Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I generally agree with the 80/20 rule, but I can understand the 10% opinion.Exactly what I was thinking.This idea obviously isn't going to work for businesses that have a significant amount of low-skilled or unskilled labor too, of course.
In my near 30 years working experience I can say that maybe, maybe 10% of the population both desire and are willing to put in the effort to succeed financially in whatever field they are in. Take away the financial incentive why the hell would anyone work any harder than just enough to not get fired?
BFD. The world is full of guys like you who think you can lecture somebody else about business when you've never owned one yourself. You don't have a clue.I don't expect you to understand because I can tell you've never run a business. If you had, you would know I'm right. Any employer will tell you you have to go through 20 shitballs before you find one good employee. That's just the way it is, I don't care what kind of business it is, most people are lazy and unproductive, they want a paycheck but they don't want to do shit to get it. Try running a business for 10 years and come back and tell me about those wonderful and dedicated employees.
I've been a manager of other employees since I was 20 years old. While there is a share of lazy, unproductive people out there particularly in the retail and public service sector, to say those qualities characterize most workers is a gross overstatement. Evidently you suck at hiring people if that's been your experience.
Yeah well that didnt work out quite like he wanted. Turns out you can't pay everyone the same because not everyone performs the same. Oops. Not like we didnt tell you. Now he has to rent out his house to make ends meet. Socialism fails 100% of the time. more at the source.
Remember the Seattle CEO Who Raised All Salaries to 70K Here s What Happened Next...
When Dan Price, founder and CEO of the Seattle-based credit-card-payment processing firm Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year, he was met with overwhelming enthusiasm.
“Everyone start[ed] screaming and cheering and just going crazy,” Price told Business Insider shortly after he broke the news in April.
But in the weeks since then, it’s become clear that not everyone is equally pleased. Among the critics? Some of Price’s own employees.
Maisey McMaster — once a big supporter of the plan — is one of the employees that quit. McMaster, 26, joined the company five years ago, eventually working her way up to financial manager. She put in long hours that “left little time for her husband and extended family,” The Times says, but she loved the “special culture” of the place.
But while she was initially on board, helping to calculate whether the company could afford to raise salaries so drastically (the plan is a minimum of $70,000 over the course of three years), McMaster later began to have doubts.
“He 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,” she told The Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.
You didnt bother to read the article. He raised wages. The idea backfired and the company will likely close and everyone will be making $0/yr.Yeah well that didnt work out quite like he wanted. Turns out you can't pay everyone the same because not everyone performs the same. Oops. Not like we didnt tell you. Now he has to rent out his house to make ends meet. Socialism fails 100% of the time. more at the source.
Remember the Seattle CEO Who Raised All Salaries to 70K Here s What Happened Next...
When Dan Price, founder and CEO of the Seattle-based credit-card-payment processing firm Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year, he was met with overwhelming enthusiasm.
“Everyone start[ed] screaming and cheering and just going crazy,” Price told Business Insider shortly after he broke the news in April.
But in the weeks since then, it’s become clear that not everyone is equally pleased. Among the critics? Some of Price’s own employees.
Maisey McMaster — once a big supporter of the plan — is one of the employees that quit. McMaster, 26, joined the company five years ago, eventually working her way up to financial manager. She put in long hours that “left little time for her husband and extended family,” The Times says, but she loved the “special culture” of the place.
But while she was initially on board, helping to calculate whether the company could afford to raise salaries so drastically (the plan is a minimum of $70,000 over the course of three years), McMaster later began to have doubts.
“He 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,” she told The Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.
I totally agree that merit should determine wages but I am sick and tired of working for bullshit pay In this country and being told by my employer that they can't afford to pay more when the company is having record profits. I think this guy should be praised for trying. He wasn't asking to raise min wage to 70k (something I would think is suicide for the poor) he was voluntarily doing it for his own company and no one else's. I think if I lived near Seattle I would apply immediately! Maybe, just maybe, companies might learn that when you pay people good money you may attract the best workers.
This is why people don't vote republican. They end up defending big business and attacking the little guy but what people fail to understand about capitalism is that it isn't defending business interest ahead of anyone else's but it is degending economic self-interest. It's not defending class interest but defending the individuals self-interest which includes business as well as workers. They end up opposing each other and only work together by voluntary agreement aka contract.
Missing the point. The woman was already making close to that and she rightly resented people with much less qualification making the same as her. As you would whine "It's not FAAAAIIRRR."Yeah well that didnt work out quite like he wanted. Turns out you can't pay everyone the same because not everyone performs the same. Oops. Not like we didnt tell you. Now he has to rent out his house to make ends meet. Socialism fails 100% of the time. more at the source.
Remember the Seattle CEO Who Raised All Salaries to 70K Here s What Happened Next...
When Dan Price, founder and CEO of the Seattle-based credit-card-payment processing firm Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year, he was met with overwhelming enthusiasm.
“Everyone start[ed] screaming and cheering and just going crazy,” Price told Business Insider shortly after he broke the news in April.
But in the weeks since then, it’s become clear that not everyone is equally pleased. Among the critics? Some of Price’s own employees.
Maisey McMaster — once a big supporter of the plan — is one of the employees that quit. McMaster, 26, joined the company five years ago, eventually working her way up to financial manager. She put in long hours that “left little time for her husband and extended family,” The Times says, but she loved the “special culture” of the place.
But while she was initially on board, helping to calculate whether the company could afford to raise salaries so drastically (the plan is a minimum of $70,000 over the course of three years), McMaster later began to have doubts.
“He 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,” she told The Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.
Greed on display. Jesus H Christ this dopey woman got a raise to $70,000 a year and she is jealous because someone else also got a raise.
This is the very impulse that dooms the human race. Selfish greed at the expense of the majority of other people.
Good, she was weeded out and is gone. Its a good guess that she won't be getting another job ever that pays that much. Greed also works against you.
Yeah, nobody votes Republican anymore. No Republican hurt this guy, you're full of shit.I totally agree that merit should determine wages but I am sick and tired of working for bullshit pay In this country and being told by my employer that they can't afford to pay more when the company is having record profits. I think this guy should be praised for trying. He wasn't asking to raise min wage to 70k (something I would think is suicide for the poor) he was voluntarily doing it for his own company and no one else's. I think if I lived near Seattle I would apply immediately! Maybe, just maybe, companies might learn that when you pay people good money you may attract the best workers.
This is why people don't vote republican. They end up defending big business and attacking the little guy but what people fail to understand about capitalism is that it isn't defending business interest ahead of anyone else's but it is degending economic self-interest. It's not defending class interest but defending the individuals self-interest which includes business as well as workers. They end up opposing each other and only work together by voluntary agreement aka contract.
You don't show smarts by believing in something stupid. Or didn't you know?Do you have evidence the center of the moon isn't made from soft gooey cheese?You said: He 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
And you believe that?
Yes
Do you have evidence showing otherwise?
How can you believe something so inane?
Oh, that's an easy question to answer. I'm smarter than you are.
I generally agree with the 80/20 rule, but I can understand the 10% opinion.
If an employer's going to try this, they'll have to create and enforce very clear, trackable and measurable expectations for keeping your job.
If an employer who's trying this gets soft and lets people take advantage of them, it ain't gonna work.
“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”I generally agree with the 80/20 rule, but I can understand the 10% opinion.
If an employer's going to try this, they'll have to create and enforce very clear, trackable and measurable expectations for keeping your job.
If an employer who's trying this gets soft and lets people take advantage of them, it ain't gonna work.
Agree. A principle I believe in 100%, and is applicable in many ways throughout our individual and collective lives:
Give someone something for free, they will thank you.
Give it to them again, and they will expect it again.
Give it to them again, and they will demand it.
I think this applies in this situation, once he gave them the high salary - many employees would quickly consider it earned - it is THEIR money now. Anything less would be unfair.
He is in a big pickle. And will probably lose his business. Unfortunately most employees would not appreciate truly what he did, and accept a lower/earned wage again.
Are you saying leftists want people to hire illegal aliens at $2/hr?
“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”I generally agree with the 80/20 rule, but I can understand the 10% opinion.
If an employer's going to try this, they'll have to create and enforce very clear, trackable and measurable expectations for keeping your job.
If an employer who's trying this gets soft and lets people take advantage of them, it ain't gonna work.
Agree. A principle I believe in 100%, and is applicable in many ways throughout our individual and collective lives:
Give someone something for free, they will thank you.
Give it to them again, and they will expect it again.
Give it to them again, and they will demand it.
I think this applies in this situation, once he gave them the high salary - many employees would quickly consider it earned - it is THEIR money now. Anything less would be unfair.
He is in a big pickle. And will probably lose his business. Unfortunately most employees would not appreciate truly what he did, and accept a lower/earned wage again.
― Thomas Jefferson
You think it is just to maintain black slaves? You're a loony tune!“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”I generally agree with the 80/20 rule, but I can understand the 10% opinion.
If an employer's going to try this, they'll have to create and enforce very clear, trackable and measurable expectations for keeping your job.
If an employer who's trying this gets soft and lets people take advantage of them, it ain't gonna work.
Agree. A principle I believe in 100%, and is applicable in many ways throughout our individual and collective lives:
Give someone something for free, they will thank you.
Give it to them again, and they will expect it again.
Give it to them again, and they will demand it.
I think this applies in this situation, once he gave them the high salary - many employees would quickly consider it earned - it is THEIR money now. Anything less would be unfair.
He is in a big pickle. And will probably lose his business. Unfortunately most employees would not appreciate truly what he did, and accept a lower/earned wage again.
― Thomas Jefferson
---
A perfect justification for maintaining slaves!
You do realize that Jefferson maintained black slaves, don't you?
You think it is just to maintain black slaves? You're a loony tune!“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”I generally agree with the 80/20 rule, but I can understand the 10% opinion.
If an employer's going to try this, they'll have to create and enforce very clear, trackable and measurable expectations for keeping your job.
If an employer who's trying this gets soft and lets people take advantage of them, it ain't gonna work.
Agree. A principle I believe in 100%, and is applicable in many ways throughout our individual and collective lives:
Give someone something for free, they will thank you.
Give it to them again, and they will expect it again.
Give it to them again, and they will demand it.
I think this applies in this situation, once he gave them the high salary - many employees would quickly consider it earned - it is THEIR money now. Anything less would be unfair.
He is in a big pickle. And will probably lose his business. Unfortunately most employees would not appreciate truly what he did, and accept a lower/earned wage again.
― Thomas Jefferson
---
A perfect justification for maintaining slaves!
You do realize that Jefferson maintained black slaves, don't you?
You're not worried about her record of lying, dissembling, and taking bribes?Clearly the man wasn't thinking wisely, so now he's paying the financial consequences. Is there any word on if he's going to continue using that failed system?
Right.
Because it's just a game to you.
Oh? What is "it" to you in the politics section....where this clearly doesn't belong.
You seem to think politics is just a game where one side wins and one side loses. Reading through the OP, it just struck me how childish that is.
Well, liberals almost always win on social issuesso it isn't much in the way of competition. As soon as you folks on the right get serious about the contest and start treating the subjects and the competition with sober respect, I will be happy to engage. I fear those days of learned adversaries on USMB are over.
Case in point, HRC has experience in the Senate, as FLOTUS, and as SoS. These are facts. I would imagine that in the next 2 days, one of you blowhards will be reciting the "she's not qualified" billabong while insisting others with fewer credentials are.
Again, I hope for a serious back and fourth. But the heavyweights on the conservative side are either gone or hiding in their create-a-forum where you can't question one another.
Not worried at all about the attack culture of the right wing hate groups. More worried about Hillary trying to be folksy.
332-206You're not worried about her record of lying, dissembling, and taking bribes?Clearly the man wasn't thinking wisely, so now he's paying the financial consequences. Is there any word on if he's going to continue using that failed system?
Oh? What is "it" to you in the politics section....where this clearly doesn't belong.
You seem to think politics is just a game where one side wins and one side loses. Reading through the OP, it just struck me how childish that is.
Well, liberals almost always win on social issuesso it isn't much in the way of competition. As soon as you folks on the right get serious about the contest and start treating the subjects and the competition with sober respect, I will be happy to engage. I fear those days of learned adversaries on USMB are over.
Case in point, HRC has experience in the Senate, as FLOTUS, and as SoS. These are facts. I would imagine that in the next 2 days, one of you blowhards will be reciting the "she's not qualified" billabong while insisting others with fewer credentials are.
Again, I hope for a serious back and fourth. But the heavyweights on the conservative side are either gone or hiding in their create-a-forum where you can't question one another.
Not worried at all about the attack culture of the right wing hate groups. More worried about Hillary trying to be folksy.
Deny deny deny deny. They should change the mascot of the Democratic party from the donkey to the lemming.
"Over the cliff!!!"
332-206You're not worried about her record of lying, dissembling, and taking bribes?Clearly the man wasn't thinking wisely, so now he's paying the financial consequences. Is there any word on if he's going to continue using that failed system?
You seem to think politics is just a game where one side wins and one side loses. Reading through the OP, it just struck me how childish that is.
Well, liberals almost always win on social issuesso it isn't much in the way of competition. As soon as you folks on the right get serious about the contest and start treating the subjects and the competition with sober respect, I will be happy to engage. I fear those days of learned adversaries on USMB are over.
Case in point, HRC has experience in the Senate, as FLOTUS, and as SoS. These are facts. I would imagine that in the next 2 days, one of you blowhards will be reciting the "she's not qualified" billabong while insisting others with fewer credentials are.
Again, I hope for a serious back and fourth. But the heavyweights on the conservative side are either gone or hiding in their create-a-forum where you can't question one another.
Not worried at all about the attack culture of the right wing hate groups. More worried about Hillary trying to be folksy.
Deny deny deny deny. They should change the mascot of the Democratic party from the donkey to the lemming.
"Over the cliff!!!"
Deny that.
When the facts are against them, they either make stuff up or revert to irrelevance.332-206You're not worried about her record of lying, dissembling, and taking bribes?Well, liberals almost always win on social issuesso it isn't much in the way of competition. As soon as you folks on the right get serious about the contest and start treating the subjects and the competition with sober respect, I will be happy to engage. I fear those days of learned adversaries on USMB are over.
Case in point, HRC has experience in the Senate, as FLOTUS, and as SoS. These are facts. I would imagine that in the next 2 days, one of you blowhards will be reciting the "she's not qualified" billabong while insisting others with fewer credentials are.
Again, I hope for a serious back and fourth. But the heavyweights on the conservative side are either gone or hiding in their create-a-forum where you can't question one another.
Not worried at all about the attack culture of the right wing hate groups. More worried about Hillary trying to be folksy.
Deny deny deny deny. They should change the mascot of the Democratic party from the donkey to the lemming.
"Over the cliff!!!"
Deny that.
Aaaand right onto dodging, typical lefty playbook.
When the facts are against them, they either make stuff up or revert to irrelevance.332-206You're not worried about her record of lying, dissembling, and taking bribes?
Not worried at all about the attack culture of the right wing hate groups. More worried about Hillary trying to be folksy.
Deny deny deny deny. They should change the mascot of the Democratic party from the donkey to the lemming.
"Over the cliff!!!"
Deny that.
Aaaand right onto dodging, typical lefty playbook.
332-206You're not worried about her record of lying, dissembling, and taking bribes?Well, liberals almost always win on social issuesso it isn't much in the way of competition. As soon as you folks on the right get serious about the contest and start treating the subjects and the competition with sober respect, I will be happy to engage. I fear those days of learned adversaries on USMB are over.
Case in point, HRC has experience in the Senate, as FLOTUS, and as SoS. These are facts. I would imagine that in the next 2 days, one of you blowhards will be reciting the "she's not qualified" billabong while insisting others with fewer credentials are.
Again, I hope for a serious back and fourth. But the heavyweights on the conservative side are either gone or hiding in their create-a-forum where you can't question one another.
Not worried at all about the attack culture of the right wing hate groups. More worried about Hillary trying to be folksy.
Deny deny deny deny. They should change the mascot of the Democratic party from the donkey to the lemming.
"Over the cliff!!!"
Deny that.
Aaaand right onto dodging, typical lefty playbook.
