[quote=“ninerID, post:140, topic:29556”]Fine print would be good to know on Netflix. I know many people that sit out their maternity leave then don’t come back. Also, asking “is your wife pregnant?” is not a legal interview question.
So I’m curious what the limits are before you can take this on and what the work requirements after are.[/quote]
Yeah seems like a nightmare from and HR policy perspective.
But they are not treating employees equally who are single or have chosen not to have children! Every employee should have the right to take a form of leave for up to a year with Netflix regardless of children. 
Just kidding but I’m sure there is some group out there that would argue that point.
But they are not treating employees equally who are single or have chosen not to have children! Every employee should have the right to take a form of leave for up to a year with Netflix regardless of children.
Just kidding but I’m sure there is some group out there that would argue that point. [/quote]
Common sense says obviously thats nuts. Common sense left this society long ago. Should a transgender single woman who can not have kids and doesn’t want to adopt be denied this benefit? What if she “identifies” as a pregnant woman? Sense apparently feelings trump biology now seems like she should be given the same opportunity.
Sorry to post off topic. So back to paying people more than the market says they are worth.
But they are not treating employees equally who are single or have chosen not to have children! Every employee should have the right to take a form of leave for up to a year with Netflix regardless of children.
Just kidding but I’m sure there is some group out there that would argue that point. [/quote]
Common sense says obviously thats nuts. Common sense left this society long ago. Should a transgender single woman who can not have kids and doesn’t want to adopt be denied this benefit? What if she “identifies” as a pregnant woman? Sense apparently feelings trump biology now seems like she should be given the same opportunity.
Sorry to post off topic. So back to paying people more than the market says they are worth.[/quote]
Which is way I included the smiley face and the “Just kidding” part. Maybe I should have included another emoticon.
[quote=“Ninerdawg, post:129, topic:29556”]Remember how annoyed this board was when Alan Major got an extension - when we were paying more than his skill set deserved? Well, this is basically the same thing and will likely get this same result.
You know everybody wants to feel good for the employees, but remember the CEO could have taken that money and simply reduced the prices he charged to his customers. My guess is that after the publicity of this wears off in a few weeks a lot of his customers are going to start demanding he cut their costs - and I wonder how well that will go.
Except that the CEO owns much of the company, so at least he is using his own dollars to do it.[/quote]
Why would the CEO reduce prices? Do you not believe in the market that determined the existing price?
But they are not treating employees equally who are single or have chosen not to have children! Every employee should have the right to take a form of leave for up to a year with Netflix regardless of children.
Just kidding but I’m sure there is some group out there that would argue that point. [/quote]
Common sense says obviously thats nuts. Common sense left this society long ago. Should a transgender single woman who can not have kids and doesn’t want to adopt be denied this benefit? What if she “identifies” as a pregnant woman? Sense apparently feelings trump biology now seems like she should be given the same opportunity.
Sorry to post off topic. So back to paying people more than the market says they are worth.[/quote]
Which is way I included the smiley face and the “Just kidding” part. Maybe I should have included another emoticon.[/quote]
Oh I knew you were kidding, but sadly things that people were kidding about 10 years ago are now run of the mill normal.
But they are not treating employees equally who are single or have chosen not to have children! Every employee should have the right to take a form of leave for up to a year with Netflix regardless of children.
Just kidding but I’m sure there is some group out there that would argue that point. [/quote]
Common sense says obviously thats nuts. Common sense left this society long ago. Should a transgender single woman who can not have kids and doesn’t want to adopt be denied this benefit? What if she “identifies” as a pregnant woman? Sense apparently feelings trump biology now seems like she should be given the same opportunity.
Sorry to post off topic. So back to paying people more than the market says they are worth.[/quote]
Which is way I included the smiley face and the “Just kidding” part. Maybe I should have included another emoticon.[/quote]
Oh I knew you were kidding, but sadly things that people were kidding about 10 years ago are now run of the mill normal.[/quote] LOL. See the people who are running for political office. Gawd! What an insane society we are.
[quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.
[quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
Car payments, boat payments, mortgages, those things aren’t easily dropped or changed once you adjust to a certain lifestyle.
[quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I think the arguement is the engineer knows their market value and stands a better chance of finding another job at similar rate. I refer back to what I said above, which is if they are being paid above market value the company needs to be transparent with them and I think a far better idea is to reserve a portion of the money and direct it to education and certifications so that in the event of being laid off they stand a better chance of being able to replace their income.
[quote=“NinerWupAss, post:151, topic:29556”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I think the arguement is the engineer knows their market value and stands a better chance of finding another job at similar rate. I refer back to what I said above, which is if they are being paid above market value the company needs to be transparent with them and I think a far better idea is to reserve a portion of the money and direct it to education and certifications so that in the event of being laid off they stand a better chance of being able to replace their income.[/quote]
Gravity has been transparent…but at the same time your employer doesn’t need to make sure you know how much you are worth. That is your own responsibility.
[quote=“sportsman1417, post:152, topic:29556”][quote=“NinerWupAss, post:151, topic:29556”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I think the arguement is the engineer knows their market value and stands a better chance of finding another job at similar rate. I refer back to what I said above, which is if they are being paid above market value the company needs to be transparent with them and I think a far better idea is to reserve a portion of the money and direct it to education and certifications so that in the event of being laid off they stand a better chance of being able to replace their income.[/quote]
Gravity has been transparent…but at the same time your employer doesn’t need to make sure you know how much you are worth. That is your own responsibility.[/quote]
True - but Netflix didn’t have to give a year of timeoff for maternity. All I am saying is IF a company elects to have a pay scale so out of whack with market value they should be clear with their workforce that their salary is greater than their market value so that they can live accordingly. Do they have to? No. SHould they do that? Yes. This may encourage these employees to continue to grow their skills and knowledge. Which is good for both them and the company.
NWA, if you don’t have the God given sense to know 1 year of free maternity is out of whack, I don’t see how you can be helped.
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I hope the $100k a year engineer living in a $400,000 house is not a Niner because that’s just not good financial sense.
[quote=“Ninercentral, post:155, topic:29556”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I hope the $100k a year engineer living in a $400,000 house is not a Niner because that’s just not good financial sense.[/quote]
Or he is living in California and decided to buy a house in the hood.
[quote=“Ninercentral, post:155, topic:29556”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I hope the $100k a year engineer living in a $400,000 house is not a Niner because that’s just not good financial sense.[/quote]
If would depend on how much equity you bring to the house.
clt says blockbuster is giving folks unlimited time off for babies.
[quote=“Ninercentral, post:155, topic:29556”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I hope the $100k a year engineer living in a $400,000 house is not a Niner because that’s just not good financial sense.[/quote]
Not to hijack this thread, but the net monthly pay of a $100k salary maxing out 401k in NC is around $4,600 a month. With 20% down, the monthly mortgage payments are $1,600 a month. Does buying a cheaper home in a crappier neighborhood make more financial sense?
[quote=“Charlotte2002, post:159, topic:29556”][quote=“Ninercentral, post:155, topic:29556”][quote=“Charlotte2002, post:150, topic:29556”][quote=“9erken, post:148, topic:29556”][quote=“CPA_Niner, post:132, topic:29556”]No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I stated if the person increases their standard of living, I did not say they would squander their money. You can increase your standard of living and maintain a budget but if you lose your job and you are unable to find a comparable paying job you may struggle to pay your bills.
You state it’s admirable to pay based on performance and skill set but yet that is not what Gravity is doing, so what are you supporting?[/quote]So then couldn’t the person decrease their standard of living upon loss of job and finding another job paying the lower “market rate”? I think you’d struggle to pay your bills only if you kept having the same bills. Earning more money for a short period also helps people create buffers for when they are fired.[/quote]
The fact is no one’s standard of living is guaranteed.
If a secretary earns $75k, buys a $300k house, gets laid off, then gets a $35k a year job they are in no worse a situation than the $100k a year engineer with a $400k house getting laid off and then having to work at Wal-Mart because of how the State of NC changed their unemployment rules.[/quote]
I hope the $100k a year engineer living in a $400,000 house is not a Niner because that’s just not good financial sense.[/quote]
Not to hijack this thread, but the net monthly pay of a $100k salary maxing out 401k in NC is around $4,600 a month. With 20% down, the monthly mortgage payments are $1,600 a month. Does buying a cheaper home in a crappier neighborhood make more financial sense?[/quote]
And, is there another income in the house?