the same salary as he was making all along. I guess I’m done preaching now.[/quote]
I think you’ve made some solid points (that I don’t fully agree, or disagree with) in this thread, but that’s just a stupid statement.[/quote]
The point to make was that the guy is already a multimillionaire, and the article and poster that I was responding to makes it seem like this guy is doing such wonders. My point was that if employee well-being really meant something to the guy, he would have grown his employee salaries at the same rate as his own when he started the company. He made millions on the sweat of the employees to only now decide to give some of the rewards to them. Maybe he’s angling for another front page cover of entrepreneur magazine. But to say “Look how great this guy is” is being a little bit obtuse. The guy probably makes a million a year on investments from the millions he earned earlier.
Financial security does not come solely out of giving someone more money. Go ask the Ferrari dealer who pays for a $250,000 car with cash. It is the lottery winners. Wealthy people know that they can pay 4% interest to the bank while investing their money and earning 12%. They get the extra 8% plus the car. You must teach a man to fish versus giving him the fish.[/quote]
We have already covered this aspect. Money management is important. So is career training. You’re covering ground that’s already been plowed in an attempt to give a sermon.
Again, I salute this guy’s altruism, and his desire to live to his conscience and act on a small scale to affect the larger scale.[/quote]
Ok, Got it. We just read the article and shut the hell up because no opinions are allowed on a forum or else we are giving a sermon. I think the guy has already made his wealth off of the backs of his employees. If he really cared he would have paid them the same salary as he was making all along. I guess I’m done preaching now.[/quote]
I think you’ve made some solid points (that I don’t fully agree, or disagree with) in this thread, but that’s just a stupid statement.[/quote]
The point to make was that the guy is already a multimillionaire, and the article and poster that I was responding to makes it seem like this guy is doing such wonders. My point was that if employee well-being really meant something to the guy, he would have grown his employee salaries at the same rate as his own when he started the company. He made millions on the sweat of the employees to only now decide to give some of the rewards to them. Maybe he’s angling for another front page cover of entrepreneur magazine. But to say “Look how great this guy is” is being a little bit obtuse. The guy probably makes a million a year on investments from the millions he earned earlier.[/quote]
How about we say he is more altruistic than all of the other CEOs?
Awesome, he stirred the pot. We need more people that brave.
And with so many eyes focused on the firm, [b]some hoping to witness failure[/b], the pressure has been intense.
That’s the only real backlash.
Every successful societal shakeup in history has had its pioneers’ sanity, wisdom, capability, and motives challenged. Jackie Robinson didn’t enjoy all the hate thrown his way as he broke baseball’s color barrier. No one ever said this would be an easy road.
[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:92, topic:29556”]Awesome, he stirred the pot. We need more people that brave.
I applaud him. It takes guts to do what he did.[/quote]
Need a few that brave, but not quite as stupid. As with many great ideas that feel good but not adequately thought all the way out it can have drastic and negative impacts. Losing top tier talent and other high performers because of the shift in salary and recognition of work done should have been forseeable. Great idea that was executed poorly and will probably be used as a reason not to make these kid of changes in the future.
It doesn’t say that everyone was paid the same. It just says that he raised the minimum salary of the company up to a certain level. That’s not even a novel idea. Look no further than professional sports leagues. Those damn commies.
He lost two people. Two. And he helped how many other people? As he said in the story:
“There’s no perfect way to do this and no way to handle complex workplace issues that doesn’t have any downsides or trade-offs,” he said.
Two employees (who were probably lured away by pay raises and therefore benefitted too) is likely very minor collateral damage compared to all the people he helped.
The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.
For now, Price has undoubtedly made an immediate difference in the lives of many of his employees. José Garcia, 30, who supervises an equipment team, was able to afford to move into the city and replace the worn tires on his car. Ortiz, who was briefly homeless as a child, can now visit her family in Burlington. Vt. Cody Boorman, 22, who handles operations out of his Eastern Washington home, said he and his wife finally felt financially secure enough to start a family.
Then there’s the ripple effect:
There have been other ripples. Mario Zahariev, who runs Pop’s Pizza & Pasta, switched to Gravity after seeing Price on the news. When he learned his monthly processing fees would drop to $900 from $1,700, Zahariev decided: “I was not going to keep the difference for myself.” He used the savings to raise the salaries of his eight employees.
[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:94, topic:29556”]It doesn’t say that everyone was paid the same. It just says that he raised the minimum salary of the company up to a certain level. That’s not even a novel idea. Look no further than professional sports leagues. Those damn commies.
He lost two people. Two. And he helped how many other people? As he said in the story:
“There’s no perfect way to do this and no way to handle complex workplace issues that doesn’t have any downsides or trade-offs,” he said.
Two employees (who were probably lured away by pay raises and therefore benefitted too) is likely very minor collateral damage compared to all the people he helped.
The publicity surrounding the wage policy has generated benefits. Three months before the announcement, the firm had been adding 200 clients a month. In June, 350 signed up.
For now, Price has undoubtedly made an immediate difference in the lives of many of his employees. José Garcia, 30, who supervises an equipment team, was able to afford to move into the city and replace the worn tires on his car. Ortiz, who was briefly homeless as a child, can now visit her family in Burlington. Vt. Cody Boorman, 22, who handles operations out of his Eastern Washington home, said he and his wife finally felt financially secure enough to start a family.
Then there’s the ripple effect:
There have been other ripples. Mario Zahariev, who runs Pop’s Pizza & Pasta, switched to Gravity after seeing Price on the news. When he learned his monthly processing fees would drop to $900 from $1,700, Zahariev decided: “I was not going to keep the difference for myself.” He used the savings to raise the salaries of his eight employees.
I find the whole thing fascinating.[/quote]
Very fascinating - and I am not faulting him for making the change. It also notes that he has lost business so the end result of this is still up in the air. IMO he should have tied the increase in salary to performance by giving larger merit increases to those busting their ass and weed out those that were not worth investing in. Great idea, feels good, could have been implemented smarter and helped build the culture or performance along the way while recognizing those that had worked hard to get the company to the point it was.
It is like many things that sound great but the reality is much more complicated. When it hit the news everyone thinks oh this is awesome - but the actual implementation and impact makes it much more difficult to assess. If in the long run they can keep the pay where it is and still stay competitive in their market place while attracting quality leadership to run the company then it is brilliant.
At a company that small he can find people who want to work for more than just the money. Seattle is a very forward thinking city/place and he does not have a staff of 100K. No shareholders to answer to. He might lose some talent but the influx of quality people who want to work somewhere that truly cares for them will outweigh the lose IMO.
As long as he doesn’t get greedy, then everything will be OK.
Edit–Also, my personal view is I don’t care what anyone else makes. I care more about what people doing same/similar make.
Wow, I just saw this and read a few comments above. I believe the owner of the company should be free to do what he did as long as it didn’t violate private contracts with his employees, and I couldn’t care less. His employees are free to leave. However, it is very troublesome when the federal government tries to enact legislation that forces all firms to do likewise, and violate the free and voluntary movement in the price of labor in a free labor market.
When did the federal government do such a thing?[/quote] That’s some BIG news I must have missed while the media was covering “the Donald”.
How did this make it through the House and Senate? ;D
Or are you referring to the federal gov’t of the old Soviet Union?
After reading this I can say, wow. As far as our country has come on social issues, we have gone the opposite direction with regards to economic issues. People accusing a private business owner of being a communist because he instituted a minimum salary that would put his employees above the median income for the location???
The corporate overload mentality runs deep. How dare a business owner not pay his employees a pittance so we tax payers can subsidize his bloated salary by paying for his employees’ food and rent.
I find it reassuring that neither I nor anyone else will have to subsidize Gravity Payments because the owner demonstrates the proper responsibility to pay his employees enough to live a solid life.
