"Socialist" Pay Structure downs Seattle Company

Started by psmith819929 pages
psmith81992 Restricted

honest day's pay for a honest day's work

Sure, if you ignore the whole issue with "lets pay our employees $70k regardless of skill and experience" thing.

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure, if you ignore the whole issue with "lets pay our employees $70k regardless of skill and experience" thing.
What is the problem with that if you can afford it?

psmith81992 Restricted
Originally posted by Newjak
What is the problem with that if you can afford it?

You're seriously asking me what the problem is with someone who lacks your experience and skill making as much as you? Really? You don't get to determine what one can afford either.

Bardock42 Junior Member
Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure, if you ignore the whole issue with "lets pay our employees $70k regardless of skill and experience" thing.

Lets pay them a minimum of 70k....some earn more than that

He's just making it the way it was 50 years ago. That people that work full time can be confident in starting a family, that they can pay off their student loans, that they can build up some wealth of their own...

psmith81992 Restricted

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets pay them a [b]minimum of 70k....some earn more than that

He's just making it the way it was 50 years ago. That people that work full time can be confident in starting a family, that they can pay off their student loans, that they can build up some wealth of their own... [/B]

1. At the expense of what exactly? As stated, there were already fights between more qualified people earning the same as their inferiors. Your rebuttal is just an appeal to emotions. And really, making it like it was 50 years ago? What exactly was 50 years ago? A stronger dollar, minimal price inflation, etc?

Bardock42 Junior Member

1. At the expense of the owners salary and profits.
2. If the people that previously earned more are unhappy they can quit, which a few did.
3. The answer is less income inequality

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're seriously asking me what the problem is with someone who lacks your experience and skill making as much as you? Really? You don't get to determine what one can afford either.
That's not what you said though. You said what is the problem with paying an employee regardless of skill and experience.

There were employees that were still making more.

Time-Immemorial Restricted

Originally posted by Newjak
That's not what you said though. You said what is the problem with paying an employee regardless of skill and experience.

There were employees that were still making more.

You clearly missed the point, again.

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You clearly missed the point, again.
What's the point again?

StyleTime Senior Member

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm glad you backed this up, lol.

We did. It's called capitalism which, through all of its faults, is still infinitely better.


Wait, the individual achievement part? I figured that was obvious if you weren't arguing against a caricature of socialism. If you want an example we can look at public schools, one of the biggest socialist institutions in the country. Students may still "stand out" through things like grades, sports, or other extra curriculars. These assist in getting into better schools and, hopefully, better jobs. The socialist nature of the institution attempts to give everyone the same opportunity to do so, by having everyone contribute.

We aren't strictly capitalist, so....no.

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Psmith, I think you might be looking the wrong way at this. I don't think the takeaway from this story should be "wow, socialism sure is bad" but "this guy wanted to give his workers a decent living but went about it in a hamfisted way--how can we learn from this and strive for his goals more realistically and with more care?"

If you gave me a choice between working in a company where everyone was paid a decent wage regardless of their performance and a company where you had to work 10 years before you even received payment that would let you live comfortably, I'd choose the first one any day. But that's a false choice because we don't need one or the other. It shouldn't be difficult for every major company in America to offer comfortable wages to their entry level workers while still incentivizing good performance.

That high wages are the enemy of business growth is a lie concocted by corporations like Walmart and McDonalds to protect their exploitative business models. As Digi pointed out, Costco is booming and they pay rather high wages to their employees.

psmith81992 Restricted

Psmith, I think you might be looking the wrong way at this. I don't think the takeaway from this story should be "wow, socialism sure is bad" but "this guy wanted to give his workers a decent living but went about it in a hamfisted way--how can we learn from this and strive for his goals more realistically and with more care?"

Noble intentions and pitiful execution. Getting rid of income inequality just for inequality sake is ignorant. There are those who deserve to make more than others. What he did was essentially allow the less talented to piggy back off the more talented. There's always going to be better and worse. It's like giving participation trophies at a soccer tournament instead of 1st and 2nd place. Competition breeds ingenuity, innovation, etc.

If you gave me a choice between working in a company where everyone was paid a decent wage regardless of their performance and a company where you had to work 10 years before you even received payment that would let you live comfortably, I'd choose the first one any day.

When you phrase it like that with 2 opposite extremes of the same spectrum, fine. But if I had a choice of working at a place that would pay me the same for my 5 year experience and a new employee, as opposed to a normal place with proper advancement, I would choose door #2 any day.
That high wages are the enemy of business growth is a lie concocted by corporations like Walmart and McDonalds to protect their exploitative business models. As Digi pointed out, Costco is booming and they pay rather high wages to their employees.

Legitimate minimum wages and "equal pay" are not the same thing though.

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

But that's the thing, "equal pay" for all positions regardless of experience or performance is basically a non-concept. No one seriously advocates it except in extreme cases, but it serves as a strawman for those who have an interest to avoid increasing minimum wage or who are simply viscerally opposed to anything resembling socialism such that they'll always side with the needs and welfare of the management over that of the workers.

Also, no one disagrees that competition leads to harder work, but there should be a reasonable baseline. You shouldn't have to work your ass off on overtime and forgo vacation just to make ends meet, but that's exactly what lots of American workers have to do because of cutthroat business practices.

dadudemon Senior Member
Originally posted by Digi
Take Costco. It pays its employees a lot, comparatively speaking. After a year doing ANYTHING there, you make something like $19/hr., give or take.

Damn...I was going to use Costco as an example.

Anyway, nice post. 👆

psmith81992 Restricted

Also, no one disagrees that competition leads to harder work, but there should be a reasonable baseline. You shouldn't have to work your ass off on overtime and forgo vacation just to make ends meet, but that's exactly what lots of American workers have to do because of cutthroat business practices.

Unskilled labor pays what it pays. If you have to work your ass off on overtime and forego vacations, you're in the wrong job. While I advocate a higher minimum wage, I also advocate it to be partially performance based. Nobody "deserves" to make money. You have to earn money. I know that's not what you are saying but it comes off like that when you're saying "you shouldn't have to work overtime and forego vacations." Like you said, there's a reasonable baseline but neither one of are approaching that.

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by psmith81992
Unskilled labor pays what it pays. If you have to work your ass off on overtime and forego vacations, you're in the wrong job. While I advocate a higher minimum wage, I also advocate it to be partially performance based. Nobody "deserves" to make money. You have to earn money. I know that's not what you are saying but it comes off like that when you're saying "you shouldn't have to work overtime and forego vacations." Like you said, there's a reasonable baseline but neither one of are approaching that.
What should unskilled labor get paid?

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Originally posted by psmith81992
Unskilled labor pays what it pays. If you have to work your ass off on overtime and forego vacations, you're in the wrong job. While I advocate a higher minimum wage, I also advocate it to be partially performance based. Nobody "deserves" to make money. You have to earn money. I know that's not what you are saying but it comes off like that when you're saying "you shouldn't have to work overtime and forego vacations." Like you said, there's a reasonable baseline but neither one of are approaching that.

"You're in the wrong job," as if the average worker is spoiled for choice? What if every potential job pays peanuts and has shit for benefits? This is an underlying problem with the American economy--it simply doesn't care about what you call "unskilled labor" and pretends it isn't a problem as long as *some people* are making decent money.

Yes, you have to earn money, but the amount of money you earn should be enough to live off of without working obscene hours.

psmith81992 Restricted

But then you get into the issue of how much people need? What if your average joe wants marble counter tops and a pool? What is "reasonable"?

Lek Kuen Ti Lun
Originally posted by psmith81992
But then you get into the issue of how much people need? What if your average joe wants marble counter tops and a pool? What is "reasonable"?

I'm not sure what a good wage is, but I know the whole 7.50 some places have (my area changed it literally like 3 months ago) is much to low. And makes it almost impossible to even afford the means to attempt to get better jobs for the kind of people who had no options in their area.

Newjak I am Beyond Power

Originally posted by psmith81992
But then you get into the issue of how much people need? What if your average joe wants marble counter tops and a pool? What is "reasonable"?
I don't think most people are advocating a minimum wage that allows people to buy ridiculous luxury items like marble counter tops or gold toilets regularly.

It seems like an extreme point to make on the subject to try and discourage the idea of a living wage.