Idiot that decided to pay all employees 70K a year? Reality has its say

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Remember the idiot that decided to pay every employee 70K a year, to combat income inequality? Seems reality has set in. What a female dog reality can be. Bet we won't hear any many follow up news stories about this.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-with-backlash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=2&referrer=

[vaskidmark]

My sympathy - has anybody seen my sympathy?  I know it was here because I used it once.

stay safe.

[Andiron]

That's some tasty schadenfreude to go with my morning coffee. 

[RocketMan]

His brother, 30% minority owner of the company, is suing him because of this.  Heh...

[Boomhauer]

This would not have happened if Mr. Emotional had given normal raises instead of equalizing salary...

[dogmush]

When this happened all my lefty friends were heralding it as great.

I asked: "Why should everyone get the same pay?  Does everyone do the same work?"

I have yet to get a realistic answer.

[MillCreek]

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/

It is certainly getting media attention in Seattle, where the company is located.

[Ben]

“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he complained. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

Which is why a $15 (or any other arbitrarily set "living wage") won't work. When people who went to school, apprenticeships, and otherwise worked long and hard to advance, suddenly see the gap between their salary and the salaries of the unskilled become narrow, they're going to want more money themselves. Eventually it trickles down to higher costs for everything and the "income equality" goes away.

[Tallpine]

Remember the idiot that decided to pay every employee 70K a year, to combat income inequality?...

Twentieth Century Motor Company

[White Horseradish]

I don't get it.

The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries?  It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?

[SADShooter]

My sympathy - has anybody seen my sympathy?  I know it was here because I used it once.

stay safe.

On the shelf between the jars of s@!t and syphilis.

I don't get it.

The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries?  It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?

You are correct. It is his choice. However, it illustrates the fallacy of making economic or market decisions based on emotion or desire for social justice. The real issue is people who want to do this to all of us by governmental fiat.

"We can evade reality, but we cannot escape the consequences of evading reality." Ayn Rand

[Hawkmoon]

“Income inequality has been racing in the wrong direction,” he said. “I want to fight for the idea that if someone is intelligent, hard-working and does a good job, then they are entitled to live a middle-class lifestyle.”

That pretty much sums up the problem, right there.

The reaction to his salary pledge has led him to think that if his business continues to prosper, his actions could have far-reaching consequences. “The cause has expanded,” he said. “Whether I like it or not, the stakes are higher.”

"The cause"? What cause? He's a businessman -- his "cause" (especially when there are other people who own significant shares in his company) is to make money for his company. Paying a fair wage to his workers is proper, but paying far more than what some of the jobs are worth is neither "fair" nor proper nor good business. The fact that he could afford to boost salaries that much without raising his prices just tells me that he was gouging on his prices. (Not that he's alone in that.)

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.

Huh? 22 years old and he "finally" feels secure enough to start a family? Most people aren't even married at 22.

This whole thing needs a serious reality check.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't get it.

The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries?  It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?

I know. Real weird that people have opinions.

[TommyGunn]

I know. Real weird that people have opinions. PEOPLE HAVE SOME REAL WEIRD IDEAS.

FIFY. 

[bedlamite]

I know. Real weird that people have opinions. PEOPLE HAVE SOME REAL are WEIRD IDEAS.

FIFY. 

FTFY.

[Ben]

I don't get it.

The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries?  It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?

As SAD said, I don't think anyone here is saying he shouldn't do it as a private businessman. I think most of us are saying that 1) We don't want to see it going on at the point of a .gov gun, and 2) That while it might work out for him (though indications are it won't), or for a smaller sampling of millionaires / billionaires that choose to do something like this, there is no way it can work if it is mandated or widespread. Most businesses would simply go under, or else you'll be paying $20 for a hamburger.

If I'm an engineer with a Master's and ten years of experience making $70K, and suddenly the stockroom kid stacking boxes is making $70K, I'm going to be wondering what the point of it all is. Seems like a good reason to go Galt.

[White Horseradish]

You are correct. It is his choice. However, it illustrates the fallacy of making economic or market decisions based on emotion or desire for social justice.

Would that be all those people who decided to withdraw their business from his company because they think he's a socialist? 

The real issue is people who want to do this to all of us by governmental fiat.

Right. Which isn't this guy. So why is he getting all the hate?

As SAD said, I don't think anyone here is saying he shouldn't do it as a private businessman. I think most of us are saying that 1) We don't want to see it going on at the point of a .gov gun, and 2) That while it might work out for him (though indications are it won't), or for a smaller sampling of millionaires / billionaires that choose to do something like this, there is no way it can work if it is mandated or widespread.

I'm hoping nobody here is writing the guy hate mail. The hate I'm talking about is the people in the article.

I didn't see this guy advocating any such thing be government enforced. He did something he wanted to do in his business. Now he has problems, but the problems seem to be more related to people's emotional reactions to his decision rather than anything to do with business and numbers. The only direct negative consequence is the quitting of a couple of people. Everything else is just people giving him *expletive deleted*it because they disagree. I am just puzzled why I am not seeing the rational calculating capitalism I've heard so much about. Instead I see some kind of daytime TV performance with men in suits flailing about instead of housewives in curlers. "Waaaaaaahhh, socialism!"

[BlueStarLizzard]

Would that be all those people who decided to withdraw their business from his company because they think he's a socialist? 
 Right. Which isn't this guy. So why is he getting all the hate?
I'm hoping nobody here is writing the guy hate mail. The hate I'm talking about is the people in the article.

I didn't see this guy advocating any such thing be government enforced. He did something he wanted to do in his business. Now he has problems, but the problems seem to be more related to people's emotional reactions to his decision rather than anything to do with business and numbers. The only direct negative consequence is the quitting of a couple of people. Everything else is just people giving him *expletive deleted*it because they disagree. I am just puzzled why I am not seeing the rational calculating capitalism I've heard so much about. Instead I see some kind of daytime TV performance with men in suits flailing about instead of housewives in curlers. "Waaaaaaahhh, socialism!"

People often choose to do business or not to do business with places based on the perceived politics of the business owner all the time. Which is why a business owner making a political statement or acting in a manner that could be perceived as such often affects the business. If someone has the accepted or admired statement, they often get more business. If someone has one that is not accepted, they lose business. Some have an opinion so controversial that they both loose and gain business.
Look at the gay wedding cake debacials and Chickfila. Capatilaism has never been devoid of political statement or social influence. I don't know why you think it would (or it should be).

Secondly, I don't think anyone here has said that this business owner should not be allowed to do what ever he damn well pleases. I think there are some chuckles over the predicted manner in which this guys brilliant idea backfired.
Much of that backfiring is also directly related to business, not political concept, as well. He has highly qualified individuals quiting because they see themselves getting unfair treatment. He has under qualified individuals questioning their worth and stressing out over job performance.

The guy made what is now looking like a really crappy move in regards to his business after being lauded by the liberal agenda as some supposed equality icon. I think hate is a strong word, but deserving of some ridicule from the general public? Yeah, I think he's earned it.

[Ben]

Another article, less NY Timesy:

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/ceo-who-boosted-salaries-to-a-70000-minimum-now-renting-house-to-make-ends-meet/

Also, a $3 million net worth is not that much in his situation, given that it's net worth, and not annual income. 20 employees * $70K/yr is already half his net worth.

[De Selby]

Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in?  Yeah, silly move alright.

This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability.  Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.

[zxcvbob]

Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in?  Yeah, silly move alright.

This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability.  Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.

I think that's why Republicans only give lip-service to being tough on border control and avoid doing anything effective to keep illegals out.  Democrat love illegals for the voter fraud, Republicans love illegals because they can exploit them to keep wages depressed.

Not all jobs are worth $35 an hour.  If you pay the uneducated and unskilled workers too much, you will demotivate the skilled workers and they will go somewhere else.  But there's an example of this in the Bible; Matthew chapter 20.  Jesus sides with the overly-generous employer who paid everyone what they needed whether they earned it or not, so I would be careful criticizing Mr Price too much.

[Boomhauer]

Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in?  Yeah, silly move alright.

This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability.  Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.

.

[Andiron]

Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in?  Yeah, silly move alright.

This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability.  Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.

You would chose to read it that way.   Gotta fit the narrative.

I'd not do business with that company on the simple basis of the management being complete fools.  No small wonder the brother is suing.

[SADShooter]

Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in?  Yeah, silly move alright.

This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability.  Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.

It indicates nothing of the kind. No, people do not deserve financial stability. They do deserve the opportunity to create such stability for themselves through skill development and work.

His having more business does not alter the fact of his increased cost of labor. People who pay more for his service will have less to spend elsewhere, and people he might have employed will not work because his labor cost will not allow it. There is no perpetual motion machine free lunch, unless perhaps you are a government printing worthless money and the note doesn't come due until after you're dead.

[Tallpine]

Job should pay what the job is worth.  He can get the job, but can he do the job?     

Back when I had a "business" and occasionally hired someone to help, I paid what I thought would be a reasonable rate for what the job should be worth - hopefully just a bit on the generous side.  Either he (sorry, girls  ) could do it or not.  It wasn't worth it to me to pay a little less for somebody that didn't get the job done; in that case it would just have been better to do it myself.

I once had to fire an equipment contractor in the latter case: somehow he had the idea that I was paying him to get the same one load a day that I could do all by myself