Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Aug '15 14:06 / 1 edit
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-raises-workers-salary-to-70-000-195132741.html

    When Dan Price, CEO of credit card processing company Gravity Payments, decided to raise his entire staff’s salaries to a minimum of $70,000, skeptics questioned whether the plan could possibly succeed. At a time when executive compensation is at least partly blamed for driving the widening income gap in America, Price emerged as a crusader for economic equality. It all sounded great — raise pay, get happier workers — but could Price, 31, and his company actually afford it?





    The New York Times followed up with Price last week, and it became clear his critics might have been right to scoff. Having reduced his own salary from $1 million to $70,000 in order to finance the salary hikes, Price was now renting out his Seattle home and found himself facing a host of unforeseen complications. Two weeks after his headline-making announcement, he was hit with a $2.2 million breach of contract lawsuit by his brother and former business partner. Then his own workers turned on him.

    Price’s plan called for each worker to earn a minimum of $70,000 per year by 2018 —resulting in a 30% raise for the average worker, who earned $48,000 at the time. For some entry-level staff, the raise would double their pay, while staff whose pay was already near or above the $70,000 threshold would enjoy much lower raises, if any at all. This rubbed some workers the wrong way. Two employees quit in protest, including Price’s financial manager, Maisey McMaster, who told the Times she believed Price “gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump.”

    It was exactly the kind of drama Price’s critics had warned him about — that his mission, which Price said from the beginning was intended to make his workers happier, would instead incite internal discord and eventually blow up in his face. His haters might disagree, but it’s probably too soon to say whether Price’s quest has failed or not. Only two workers out of more than 100 quit, and his business has been adding 350 new clients per month, up from 200, according to the Times. What’s interesting is that when some economists and activists are calling on CEOs to slash their pay and implement wage hikes, Price’s struggle proves that solving the wage gap isn’t quite that simple. True, he never promised to solve income inequality — his primary goal was to give his workers a wage high enough to be able to cope with rising fixed costs like housing. The fact that he reduced his own salary wasn’t to make a statement about out-of-control executive pay, but rather a necessary sacrifice in order to satisfy his new payroll expenses. But Price might actually deserve more credit than he’s gotten for taking on the challenge unapologetically, while other corporate leaders have balked at the notion that they have any role to play in the fair wage game.

    A plan like Price’s can work, says Ken Abosch, compensation practice leader at AON Hewitt, a global HR consultancy firm. However, Price may be learning the hard way that the key lies in its execution.

    Equity vs. Equality

    Too often, business leaders tend to conflate two separate ideas: wage equality and wage equity. Wage equity, a theory developed in the 1960s by psychologist J. Stacy Adams, argues that workers will be happiest when they feel they are paid according to their relative skill and experience level. Wage equality is when managers attempt to institute a one-size-fit all compensation level, without considering the individual talents of each worker. (To be fair, Price has said that employees can earn more than $70,000 based on their skills and talents).

    “The notion of trying to make everybody equal is sort of a flawed concept to begin with,” Abosch says. “That’s what gets them upset … If employees know somebody is more experienced or a better performer and they’re not getting paid based on that.”

    The best way to institute a pay raise while preserving equity is to judge individual workers based on four factors, according to Abosch: training/experience; education level; past performance; and future potential. In the case of a company-wide wage increase, which is generally implemented in stages, workers who rank high on all four categories tend to get salary bumps first. If that means two workers are paid differently for doing the same job, so be it. Where some managers fail is in communicating to workers how their compensation package was determined.

    Timing is everything

    The first step for a manager who wants to close a perceived wage gap among his or her workers is to figure out how wide the gap is. At Gravity Payments, the average employee’s wage will be raised from $48,000 to $70,000 — a 31% bump. Price gave his team three years to make it happen. A wage increase of 10% to 20% typically takes at least three years for a company to implement, Abosch estimates. On such a short timeline, Price might not have enough time to generate the revenue needed. He has already committed to using 75% to 80% of the company’s 2015 revenue to bankroll the first round of raises, but with rising legal costs courtesy of his brother’s lawsuit, it’s unclear how much of his own earnings or company profits will be diverted toward those expenses.

    It’s for reasons like this that most companies don’t rely on revenue alone to fill in wage gaps, Abosch explains. If you give someone a $1,000 raise, a common way to pay for it is to divert funding from employee benefits. For example, a company may lower the match for employee 401(k)s or switch to health care plans with higher deductibles. In an e-mail, Price told Yahoo Finance they are planning no such cuts*, nor will they be raising prices for their clients. He remains committed to his plan, no matter the sacrifices. “[Raising wages to] $70,000/year was the right thing to do,” he said. “As a team we have been proud to sacrifice in service of independent businesses. Any sacrifice this program necessitates will be worth it, and we are determined to make this work.”

    In the meantime, we’ll be waiting — and rooting — for him to succeed.

    *This article has been updated to reflect additional comment from Mr. Price on his plans to fund the pay raises.
  2. 07 Aug '15 14:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-raises-workers-salary-to-70-000-195132741.html

    When Dan Price, CEO of credit card processing company Gravity Payments, decided to raise his entire staff’s salaries to a minimum of $70,000, skeptics questioned whether the plan could possibly succeed. At a time when executive compensation is at least partly blamed for drivin ...[text shortened]... s been updated to reflect additional comment from Mr. Price on his plans to fund the pay raises.
    like many of your threads, you take one issue the "other guys" advocate for and twist it in such a way that is unrecognizable from reality.


    this is not what equal pay is. this is communism (sort of). and surprise, it doesn't work.

    what normal people are advocating these days is equal pay for equal work. this doesn't mean the kid in the mail room makes the same as a CEO, it means programmers or accountants doing the same work, having the same work experience get the same paycheck regardless of gender, skin color, sexual orientation, favourite rock band.


    but then again, you knew that.
  3. 07 Aug '15 14:28
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    like many of your threads, you take one issue the "other guys" advocate for and twist it in such a way that is unrecognizable from reality.


    this is not what equal pay is. this is communism. and surprise, it doesn't work.

    what normal people are advocating these days is equal pay for equal work. this doesn't mean the kid in the mail room makes the sam ...[text shortened]... gender, skin color, sexual orientation, favourite rock band.


    but then again, you knew that.
    Equal pay means different things to different people.

    Or do you have the monopoly on ideas regarding equality?
  4. 07 Aug '15 14:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    Equal pay means different things to different people.

    Or do you have the monopoly on ideas regarding equality?
    when discussing about freedom, it is understood we aren't talking about freedom to murder randomly.

    equal pay has always been short for "equal pay for equal work". when i said that what the guy in the link did is sort of communism i wasn't really correct. nor even marx ever said that everyone should receive the same recompensation for their work. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work" is a well known maxim of marxism. people who work more should in fact get more.


    at most you can say this anecdote deals with wage gap. and it was a stupid solution for that as well.
  5. 07 Aug '15 15:42
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    when discussing about freedom, it is understood we aren't talking about freedom to murder randomly.

    equal pay has always been short for "equal pay for equal work". when i said that what the guy in the link did is sort of communism i wasn't really correct. nor even marx ever said that everyone should receive the same recompensation for their work. "From ...[text shortened]... st you can say this anecdote deals with wage gap. and it was a stupid solution for that as well.
    Who cares what Marx thinks?

    Maybe this guys idea of "fair" differs.

    So what?

    These are the kind of social experiments that are possible in a free society, rather than mandating that everyone think alike by coping someone like Marx.
  6. 07 Aug '15 20:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Who cares what Marx thinks?

    Maybe this guys idea of "fair" differs.

    So what?

    These are the kind of social experiments that are possible in a free society, rather than mandating that everyone think alike by coping someone like Marx.
    aren't you the free thinker.


    this thread is you presenting a failed experiment, naming it equal pay and saying "equal pay bad". from this you will say how socialism equals everyone getting the same salary therefore socialism bad.
  7. 07 Aug '15 23:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    aren't you the free thinker.


    this thread is you presenting a failed experiment, naming it equal pay and saying "equal pay bad". from this you will say how socialism equals everyone getting the same salary therefore socialism bad.
    Failed?

    The experiment continues. Perhaps he will have success in the future

    That begins another question, what constitutes failure? I could easily point to socialism failing around the world. Would it phase your political leanings?

    My guess is it would not.
  8. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    07 Aug '15 23:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    Equal pay means different things to different people.

    Or do you have the monopoly on ideas regarding equality?
    Equal pay for all is a nonsense.
    People are a commodity.
    Commodities have different values.

    However EQUAL PAY for the SAME job is a no-brainer.
  9. 07 Aug '15 23:33 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Equal pay for all is a nonsense.
    People are a commodity.
    Commodities have different values.

    [b]However
    EQUAL PAY for the SAME job is a no-brainer.[/b]
    Again, not everyone would argee.

    Certainly this chap who owns a business does not agree.

    Should there be a "fairness cop" or should he be allowed to do as he sees fit?

    This reminds me that those in the private sector do not make as much as those in the government sector even though they may do the same job.

    Is this fair? Then again, is it fair for private small businesses to compete against the government in terms of pay since they don't have to worry about a bottom line but merely tax and print money to pay their employees?
  10. 08 Aug '15 17:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Again, not everyone would argee.

    Certainly this chap who owns a business does not agree.

    Should there be a "fairness cop" or should he be allowed to do as he sees fit?

    This reminds me that those in the private sector do not make as much as those in the government sector even though they may do the same job.

    Is this fair? Then again, is it fair ...[text shortened]... y don't have to worry about a bottom line but merely tax and print money to pay their employees?
    There does need to be a standard set, at least for public jobs.

    How about no federal employee can make more than 2 times the national average teacher pay? How about no state employee can make any more than twice the average teacher pay in the state?

    Of course these are for the same number of years.

    A newly elected Senator could not make more than 2 times as much as the average first year teacher. This includes all benefits.
  11. 08 Aug '15 20:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    Failed?

    The experiment continues. Perhaps he will have success in the future

    That begins another question, what constitutes failure? I could easily point to socialism failing around the world. Would it phase your political leanings?

    My guess is it would not.
    " I could easily point to socialism failing around the world."
    and i could easily point to socialism being a success.


    one of your many flaws is that you cannot conceive of someone having a complex system of opinions/morals/guidelines etc. one can be a socialist and support a free market economy. one can be a republican and a liberal.
  12. 09 Aug '15 03:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    " I could easily point to socialism failing around the world."
    and i could easily point to socialism being a success.


    one of your many flaws is that you cannot conceive of someone having a complex system of opinions/morals/guidelines etc. one can be a socialist and support a free market economy. one can be a republican and a liberal.
    My only point here is, not everyone sees "success" and "failure" the same.

    I would go even further by saying that people are unable to see success and failure as they are due to their ideological leanings.

    In that respect, the belief in terms of how to run an economy is akin to that of religious fanaticism.

    In the end, no matter how "perfect" a particular economic system is constructed, the internal flaws within human nature dictate that it will be ruined on some level.

    The same can be said of religion.
  13. 09 Aug '15 11:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    My only point here is, not everyone sees "success" and "failure" the same.

    I would go even further by saying that people are unable to see success and failure as they are due to their ideological leanings.

    In that respect, the belief in terms of how to run an economy is akin to that of religious fanaticism.

    In the end, no matter how "perfect" a parti ...[text shortened]... human nature dictate that it will be ruined on some level.

    The same can be said of religion.
    What do your vague observations about human nature have to do with how a private company sets its remuneration policies?
  14. 09 Aug '15 12:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What do your vague observations about human nature have to do with how a private company sets its remuneration policies?
    My only point here is that failure and success are very subjective in nature.

    Additionally, just because something may fail does not mean that it could not succeed at some point.


    As a result, political ideology has less to do with being objective than being subjective.

    What is sad is when people are restrained from practicing their particular political philosophies.