Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not a taker...I make a great salary and don't need assistance....however I am more than willing to pay more of my money to ensure that no one else goes hungry...that is pretty much liberal in a nutshell (in terms of fiscal policy). How does that equal an entitlement mentality? That makes me a sharer, a giver, not a taker.
Read what I wrote one more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Many liberals believe they are entitled to the pies made by other people.
Out of curiosity, does anybody where you work make significantly less than you? If so, have you gone to your bosses and asked to have any of your salary transferred to them?
Sounds to me you are trying to continue the meme about why companies should pay employees dirt. The guy tried and likely ran into other issues. Remember the likely outcome had he not raised minimum salaries was the same, the minimum salary actually came from HIS income. Had he not done that, the net effect is 0 and is tied to other costs and revenue issues.
You seem to have missed a valuable part of the article:
Gravity lost two of its most valuable employees whose departure was “spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises.” Most of the company’s profits, $2.2 million last year, were reinvested in the company not to expand or innovate, but to cover the new minimum wage.
[LEFT]
Read more: CEO Who Raised Minimum Salary To $70k Falls On Hard Times | The Daily Caller
[/LEFT]
A business is supposed to use profits to reinvest in the company in order to keep it prosperous. His new minimum wage made that completely impossible. Add to that the fact that he lost 2 valuable employees, and pissed off several others.
It was a noble decision, but not smart at all on a business standpoint.
Gravity Payments has over 150 employees.
Let's assume exactly 150
The company is listed as bringing in a yearly revenue of approximately $5-$10 million.
150 employees at $70,000 is $10,500,000/year.
Do you not see how foolish this is?
Prior to this, the average employee salary at this company was around $40,000.
Sounds to me you are trying to continue the meme about why companies should pay employees dirt. The guy tried and likely ran into other issues. Remember the likely outcome had he not raised minimum salaries was the same, the minimum salary actually came from HIS income. Had he not done that, the net effect is 0 and is tied to other costs and revenue issues.
The minimum salary increase didn't all come from his income. His yearly salary is just under $1M. Basic math will show you how impossible it would be to raise everyone's salaries to $70,000 just by reducing his salary. He took a pay cut (how much of a cut, I don't know) and used the company's $2.2M profit to pay for the salary increases, leaving behind nothing for the business.
You seem to have missed a valuable part of the article:
Gravity lost two of its most valuable employees whose departure was “spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises.†Most of the company’s profits, $2.2 million last year, were reinvested in the company not to expand or innovate, but to cover the new minimum wage.
[LEFT] Read more: CEO Who Raised Minimum Salary To $70k Falls On Hard Times | The Daily Caller
[/LEFT]
A business is supposed to use profits to reinvest in the company in order to keep it prosperous. His new minimum wage made that completely impossible. Add to that the fact that he lost 2 valuable employees, and pissed off several others.
It was a noble decision, but not smart at all on a business standpoint.
Gravity Payments has over 150 employees.
Let's assume exactly 150
The company is listed as bringing in a yearly revenue of approximately $5-$10 million.
150 employees at $70,000 is $10,500,000/year.
Do you not see how foolish this is?
Prior to this, the average employee salary at this company was around $40,000.
The problem with your math is that not everyone received a raise and the ones that did did not have their salary increased by 70000.
The problem with your math is that not everyone received a raise and the ones that did did not have their salary increased by 70000.
I never said their salaries got increased by 70,000.
There was no problem with my math. It was based on the principle that everyone at the company makes exactly $70,000.
The ones that didn't receive a raise were already above that threshold.
I never said their salaries got increased by 70,000.
There was no problem with my math. It was based on the principle that everyone at the company makes exactly $70,000.
The ones that didn't receive a raise were already above that threshold.
You stated that the company had revenue of 5 to 10 million. Then did the math of 150 people suddenly increasing their pay by 70k.
70000 times 150 people equals 10500000.
What we do not know is how much the total pay for the company went up. If the total pay only went up by a million, the company would still be making money.
I am not a taker...I make a great salary and don't need assistance....however I am more than willing to pay more of my money to ensure that no one else goes hungry...that is pretty much liberal in a nutshell (in terms of fiscal policy). How does that equal an entitlement mentality? That makes me a sharer, a giver, not a taker.
So, you'll only give if coerced by the government, or only if everyone else is forced to.
Got it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Had he not done that, the net effect is 0 and is tied to other costs and revenue issues.
