USPOL July: Obeying the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie since 1865

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL July: Obeying the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie since 1865

«‹›198 »

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Boon posted:

Compensation, monetary or otherwise, is fundamental to humans and success... since like civilization has been a thing. The crazy thing is that we're not even arguing about what he did as being a good or bad thing or certain people being conceited, we're arguing about the psychology of it.

yeah but this guy isn't worried about his personal compensation, he's worried about the compensation his inferior coworkers get as compensation here is standing in as a metric of worthfulness, which is asinine. he's not worried about being rewarded for his effort, he's worried that he's being rewarded unfairly because other people are being rewarded unfairly

being jealous of other people who you don't like is not a sound or rational basis for wage policy but it's why people piss all over fast food workers just to have someone to piss on. just because so much of our society is fueled by spite doesn't mean we should excuse or accept that

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 11:49

Ditocoaf: Jun 1, 2011

Luigi Thirty posted:

I don't know if we still have a minimum wage thread, but here's what people think about that company that gave everyone a flat raise to $70,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-with-backlash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?rref=business

Eat the rich imo.

God, nothing has made me this depressed in ages.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:52

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

The idea that more experience, education, or work effort should command a higher wage does not seem particularly irrational. Indeed most labor unions use at least one of these criteria when establishing wage schedules. Mine uses all three.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:56

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

im a ski bum posted:

I'm in Ohio and for the last week or so I've seen a touchy-feely commercial about how great being a Republican is. The ad is slickly produced and has been airing during network prime time. It says paid for by Opportunity New Media, llc. Anyone else seen this or know who's funding it?

I hope it's the same people funding the "Iran is terrorists and Obama hates you" commercials

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:58

LunarShadow: Aug 15, 2013

chitoryu12 posted:

It's an outdated line of thinking that was taught to just about everyone in the last few decades. Minimum wage started as a way to legally keep people from getting paid too little to survive, and it devolved into being derided as "Just for teens making spending money and people too stupid to be successful" and allowed to decrease in value until people today are forced to work multiple minimum wage jobs to survive. All over the country, you're told that making minimum wage is punishment for not being smart or talented or determined enough to get a good college degree and a successful job. Remember how often you were asked in high school "Do you want to be stuck flipping burgers all your life?" as a threat to keep you from slacking off?

If you get told often enough that how much money you make is entirely dependent on your own value as a person, you start to believe it.

I tend to have a great comeback for this with my personal situation. I have a job that requires a college degree that pays minimum wage (or near enough to not make a difference). I am a substitute teacher. Tends to shut all but the biggest assholes right the gently caress up..

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:01

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

JeffersonClay posted:

The idea that more experience, education, or work effort should command a higher wage does not seem particularly irrational. Indeed most labor unions use at least one of these criteria when establishing wage schedules. Mine uses all three.

but this isn't what people are getting pissy about, people are getting pissy because everyone starts at the same high wage. it's messing with the idea that in order to earn enough money to live comfortably you have to scrape and grovel like an apprentice for a while until you prove you're worthy of living a comfortable life which is just a way of proving to other people that you've earned your bread, which is pretty loving dumb when we live in the most prosperous and materially wealthy era in human history

so the issue is not that a journeyman makes twice what an apprentice does. the problem is that suddenly the apprentice is making $40 an hour, same as they journeyman, who still has the potential to make even more and probably will but is getting butthurt because someone of inferior job status is getting compensated too generously

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:09

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

quote:

Several employees who stayed, while exhilarated by the raises, say they now feel a lot of pressure. �Am I doing my job well enough to deserve this?� said Stephanie Brooks, 23, who joined Gravity as an administrative assistant two months before the wage increase. �I didn�t earn it.�

That is a natural reaction. You seem to think that people "should" be happy and content when they're equal and if they're not they're brainwashed or conceipted, but that's not the case. For gently caress's sake a central tenant of socialism is that an individuals compensation is reflective of one's contribution. The people in the article aren't upset that other's wages have been increased, they're upset that their wage increases are not reflective of their work. A blanket 100% across the board hike would have been accepted entirely differently than the blanket $70,000 minimum because it effects lower income worker with low responsibility at a much greater rate than those with higher income with greater responsibility. It's out of sync.

Furthermore, wage increases and salary level are do not equate to happiness. I'll post the article from the Harvard Business Review again: https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv

quote:

How much should people earn? Even if resources were unlimited, it would be difficult to stipulate your ideal salary. Intuitively, one would think that higher pay should produce better results, but scientific evidence indicates that the link between compensation, motivation and performance is much more complex. In fact, research suggests that even if we let people decide how much they should earn, they would probably not enjoy their job more.

Even those who highlight the motivational effects of money accept that pay alone is not sufficient. The basic questions are: Does money make our jobs more enjoyable? Or can higher salaries actually demotivate us?

Let�s start with the first: does money engage us? The most compelling answer to this question is a meta-analysis by Tim Judge and colleagues. The authors reviewed 120 years of research to synthesize the findings from 92 quantitative studies. The combined dataset included over 15,000 individuals and 115 correlation coefficients.

The results indicate that the association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak. The reported correlation (r = .14) indicates that there is less than 2% overlap between pay and job satisfaction levels. Furthermore, the correlation between pay and pay satisfaction was only marginally higher (r = .22 or 4.8% overlap), indicating that people�s satisfaction with their salary is mostly independent of their actual salary.

In addition, a cross-cultural comparison revealed that the relationship of pay with both job and pay satisfaction is pretty much the same everywhere (for example, there are no significant differences between the U.S., India, Australia, Britain, and Taiwan).

A similar pattern of results emerged when the authors carried out group-level (or between-sample) comparisons. In their words: �Employees earning salaries in the top half of our data range reported similar levels of job satisfaction to those employees earning salaries in the bottom-half of our data range� (p.162). This is consistent with Gallup�s engagement research, which reports no significant difference in employee engagement by pay level. Gallup�s findings are based on 1.4 million employees from 192 organizations across 49 industries and 34 nations.

These results have important implications for management: if we want an engaged workforce, money is clearly not the answer. In fact, if we want employees to be happy with their pay, money is not the answer. In a nutshell: money does not buy engagement.

But that doesn�t answer the question: does money actually demotivate? Some have argued it does, that there is a natural tension between extrinsic and intrinsic motives, and that financial rewards can ultimately depress or �crowd out� intrinsic goals (e.g., enjoyment, sheer curiosity, learning or personal challenge).

Despite the overwhelming number of laboratory experiments carried out to evaluate this argument � known as the overjustification effect � there is still no consensus about the degree to which higher pay may demotivate. However, two articles deserve particular consideration.

The first is a classic meta-analysis by Edward Deci and colleagues. The authors synthesized the results from 128 controlled experiments. The results highlighted consistent negative effects of incentives � from marshmallows to dollars � on intrinsic motivation. These effects were particularly strong when the tasks were interesting or enjoyable rather than boring or meaningless.

More specifically, for every standard deviation increase in reward, intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks decreases by about 25%. When rewards are tangible and foreseeable (if subjects know in advance how much extra money they will receive) intrinsic motivation decreases by 36%. (Importantly, some have argued that for uninteresting tasks extrinsic rewards � like money � actually increase motivation. See, for instance, a meta-analysis by Judy Cameron and colleagues.) Deci et al�s conclusion was that �strategies that focus primarily on the use of extrinsic rewards do, indeed, run a serious risk of diminishing rather than promoting intrinsic motivation� (p. 659).

The second article is a recent study by Yoon Jik Cho and James Perry. The authors analyzed real-world data from a representative sample of over 200,000 U.S. public sector employees. The results showed that employee engagement levels were three times more strongly related to intrinsic than extrinsic motives, but that both motives tend to cancel each other out. In other words, when employees have little interest in external rewards, their intrinsic motivation has a substantial positive effect on their engagement levels. However, when employees are focused on external rewards, the effects of intrinsic motives on engagement are significantly diminished. This means that employees who are intrinsically motivated are three times more engaged than employees who are extrinsically motivated (such as by money). Quite simply, you�re more likely to like your job if you focus on the work itself, and less likely to enjoy it if you�re focused on money. This finding was true even at low salary levels (remember, as per Gallup and Judge et al, there�s no correlation between engagement and salary levels). Now, a skeptic might ask if this is just a correlation showing that people who don�t like their jobs have nothing to think about other than the money. This is hard to test. Yes, that could be one reason; another could be that people who focus too much on money are preventing themselves from enjoying their jobs.

This research also begs the question: Is this a money-focused, engagement-eroding mindset one that employees can change? Or is does it reflect an innate mindset � some people happen to be more focused on extrinsic rewards, while others are more focused on the task itself? We don�t know. But my guess is that which you�re focused on depends mostly on the match between your interests and skills and the tasks you�ve been given. And in theory, your mindset should be malleable � the brain is remarkably plastic. We can try to teach people that if they focus on the task itself and try to identify positive aspects of the process, they will enjoy it more than if they are just focused on the consequences (rewards) of performing the task. The analogy here is that it�s much more motivating to go for a run because it�s fun than because I must get fit or lose some weight.

Intrinsic motivation is also a stronger predictor of job performance than extrinsic motivation � so it is feasible to expect higher financial rewards to inhibit not only intrinsic motivation, but also job performance. The more people focus on their salaries, the less they will focus on satisfying their intellectual curiosity, learning new skills, or having fun, and those are the very things that make people perform best.

The fact that there is little evidence to show that money motivates us, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that it actually demotivates us, supports the idea that that there may be hidden costs associated with rewards. Of course, that doesn�t mean that we should work for free. We all need to pay our bills and provide for our families � but once these basic needs are covered the psychological benefits of money are questionable. In a widely cited paper, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton reported that, in the U.S., emotional well-being levels increase with salary levels up to a salary of $75,000 � but that they plateau afterwards. Or, as Arnold Schwarzenegger once stated: �Money doesn�t make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million.�

But one size does not fit all. Our relationship to money is highly idiosyncratic. Indeed, in the era of personalization, when most things can now be customized to fit our needs � from social media feeds to potential dates, to online shopping displays and playlists � it is somewhat surprising that compensation systems are still based on the premise that what works for some people will also work for everyone else.

Other than its functional exchange value, pay is a psychological symbol, and the meaning of money is largely subjective. For example, there are marked individual differences in people�s tendency to think or worry about money, and different people value money for different reasons (e.g., as a means to power, freedom, security, or love). If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value � and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Research shows that different values are differentially linked to engagement. For example, income goals based on the pursuit of power, narcissism, or overcoming self-doubt are less rewarding and effective than income goals based on the pursuit of security, family support, and leisure time. Perhaps it is time to compensate people not only according to what they know or do, but also for what they want.

Finally, other research shows that employees� personalities are much better predictors of engagement than their salaries. The most compelling study in this area is a large meta-analytic review of 25,000 participants, where personality determined 40% of the variability in ratings of job satisfaction. The more emotionally stable, extraverted, agreeable or conscientious people are, the more they tend to like their jobs (irrespective of their salaries). But the personality of employees� is not the most important determinant of their engagement levels. In fact, the biggest organizational cause of disengagement is incompetent leadership. Thus, as a manager, it�s your personality that will have a significant impact on whether your employees are engaged at work, or not.

There is a lot in that article to coincide with Mr. Price's pay bump. However, the way he approaches the VERY complex issue of managing his labor force is like a drunkard with a hammer rather than a surgeon with a scalpel. I'm not sure why that is even an argument.

Boon fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 31, 2015

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:10

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Boon posted:

There is a lot in that article to coincide with Mr. Price's pay bump. However, the way he approaches the VERY complex issue of managing his labor force is like a drunkard with a hammer rather than a surgeon with a scalpel. I'm not sure why that is even an argument.

I feel like I need to point this out from the HBR article, in case you skimmed over it:

quote:

We all need to pay our bills and provide for our families � but once these basic needs are covered the psychological benefits of money are questionable. In a widely cited paper, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton reported that, in the U.S., emotional well-being levels increase with salary levels up to a salary of $75,000 � but that they plateau afterwards.

The salaries in question here are, at the very best, on the edge of what's considered "too much." No one is being shot up into 1%er territory; we're talking about wages that are basically at the highish end of the middle class. Moreover, most of the employees being quoted in the article are complaining about effects that don't actually exist. Pay, as you point out, isn't a primary motivator for work - so why are these people so concerned that other people in the company will suddenly become demotivated when they don't have to bust their asses for a shot at a raise?

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:23

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Yes I know, I think that the level he took it too is awesome. The problem, as I elaborated on, is that the raise was not equitable which is a tenant in basically every human system, including capitalism and socialism. The concerns expressed are centered around that principle. The article states that money is not a motivator, however, it does delve into money being destructive to actual motivators if it becomes the focus. That is what occurred here.

At the end of the day, it may be great. If it fails, we'll most likely never hear of it again. The question of what someone's labor is worth is obviously very difficult probably impossible to define given the variables involved. However, that's not the discussion we're having here.

Boon fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 31, 2015

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:28

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Accretionist posted:

Yeup. Culture supersedes our vestigial primate instinct to go Arts & Crafts on people who piss us off, so too can it supersede the instinct to obsess over dominance hierarchies and making GBS threads all over ourselves and others like a bunch of dumbfucks.

That article reminds me of a coworker I had at a gas station with $40k in student debt, a general biology degree he wasn't using, a below cost-of-living wage of ~$9.50/hr and a stated opposition to a minimum wage increase to $10. He knew he'd additionally get a raise, but didn't think it was acceptable that new hires make anywhere near him. A self-oppressing poor person, more concerned with place/station than well-being.

He still works there and I now make a lot more than does. Maybe I could overawe him with my aristocratic bearing and command he change his attitude?

I had pretty good success at overcoming this with one of the data entry kids I work with who is probably paid about $12/hour and resented other people making as much as him for less work. I turned it around and started asking if an hour of his labor was worth $15. We discussed what $15 would buy (a couple shots and a couple beers at the bar down the street, for example). After that, he pretty quickly agreed that an hour of pretty much anyone's time is worth at least what $15 can buy. Anecdotal, but since it'll be on the ballot in Oregon in 2016, I'm trying to help shift the soft opposition.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:33

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

I respect fast-food workers.

Sometimes when you go into a Taco Bell or somesuch, you see that there's one gal working the front register, the drive-thru window and the cooking stations simultaneously.

That could be a hard job and, if pay were based on difficulty/worthiness versus the caprices of the market, would probably get her paid more than most white-collars.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:34

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Boon posted:

Yes I know, I think that the level he took it too is awesome. The problem, as I elaborated on, is that the raise was not equitable which is a tenant in basically every human system, including capitalism and socialism. The concerns expressed are centered around that principle. The article states that money is not a motivator, however, it does delve into money being destructive to actual motivators if it becomes the focus. That is what occurred here.

At the end of the day, it may be great. If it fails, we'll most likely never hear of it again. The question of what someone's labor is worth is obviously very difficult probably impossible to define given the variables involved. However, that's not the discussion we're having here.

the old pay structure was inequitable, this raise was just balancing things

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:43

Abner Cadaver II: Apr 21, 2009; TONIGHT!

PupsOfWar posted:

I respect fast-food workers.

Sometimes when you go into a Taco Bell or somesuch, you see that there's one gal working the front register, the drive-thru window and the cooking stations simultaneously.

That could be a hard job and, if pay were based on difficulty/worthiness versus the caprices of the market, would probably get her paid more than most white-collars.

Nurses would (and should) be making well above 100k if this was the case.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:44

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Boon posted:

Yes I know, I think that the level he took it too is awesome. The problem, as I elaborated on, is that the raise was not equitable which is a tenant in basically every human system, including capitalism and socialism. The concerns expressed are centered around that principle. The article states that money is not a motivator, however, it does delve into money being destructive to actual motivators if it becomes the focus. That is what occurred here.

At the end of the day, it may be great. If it fails, we'll most likely never hear of it again. The question of what someone's labor is worth is obviously very difficult probably impossible to define given the variables involved. However, that's not the discussion we're having here.

i don't think that 'equitability' is the proper word to use in terms of people reinforcing a social heirarchy through income. like it's not at all equitable that people who work fast food make poverty wages and CEOs can get millions of dollars in performance bonuses for objectively bad performance

'jealousy' would be a better word. people are jealous

JeffersonClay posted:

No, the issue is that the Journeyman thinks it's unfair that his superior skill and experience do not command a higher wage than an apprentice any longer. When workers are allowed to bargain collectively, this is a principle they tend to embed in labor agreements--it's a really common mindset. it can't be hard to see how a journeyman might be pissed if all the new guys got huge raises, while he got a pittance, despite the fact that he's more productive.

if you're getting pissed off that you get a raise, and a guy who works for you gets that same raise, and you get mad and quit before you can get even more raises, that's your problem, because you are jealous and petty

neither life nor compensation are fair, and if you turn down a higher paycheck just because someone who is your social inferior gets that same paycheck then maybe you deserve to cripple yourself out of misdirected pride

the reason i'm arguing here is not that i don't understand this mindset. i totally get it. i also think it is a very stupid and self-limiting mindset based in the need to feel superior to others

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:45

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

JeffersonClay posted:

The idea that more experience, education, or work effort should command a higher wage does not seem particularly irrational. Indeed most labor unions use at least one of these criteria when establishing wage schedules. Mine uses all three.

Scrap minimum wage and have a national wage schedule. Simplify taxes - end income inequality.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:46

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Boon posted:

Yes I know, I think that the level he took it too is awesome. The problem, as I elaborated on, is that the raise was not equitable which is a tenant in basically every human system, including capitalism and socialism. The concerns expressed are centered around that principle.

I think the reason so many of us find this disturbing is because employees in a company are generally in a very bad position to judge what is and isn't equitable. Everyone thinks that they work harder than their neighbor. Everyone thinks that they deserve the raise. When you extend that attitude to "that other guy doesn't deserve a raise" or "I should be making more than her" you end up in a bad situation where people are actively working against the best interests of their colleagues. It's outright damaging when it leads to some people barely scraping by while others live comfortably.

Put another way, this is an attempt at rebalancing the wage scale so that it actually is more equitable than it was before.

edit-

JeffersonClay posted:

No, the issue is that the Journeyman thinks it's unfair that his superior skill and experience do not command a higher wage than an apprentice any longer. When workers are allowed to bargain collectively, this is a principle they tend to embed in labor agreements--it's a really common mindset. it can't be hard to see how a journeyman might be pissed if all the new guys got huge raises, while he got a pittance, despite the fact that he's more productive.

If people were willing to pay apprentices more, then apprentices would demand higher wages. You're looking at this from some weird position where workers/unions hold 100% of the negotiating power and that's obviously absurd. Mr. Price is willing to pay everyone $70k/year. If you think you're worth more than that, then negotiate for a higher salary. Don't negotiate on the basis that someone else deserves less.

Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jul 31, 2015

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:48

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Boon posted:

It's exactly the proper word to use. You're making this into an argument that it's not. If you want to have a discussion on what are equitable wages in the scope of an entire economy, then you're not talking about Mr. Price and his business.

you're the person who claimed that everyone getting paid the same high base salary is somehow less equitable than people getting paid variant salaries, friend. i was just making the argument that when you start including people's feelings about how much their coworkers are worth relative to themselves then 'equitable' is no longer the correct term

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:50

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

You are either mis-characterizing my argument willfully or you don't understand it because you're arguing something I'm not at every turn. However, since you've characterized it that way, I'll say that yes. Everyone getting paid the same base salary IS less equitable. I'm not sure how that's even up for discussion.

Boon fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:53

radical meme: Apr 17, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

As long as you guys are sperging out over worker's pay, wrap your heads around the fact that one guy reached his hand into his pocket, pulled out $10 million and gave to a PAC supporting Ted Cruz. More than a year before the election and a full 6 months before any votes are ever cast, one guy had a enough pocket change to throw $10 million dollars down the toilet on a candidate that everyone hates.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:57

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

I get what Boon's trying to say. The wage increases are great, but instead of raising everyone to 70k, if he had given everyone a 15-20k bump in their salary then their relative position in the hierarchy would've stayed intact while still vastly increasing the quality of life for all employees. Or even 20k for people near the bottom and 10k for the rest.

No one's arguing that the wage increase was bad, merely that the way in which it was done created a shock for all the employees who are now dealing with questions of whether or not they deserved it (which is severely hosed up), whether their work is worth more than a janitor but is being valued the same (twisted but understandable in this country), and then of course the assholes who think no one should be paid well who hasn't climbed the hierarchy.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:58

Buckwheat Sings: Feb 9, 2005

The guy and his company are doing fine. He lost some dick employees yet his train is still choo choo chooing. I hate to see your reaction on collectives.

I guess people are losing their poo poo because they're so used to white people on tv talk about how the world will end if minimum wages are raised.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:58

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Boon's approach is called the doctrine of sufficiency. Which while it's not full communism it is a billion times better than our current system of payment and self worth. The idea that people should earn enough to be well taken care of and happy but after that who gives a poo poo isn't immoral or bad.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:01

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Relentlessboredomm posted:

I get what Boon's trying to say. The wage increases are great, but instead of raising everyone to 70k, if he had given everyone a 15-20k bump in their salary then their relative position in the hierarchy would've stayed intact while still vastly increasing the quality of life for all employees. Or even 20k for people near the bottom and 10k for the rest.

same, but i'm directly challenging the idea that self worth should be linked to compensation as if your salary is an objective high score on life. this is a terribly dumb thing to think

in my personal experience the higher i climb in my career and the more i'm paid the less i have to work and the easier my work gets, i used to clean people's literal death-shits out of crappy linen and now i dick around with computers doing nothing useful for anyone and get paid way more

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:01

Rincewinds: Jul 30, 2014; MEAT IS MEAT

whitey delenda est posted:

whatever you got lying around the shed, man!

Who thinks this way? Who? Jesus christ.

This is what Glenn Beck fans actually believe.

Rincewinds fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:03

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Relentlessboredomm posted:

I get what Boon's trying to say. The wage increases are great, but instead of raising everyone to 70k, if he had given everyone a 15-20k bump in their salary then their relative position in the hierarchy would've stayed intact while still vastly increasing the quality of life for all employees. Or even 20k for people near the bottom and 10k for the rest.

No one's arguing that the wage increase was bad, merely that the way in which it was done created a shock for all the employees who are now dealing with questions of whether or not they deserved it (which is severely hosed up), whether their work is worth more than a janitor but is being valued the same (twisted but understandable in this country), and then of course the assholes who think no one should be paid well who hasn't climbed the hierarchy.

Yes. Thank you.

Venom Snake posted:

Boon's approach is called the doctrine of sufficiency. Which while it's not full communism it is a billion times better than our current system of payment and self worth. The idea that people should earn enough to be well taken care of and happy but after that who gives a poo poo isn't immoral or bad.

I've never heard of that, but I'd be interested if you have any particular reading on it.

Boon fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:06

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Boon posted:

Yes I know, I think that the level he took it too is awesome. The problem, as I elaborated on, is that the raise was not equitable which is a tenant in basically every human system, including capitalism and socialism. The concerns expressed are centered around that principle. The article states that money is not a motivator, however, it does delve into money being destructive to actual motivators if it becomes the focus. That is what occurred here.

I'm not sure I see how the raise wasn't equitable. It sounds like pretty much everyone got a raise except the CEO who took a pay cut. However people are bitching because while they're still making more than the entry level worker, the percentage increase in the entry level worker's pay is higher than their percentage increase. Which is pretty dumb and petty. "Carol the new hire now makes $70k(apparently much less at the time people quit over it because it was done via step increases) and I'm making 85K, this is an outrage!" is what I'm taking from the article.

It sounds like it's that dumb thing where people would rather make $30K a year while their neighbor makes $10k instead of making $85K while their neighbor makes $70K.

Rincewinds posted:

This is what Glenn Beck fans actually believe.

Well yeah, assuming he's been there a couple years and is decent with his finances he should totally quit that poo poo and retire thanks to Obamacare. Thanks Obama!

Gyges fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:08

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Just got done listening to a podcast that cited studies showing that people work harder when they get paid more, so it seems like that guy just bought himself some really hard workers and got rid of some dead weight in the deal. Good on him!

Also, I'd like to point out that a 'web developer' making ~$40k in Seattle (wasn't it?) is probably so entry level that he doesn't understand basic workplace truisms like that there will be apparently useless people on the payroll everywhere so I'm sure he'll be shocked to see the same thing at his next job.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:30

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Gyges posted:

I'm not sure I see how the raise wasn't equitable. It sounds like pretty much everyone got a raise except the CEO who took a pay cut. However people are bitching because while they're still making more than the entry level worker, the percentage increase in the entry level worker's pay is higher than their percentage increase. Which is pretty dumb and petty. "Carol the new hire now makes $70k(apparently much less at the time people quit over it because it was done via step increases) and I'm making 85K, this is an outrage!" is what I'm taking from the article.

It sounds like it's that dumb thing where people would rather make $30K a year while their neighbor makes $10k instead of making $85K while their neighbor makes $70K.

Well yeah, assuming he's been there a couple years and is decent with his finances he should totally quit that poo poo and retire thanks to Obamacare. Thanks Obama!

Exactly, it's a bunch of "C" players who derived their self worth from lording it over others who make less.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:37

100 degrees Calcium: Jan 23, 2011

I'm laughing my rear end off at the web developer who quit when he started making $70k because someone else who makes the same amount might be lazier and he, in turn, might become too lazy to pursue his high-minded career ambitions because he's making a really comfortable wage. Washington programmers are some nutty people.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:38

Lyapunov Unstable: Nov 20, 2011

Evil Sagan posted:

I'm laughing my rear end off at the web developer who quit when he started making $70k because someone else who makes the same amount might be lazier and he, in turn, might become too lazy to pursue his high-minded career ambitions because he's making a really comfortable wage. Washington programmers are some nutty people.

yeah there's a 100% probability he quit for some other reason and just made that poo poo up

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:41

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

It seems like if a person is that petty then rooting them out of your organization is probably going to improve efficiency.

Lyapunov Unstable posted:

yeah there's a 100% probability he quit for some other reason and just made that poo poo up

He probably thought he had a shot at wingnut welfare if he screamed loud enough at local TV cameras.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:46

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Boon posted:

I've never heard of that, but I'd be interested if you have any particular reading on it.

I wish I wasn't stuck on my laptop but look up Harry Frankfurt and his writings. The basic jist of it is that equality isn't inherently good or bad and rather than attempt to make everyone equal we should focus on making sure everyone has sufficient means. For example people don't give a poo poo of the inequality between a billionaire and a millionaire but people DO care about the inequality of a millionaire compared to a poor person.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 01:20

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Venom Snake posted:

I wish I wasn't stuck on my laptop but look up Harry Frankfurt and his writings. The basic jist of it is that equality isn't inherently good or bad and rather than attempt to make everyone equal we should focus on making sure everyone has sufficient means. For example people don't give a poo poo of the inequality between a billionaire and a millionaire but people DO care about the inequality of a millionaire compared to a poor person.

A good start is making sure there aren't any needless billionaires rolling around as a defacto aristocracy to distort the economy so there are people without.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 01:45

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Randy's worried about the Tleilaxu.

quote:

"Some people are horrified by the idea of having factories where you�d grow babies for their body parts. Will technology allow that? Technology probably almost already does allow that. But should a civilized society allow that? I don�t think so.�

# ? Aug 1, 2015 01:46

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Joementum posted:

Randy's worried about the Tleilaxu.

You'd think a society where women were relegated to being unthinking baby-making machines would appeal to the conservative id.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 01:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 11:49

SubponticatePoster: Aug 9, 2004; Every day takes figurin' out all over again how to fuckin' live.; Slippery Tilde

Joementum posted:

Randy's worried about the Tleilaxu.

Ghola Ronald Regan, they couldn't throw money at the factory fast enough.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 02:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL July: Obeying the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie since 1865

«‹›198 »

Boon posted:

Luigi Thirty posted:

im a ski bum posted:

chitoryu12 posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

JeffersonClay posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

quote:

quote:

Boon posted:

quote:

Accretionist posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Boon posted:

PupsOfWar posted:

Boon posted:

JeffersonClay posted:

JeffersonClay posted:

Boon posted:

JeffersonClay posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Boon posted:

Relentlessboredomm posted:

whitey delenda est posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Relentlessboredomm posted:

Venom Snake posted:

Boon posted:

Rincewinds posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Gyges posted:

Evil Sagan posted:

Lyapunov Unstable posted:

Boon posted:

Venom Snake posted:

quote:

Joementum posted:

Joementum posted: