It's just a rhetorical technique. Government handouts are stigmatized, yet voters will still reward politicians for them. So politicians and their supporters make arguments about various things being rights (college, healthcare, cell phones, broadband, etc.) which gives the recipients the cover they need to avoid the stigma
What? You've lost me. I don't ask leftists for anything and I don't care what you clowns do to ruin your states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) and just about every major city. I just do what I can to insulate myself from your collective idiocy.
Hilarious. Come back when you understand that motivation to work just hard enough to not get fired is not what I am interested in. I want people who have their interests aligned with the company and understand very clearly that they do well personally when the company does well in ways employee controls. In other words, merit based compensation.
Yes, I know. All the people that have made it to the position where they are making these decisions have no idea what they are talking about, and the people who have failed to advance to that level have it all figured out.
Love it. You clowns are more consistent than a clock. Anytime your prescriptions are shown to fail, you just claim they didn't do it right. On a related note, Socialism will totally work if we just get the right leaders in place, am I right?
"Do you believe that pay a worker more gets more productivity out of them?"
You are all in a fantasy land. These people got a huge bump for reasons not at all tied to performance. They get another $10k bump next year so long as they don't fuck up enough to get fired. Same in 2017.
Paying people more absolutely does motivate them and increase productivity IF YOU TIE IT TO AN INCRNTIVE directly (i.e., performance bonus, merit raise, variable comp) or indirectly (e.g., you did great work in the past so this is a thank you -- implying there could be more if you continue to knock it out of the park). We know from numerous cases where raises happen automatically based on tenure or other non-performance factors that people just consider that their base that they have already earned and are entitled to for the act of continuing to breathe, because after all that's all they need to do to get it.
This is pretty simple stuff and actually business owners (you know, PHBs lololololol) would laugh you people out of the room if you tried to make the argument you are all making here in the ignorant safety of the interwebs.
Sorry, but what planet do you live on? What you describe already occurs on a massive scale. Even in the US, a supposed "center right country", nearly all the taxes are paid by the workers in the top 40% of the income scale. Not 40% of citizens, or adults, or work age adults, or non-handicapped work age adults, but 40% of actually employed people. In the US, less than a third of the country is employed, and only a little more than half of work age adults are employed. So we are talking about 40% of 1/3 of he country that are paying nearly all the taxes... something under 15% of the country. Almost the entire remainder of the country, maybe 80%, are on the receiving end of the redistribution. This happens through tax credits (about 40% of tax filers receive more in tax refund than was withheld from their paycheck a thanks to tax credits that outweigh their tax liability), welfare, various subsidies like obsmacare, etc etc etc
I'm not sure how it works on Mars, but here on earth we have had thousands of politicians buy votes over the years by using government to steal money from wealthy people and give it to others, just in the way you say you wish we're the case.
"I'm also curious to know if he gave a similar bump in salary to those employees who were already making over $75k."
No he didn't, and two people quit because of it, including the financial analyst that help the CEO run the numbers. She later felt like it was BS that all these lower level people were going to be earning close to what she earned when she was more highly skilled. I think this mentality is idiotic, but it is pretty normal with the humans.
Please stop calling that "macroeconomics". It's silly. You are talking about Keynesian economics, which is an economic school of thought subscribed to by many but not all economists.
I think I followed this thread and I think I agree with you (which makes me wonder how you can understand this and still hold the viewpoints I see you say elsewhere in this discussion). But just a heads up that it was very confusing to read with you and others misusing the term "macroeconomics". From context I eventually understood that you are talking about Keynesian economics. But that does not equal macroeconomics. Normally I would not nitpick like this but I truly had a hard time figuring out wtf you all were talking about because of it.
Also, you do know that Walmart similarly increased their min wage, right? Because they did. And the results have been a disaster. They have beat up their suppliers trying to squeeze margin from them to the point that they are revolting. They fired a number of people at HQ. They closed down stores. They cut workers' hours. They cut CapEx. They projected a drop of -12% in profit in 2017. Et cetera
He is a small company and the massive PR juiced his business enough to make the increased wages a non factor. Wages are sticky and he can't easily undo this, so he better navigate this correctly or he will have a problem when the PR boost wears off.
But if you're going to be skeptical, you need to address Walmart, who also increased their min wage. Their profits were significantly lower even while they squeeze the shit out of their suppliers trying to make up for the extra labor costs. They laid off a bunch of people at HQ. And I am aware of a number of automation projects that have received increased focus now that the human alternative is significantly more expensive.
You seem to be unfamiliar with extensive economic studies of this. These studies are not scientific, but they are far more scientific than this one anecdote with an elephant sized and obvious confound. I know this viewpoint will never be popular on slashdot where there is a continuous circle jerk while muttering about PHBs and whatnot, but I still struggle to believe that you all can be so blinded by whatever it is that makes you invested in this asinine concept that paying someone 2x market rate is good for a company, that you can't at least admit this is nowhere near a good test case given the rabid ubiquitous news coverage now in three separate news cycles since April.
I don't know about personal offense. But I do take offense to this. The implication this CEO is making, knowingly or not, is that this model should be used by other companies. And now he is doing an "I told you so", intentionally or not, further suggesting other companies should do this. Not only is this terrible advice, but it has the potential to seriously negatively effect the livelihoods of employees of companies who take the advice.
I do take offense to it because people are using it as if it's proof of something we know is wrong: that large increases in the minimum wage are beneficial to employers and the economy.
It offends me like any ignorance that, if perpetuated, will hurt more and more people in real measurable ways. But personally? No, it does not offend me personally because I don't take this shit seriously enough to affect my own life choices.
Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous. The problem isn't that the fun is being taken or of science. The problem is the the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd has popularized science among people who do not understand science. Science is treated like a religion, and the philosophy of science and especially its skepticism is missing in the discussion, covered instead by "omg isn't this science looking thing cool". Pseudoscience abounds. Looks at nutrition science. You can't even tell anymore what is actual science and what is total nonsense based on anecdote... because the methods are almost the same.
Orgs that don't have to worry where next year's operating income will come from will never be as motivated to hit timelines as orgs that have to build and sell things in order to continue to exist. Nonprofits with endowments or steady donation commitments, government funded science or other orgs, and government agencies all fall into this category.
Why are articles citing battery sizes in kWh these days? How are they even coming up with that, exactly, and how do I determine the Ah equivalent, which is what batteries are actually sized in? It's hard for me to do the math on these numbers and compare to AGMs, FLAs, etc.
Great theory. But in practice what parent said is correct: uber drivers have about 100x better service than taxi drivers. By the way, many taxi drivers are independent contractors and pay the taxi company for use of the car and medallion. The difference is decades of monopoly has slowly turned normal human behavior where the customer might actually matter into a game of purely maxing profit per mile, considering the chance of picking up a fare for the taxi's return trip, as if they are uship drivers moving cargo.
> but it can be safely assumed that the those working extreme scenarios of improbably short work weeks are probably going to be similar between countries
Uh, that is a really silly assumption.
As for the rest of your reply, I was just a reader in the thread and I found your choice of metric perplexing.
you have no idea if it was the right call. all we know is that we risked taxpayer dollars. there is zero information about whether the outcome is better than the alternative history where these green energy loans/grants were never given. there are too many variables at play and it is nowhere near as simple as "did solar technology evolve faster than it would have otherwise?". this is why central planning ends up failing: it's the questions you aren't asking (e.g., did a genius in 2008 not receive seed money to develop her entirely new alternative energy idea because investments were flowing into the solar/wind/algae govt gravy train?).
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a rhetorical technique. Government handouts are stigmatized, yet voters will still reward politicians for them. So politicians and their supporters make arguments about various things being rights (college, healthcare, cell phones, broadband, etc.) which gives the recipients the cover they need to avoid the stigma
What? You've lost me. I don't ask leftists for anything and I don't care what you clowns do to ruin your states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) and just about every major city. I just do what I can to insulate myself from your collective idiocy.
Hilarious. Come back when you understand that motivation to work just hard enough to not get fired is not what I am interested in. I want people who have their interests aligned with the company and understand very clearly that they do well personally when the company does well in ways employee controls. In other words, merit based compensation.
Yes, I know. All the people that have made it to the position where they are making these decisions have no idea what they are talking about, and the people who have failed to advance to that level have it all figured out.
Love it. You clowns are more consistent than a clock. Anytime your prescriptions are shown to fail, you just claim they didn't do it right. On a related note, Socialism will totally work if we just get the right leaders in place, am I right?
"Do you believe that pay a worker more gets more productivity out of them?"
You are all in a fantasy land. These people got a huge bump for reasons not at all tied to performance. They get another $10k bump next year so long as they don't fuck up enough to get fired. Same in 2017.
Paying people more absolutely does motivate them and increase productivity IF YOU TIE IT TO AN INCRNTIVE directly (i.e., performance bonus, merit raise, variable comp) or indirectly (e.g., you did great work in the past so this is a thank you -- implying there could be more if you continue to knock it out of the park). We know from numerous cases where raises happen automatically based on tenure or other non-performance factors that people just consider that their base that they have already earned and are entitled to for the act of continuing to breathe, because after all that's all they need to do to get it.
This is pretty simple stuff and actually business owners (you know, PHBs lololololol) would laugh you people out of the room if you tried to make the argument you are all making here in the ignorant safety of the interwebs.
Sorry, but what planet do you live on? What you describe already occurs on a massive scale. Even in the US, a supposed "center right country", nearly all the taxes are paid by the workers in the top 40% of the income scale. Not 40% of citizens, or adults, or work age adults, or non-handicapped work age adults, but 40% of actually employed people. In the US, less than a third of the country is employed, and only a little more than half of work age adults are employed. So we are talking about 40% of 1/3 of he country that are paying nearly all the taxes... something under 15% of the country. Almost the entire remainder of the country, maybe 80%, are on the receiving end of the redistribution. This happens through tax credits (about 40% of tax filers receive more in tax refund than was withheld from their paycheck a thanks to tax credits that outweigh their tax liability), welfare, various subsidies like obsmacare, etc etc etc
I'm not sure how it works on Mars, but here on earth we have had thousands of politicians buy votes over the years by using government to steal money from wealthy people and give it to others, just in the way you say you wish we're the case.
"I'm also curious to know if he gave a similar bump in salary to those employees who were already making over $75k."
No he didn't, and two people quit because of it, including the financial analyst that help the CEO run the numbers. She later felt like it was BS that all these lower level people were going to be earning close to what she earned when she was more highly skilled. I think this mentality is idiotic, but it is pretty normal with the humans.
Please stop calling that "macroeconomics". It's silly. You are talking about Keynesian economics, which is an economic school of thought subscribed to by many but not all economists.
I think I followed this thread and I think I agree with you (which makes me wonder how you can understand this and still hold the viewpoints I see you say elsewhere in this discussion). But just a heads up that it was very confusing to read with you and others misusing the term "macroeconomics". From context I eventually understood that you are talking about Keynesian economics. But that does not equal macroeconomics. Normally I would not nitpick like this but I truly had a hard time figuring out wtf you all were talking about because of it.
Also, you do know that Walmart similarly increased their min wage, right? Because they did. And the results have been a disaster. They have beat up their suppliers trying to squeeze margin from them to the point that they are revolting. They fired a number of people at HQ. They closed down stores. They cut workers' hours. They cut CapEx. They projected a drop of -12% in profit in 2017. Et cetera
Then why not make their min salary a million dollars? Do you ever worry that you have a childish understanding of how wealth is created?
He is a small company and the massive PR juiced his business enough to make the increased wages a non factor. Wages are sticky and he can't easily undo this, so he better navigate this correctly or he will have a problem when the PR boost wears off.
But if you're going to be skeptical, you need to address Walmart, who also increased their min wage. Their profits were significantly lower even while they squeeze the shit out of their suppliers trying to make up for the extra labor costs. They laid off a bunch of people at HQ. And I am aware of a number of automation projects that have received increased focus now that the human alternative is significantly more expensive.
You seem to be unfamiliar with extensive economic studies of this. These studies are not scientific, but they are far more scientific than this one anecdote with an elephant sized and obvious confound. I know this viewpoint will never be popular on slashdot where there is a continuous circle jerk while muttering about PHBs and whatnot, but I still struggle to believe that you all can be so blinded by whatever it is that makes you invested in this asinine concept that paying someone 2x market rate is good for a company, that you can't at least admit this is nowhere near a good test case given the rabid ubiquitous news coverage now in three separate news cycles since April.
I don't know about personal offense. But I do take offense to this. The implication this CEO is making, knowingly or not, is that this model should be used by other companies. And now he is doing an "I told you so", intentionally or not, further suggesting other companies should do this. Not only is this terrible advice, but it has the potential to seriously negatively effect the livelihoods of employees of companies who take the advice.
I do take offense to it because people are using it as if it's proof of something we know is wrong: that large increases in the minimum wage are beneficial to employers and the economy.
It offends me like any ignorance that, if perpetuated, will hurt more and more people in real measurable ways. But personally? No, it does not offend me personally because I don't take this shit seriously enough to affect my own life choices.
Your point about what you see as hypocrisy aside, are you really suggesting these results are the outcome of the pay increase and not the PR?
Wow, those are amazing results from a relatively minor investment. Just think if he had made the min salary $500,000!
TFS is written like this is the first open source attack on AWS. Can someone explain why this is any different from OpenStack from Rackspace?
Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous. The problem isn't that the fun is being taken or of science. The problem is the the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd has popularized science among people who do not understand science. Science is treated like a religion, and the philosophy of science and especially its skepticism is missing in the discussion, covered instead by "omg isn't this science looking thing cool". Pseudoscience abounds. Looks at nutrition science. You can't even tell anymore what is actual science and what is total nonsense based on anecdote... because the methods are almost the same.
Orgs that don't have to worry where next year's operating income will come from will never be as motivated to hit timelines as orgs that have to build and sell things in order to continue to exist. Nonprofits with endowments or steady donation commitments, government funded science or other orgs, and government agencies all fall into this category.
Why are articles citing battery sizes in kWh these days? How are they even coming up with that, exactly, and how do I determine the Ah equivalent, which is what batteries are actually sized in? It's hard for me to do the math on these numbers and compare to AGMs, FLAs, etc.
That's not how you measure success in investing.
Great theory. But in practice what parent said is correct: uber drivers have about 100x better service than taxi drivers. By the way, many taxi drivers are independent contractors and pay the taxi company for use of the car and medallion. The difference is decades of monopoly has slowly turned normal human behavior where the customer might actually matter into a game of purely maxing profit per mile, considering the chance of picking up a fare for the taxi's return trip, as if they are uship drivers moving cargo.
> but it can be safely assumed that the those working extreme scenarios of improbably short work weeks are probably going to be similar between countries
Uh, that is a really silly assumption.
As for the rest of your reply, I was just a reader in the thread and I found your choice of metric perplexing.
you have no idea if it was the right call. all we know is that we risked taxpayer dollars. there is zero information about whether the outcome is better than the alternative history where these green energy loans/grants were never given. there are too many variables at play and it is nowhere near as simple as "did solar technology evolve faster than it would have otherwise?". this is why central planning ends up failing: it's the questions you aren't asking (e.g., did a genius in 2008 not receive seed money to develop her entirely new alternative energy idea because investments were flowing into the solar/wind/algae govt gravy train?).