Remember that 70k salary minimum for all *Gravity Payments*

Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
Well they seem to be doing well.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...-more-than-a-year-later/ar-BBvwpI3?li=BBnbfcN

Price said. "I expected us to take a big step backwards."

But that's not what happened. Instead, sales skyrocketed after the announcement, and Gravity Payments continues to take on new clients at a rate it never had before. It reports nearly doubling profits in a year, from $3.5 million in 2014 to $6.5 million in 2015. So Price is re-evaluating the metrics, and still trying to decide what his income should look like
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
from the previous thread about retention

Get yourself more money from where? The CEO is already giving up over 90% of his own salary and earmarking 75 - 80% of the company's profits for this venture. Also, normal raises over this three year period for the majority of employees not getting big raises will probably take up the rest of the company's profits . There simply won't be money for big raises for the majority of employees. We can also assume that the rest of the employees are probably going to get normal raises, since otherwise he'd be pissing off his well-paid (and thus presumably more valuable) employees by making the raises out of their pockets.

That said, if one is employed by this company one is presumably reasonably content with the pay package, else one would have moved on. (Remember, the majority of the employees not getting big raises are already the higher paid employees who by definition are more valuable in the market.) Therefore one has two choices. One can choose to be rankled at not making much more the least valuable employee, even though ones pay relative to society at large has not decreased. Or one can choose to be happy for the less valuable employees, realizing that one has lost nothing in real terms. It's not like your BMW is going to get more expensive because the customer service lady now has one too.

And yes, it IS a choice.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Its crazy what can happen when you take care of your employees.

If you're a simpleton, then yes, that's the simple conclusion you'd draw from it. Taking care of employees is a great thing, but it has to be balanced against a bunch of other things, including profit. For this company, the good PR paid off handsomely and more than paid for the additional salary paid out. Good for them. Every company continuously does the analysis to determine what level of compensation and benefits will produce the highest level of return.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,076
9,554
146
If you're a simpleton, then yes, that's the simple conclusion you'd draw from it. Taking care of employees is a great thing, but it has to be balanced against a bunch of other things, including profit. For this company, the good PR paid off handsomely and more than paid for the additional salary paid out. Good for them. Every company continuously does the analysis to determine what level of compensation and benefits will produce the highest level of return.
They also made up a huge chunk in turnover. Those can represent huge savings when you turn your attrition rate to the companies favor which this move also did.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
They also made up a huge chunk in turnover. Those can represent huge savings when you turn your attrition rate to the companies favor which this move also did.

To be fair this isn't always true. Particularly in sales positions you ultimately want fresh blood but not McDonald's level of turnover
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,076
9,554
146
To be fair this isn't always true. Particularly in sales positions you ultimately want fresh blood but not McDonald's level of turnover

They shows going from a turnover rate of 13.2% to a negative rate of almost 19%. In this case I'd say there is a possibility it helped them quite a bit.

Edit: although I see in 2014 before the pay change they also had negative attrition.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Private individuals can do whatever they want (that's legal) with their money and their companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atreus21

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
If wages had kept up with inflation the medium salary or whatever would be like 90k a year. Imagine what the economy would look like with a middle class that strong? But no. We got stupid trickle down 3rd world country economic purists.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
And look.... it was all free market. The government did not dictate anything. Which is my argument against a national $15 minimum wage. Let local municipalities worry about minimum wages. If $15/hour works for Seattle so be it. If a company wants to pay $70,000 as a minimum salary so be it. It was their decision.

That is the way it is supposed to work. If a state wants to say their minimum wage is $4.25/hour and they wonder why companies cannot find quality employees, let them find out on their own.

Look what Costco pays their employees vs Sam's club. Which customer do you think has a better overall experience? Wow.... all without government intervention.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,855
31,345
146
If you're a simpleton, then yes, that's the simple conclusion you'd draw from it. Taking care of employees is a great thing, but it has to be balanced against a bunch of other things, including profit. For this company, the good PR paid off handsomely and more than paid for the additional salary paid out. Good for them. Every company continuously does the analysis to determine what level of compensation and benefits will produce the highest level of return.

I think it's time to dig up last year's thread and compare this comment to the general context of that thread... :D
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
The guy is running it similar to how an old school business leader would. He gets pride and enjoyment from his employees being paid well and happy. He doesn't get the same satisfaction out of being the top paid guy amongst his peers which is what most do today. I feel things changed sometime around 1985-1990 and senior executives generally stopped caring much about employee's and started caring about salaries that are more than anyone could ever spend. Its not like they need those salaries but its been said by CEOs multiple times, it's a game and they have to earn more than their competitors otherwise they're losing.
 
Last edited:

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
And look.... it was all free market. The government did not dictate anything. Which is my argument against a national $15 minimum wage. Let local municipalities worry about minimum wages. If $15/hour works for Seattle so be it. If a company wants to pay $70,000 as a minimum salary so be it. It was their decision.

That is the way it is supposed to work. If a state wants to say their minimum wage is $4.25/hour and they wonder why companies cannot find quality employees, let them find out on their own.

Look what Costco pays their employees vs Sam's club. Which customer do you think has a better overall experience? Wow.... all without government intervention.
As long as the federal government has services and subsidies for the poor and working poor they have a vested interest in setting the floor on wages. Whether $15/hr is the correct number or not is a different topic but minimum wage is a federal issue.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
if working people are still tapping government services then that is corporate welfare.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
The guy is running it similar to how an old school business leader would. He gets pride and enjoyment from his employees being paid well and happy. He doesn't get the same satisfaction out of being the top paid guy amongst his peers which is what most do today. I feel things changed sometime around 1985-1990 and senior executives generally stopped caring much about employee's and started caring about salaries that are more than anyone could ever spend. Its not like they need those salaries but its been said by CEOs multiple times, it's a game and they have to earn more than their competitors otherwise they're losing.


About the same time they changed the name from personnel to human resources, now you are a resource no different than cattle, this way upper management doesn't have to look at you as a human being when making decisions, but just another company resource to be exploited and tossed to the side when it is determined that its usefulness has been depleted.


http://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-you-should-never-use-the-term-human-resources-again.html

A few years ago, Bob Chapman, CEO of Barry Wehmiller, asked a military general, "How do you train or condition people to kill other people?" His answer was, "We don't. We teach them to take out targets that make bad decisions." Chapman went on to rightly observe, "The military uses language to dehumanize the taking of lives. We do the same thing in business." When we refer to people as "head count", "human capital", and a "human resource" we unintentionally dehumanize them as well.

How Did We Get Here?

In his 1909 groundbreaking paper titled, "The Principles of Scientific Management" Frederick Taylor developed the idea of "task allocation", which broke work down into the simplest, most mundane tasks ("put this nut on that bolt"). This intentionally took all the thinking out of work, turned it into a rote "task", and in the process, fully dehumanized the worker. Charlie Chaplin described the result as, "Machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts."

Slave, Stiff, Cog, Hand...

The very concept of an employee came from the Factory System period of 1850-1970, which not so subtly turned employees into "stuff". The factory system needed people to run the machines, but the less human they acted and the more they resembled machines, the better the system worked. We've left the machines behind, but it's still convenient to see people as "stuff", as extensions of machines. When you search the thesaurus for synonyms for "employee", some of the more disturbing synonyms listed are things like "slave", "cog", "hand", "hired gun", "desk jockey", "hireling", and "working stiff." What we call people at work doesn't have a respectable history. With that legacy in hand, it's very easy to see how we got here.

Things That Dehumanize

A common definition of racism is, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone on the belief that one's own race is superior." When we refer to people at work as "head count", "cogs", "work force", "capital", or as a "resource", we conveniently reduce them to something inferior and less human. We did this to people for centuries to enslave them. Doing it to people to dehumanize them at work is nowhere near as egregious, but it is built on the same principles of false superiority and inferiority. If we don't have to see people as fully human, it makes it easier to make decisions that negatively impact them.

There are a number of ways we refer to people at work that are deconstructive. All of them should be as off-limits as any racial slur, not because they are on the same level, but because both are dehumanizing. Here are some of the worst:

Head count

Work force

Human capital

...And the most subtle and insidious of all, "human resources", which reduces people to the level of a chair, computer, forklift, or other business resource.

All of these terms make it easier to see people as "cogs in a wheel", allowing us to make decisions without as much regard for the individual human beings involved.

As with most legacy terminology, we don't think about the roots of such terms and usually don't mean to use them pejoratively. But words are powerful and communicate; or with repetition, actually determine what we really believe. So let's ban terms like these that make people seem less human, and that are worn out in exhaustion in our time. We can do better.

If you have a Human Resources department, it's time to change the name to something that emphasizes humanity and deemphasizes people as a resource. The very existence of such a department might be a related problem we can talk about in another post.

I'm not human capital, or a human resource. I'm a human being. Going forward, please refer to me that way at work.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
from the previous thread about retention
It would be interesting to know if the more highly paid employees did get those "big raises" now that the company has some more profit.

To be fair this isn't always true. Particularly in sales positions you ultimately want fresh blood but not McDonald's level of turnover
To an extent, sure. A company needs new ideas. But mostly, a company needs dedicated, hard-working, hungry employees. That can be new employees eager to show what they can do, make their mark, advance their careers. But it can also be employees who really value their jobs, feel appreciated, and want to keep those jobs and see their company prosper. Given a lot of the latter, one might not need so many of the former.

Fuck the rich. They fucked everyone else. Now its time we fuck them.
You forget that to a lot of people, you ARE the rich that need to be fucked.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,510
17,005
136
If you're a simpleton, then yes, that's the simple conclusion you'd draw from it. Taking care of employees is a great thing, but it has to be balanced against a bunch of other things, including profit. For this company, the good PR paid off handsomely and more than paid for the additional salary paid out. Good for them. Every company continuously does the analysis to determine what level of compensation and benefits will produce the highest level of return.

To a simpleton, a straw man is the best way to make a point.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
It would be interesting to know if the more highly paid employees did get those "big raises" now that the company has some more profit.


To an extent, sure. A company needs new ideas. But mostly, a company needs dedicated, hard-working, hungry employees. That can be new employees eager to show what they can do, make their mark, advance their careers. But it can also be employees who really value their jobs, feel appreciated, and want to keep those jobs and see their company prosper. Given a lot of the latter, one might not need so many of the former.


You forget that to a lot of people, you ARE the rich that need to be fucked.

Yeah. The .01% and the bottom 90% want what I have.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
You get what you pay for. Higher wages lets you pick the best people.

True, but that doesn't mean you should pay some arbitrary high number just because. You have to figure out what the right balance is that gets you the best talent without paying too much for it. You can't simply pay more than everyone else without also figuring out how to pay for that additional pay. McDonalds could also get the best of the best if they decide to pay $150k per year, but that's not going to help them make a profit. This is nothing new, every organization deals with this same issue and has forever.