Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/26/2014 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/26/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/26/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/26/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):
LOL.  Yes, if I choose to invest in Basic Materials and you choose to invest in Healthcare, I should be mad at my CEO because you made twice as much off your investment.

If the CEO of the company you invested in made 4 times what better performing companies' CEOs made, maybe you should. Or at least be mad at the board that hired him.

Seriously? You should be mad at yourself for making a bad investment, and once you get over it you learn from your mistakes and invest smarter next time. No one forced you to invest in the company... That's on you. You could have invested in the company that paid their CEO less and gambled that they'd perform 4x better than the highest paid CEO. Its not like you were blocked from doing so. Heck you could even bet on all the top CEOs and invest in the XLF fund which tracks financials... But you didn't.

If I'm following your argument its like going to the track and betting on a horse. Your horse comes in 4th so you should be mad at the jockey that you lost money?!?!? Or going to the casino and losing a hand at blackjack.... Its the dealers fault you lost when the guy next to you won?!?!?

We're completely off on a tangent. It's not that you should or shouldn't be mad about anything. The point is, high pay doesn't always mean high value. Sometimes people make a ton of money despite their abilities.

You get paid what your employer thinks you're worth. Its that simple. If Downey Jr is paid $75 million then I sure hope his movies aren't a bust for his employers sake. But his employers valued him at $75 million or they wouldn't pay him that. Maybe they could have saved and went with DiCaprio and DiCaprio would have produced 4x the revenue.... We'll never know.

But to make you happy and to prove YOUR point: Jay Cutler has a $100 million+ contract which is ridiculous but the bears valued him at that amount so that's what they paid him. Comparative to other QBs at that price point he provides little value.

Business is different - the CEO is the top of the company hierarchy thus they make the most money. That's how businesses are structured. How much they make is up to how much the board thinks they are worth, right or wrong.

Ok, I don't think any of that goes against my point that higher pay doesn't always mean higher value.

And we're still on tangent. The main point is that massive income inequality is destabilizing and bad for the economy.

And your solution? Let me Guess... Regulate CEO pay.

My take: you want to fix income inequality you need to show people there is income opportunity. I just got a 27% raise because I work hard and I manage my career. I seek advice from fantastic mentors and build social capital w/in the industry. There are success stories everyday about people getting promoted yet libs would rather focus on the 3-4% minimum wage jobs and how increasing minimum wage will help w/ income inequality. Those minimum wage jobs SHOULD be temporary.... Because if you are any good at your job you can get promoted... That's income opportunity. Immigrants realize this and capitalize on it. Too bad so many others don't.

Let me ask you BH.... What's stopping you from making more money?

I don't have a solution. I'm certainly not arguing for fixed income and I'm glad you got a raise.

You're ignoring reality if you think that just being good at your job can get you a promotion, though.

I'm perfectly happy with my career. I make enough that my wife only works part time and we can easily afford the mortgage on our house in coastal southern california. This isn't a dick measuring contest.

You're right, just being good at your job is NOT enough to get you a promotion. A promotion is usually a NEW set of skills of which you've never done before and you're normally up against external hires that have those skills. You need an IDP. You need support from usually more than just your manager. You need to put yourself in the best position you can to get the job. That's how you get promoted. Point is you CAN get promoted though and yes its more than just performance.

My last question wasn't meant to be a dick measuring contest... Cause I'd win. It was meant to make you think about what is 'actually' (not polical rhetoric) holding you back from making more money. I can take any excuse you give me and show you that the only one holding you back from making more money is you. That applies to anyone short of those with physical or mental limitations.

This isn't personal. I'm not worried that anyone or anything is holding me (specifically) back. But I do work for a very small company. If the economy goes to ****, the damage will be very, very real for me.

Extreme income inequality is very destabilizing for the economy. I'm not arguing that we should make things equal for the sake of being fair, I'm arguing that the policies we put in place should be evaluated in the context of how they tilt the economic scale. Most policies tilt it one way or the other and for the last 30 or so years, almost all policies have tilted the money in the wrong (in my opinion) direction.

CEOs should make more than entry level employees. Hard workers who are smart and add value should get sizable promotions. But if the middle class evaporates and we are left with a tiny percentage of very rich people and a very large population of poor people, there won't be many promotions available for anyone, even you.

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/27/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I'll answer your question, moy.

I opened, with a partner, in '97.   We hustled because small businesses tend to fail early.   We didn't and we got a little complacent after a couple of years.   Economic downturn in 2002 caused my partner to give it up.  I didn't want to work for anyone so I hustled again.   Did really well until the next downturn.  I hustled to stay afloat but, once I got comfortable again, I stopped.  Now I make enough to pay my bills and put some away.   I actually work 20 hours or so a week.   Could I make more?  I think so.   Do I want to put in the 50-60 hour weeks that I did 2002-2008?  Nope.

So what's stopping me from making more money?  Me.

And that's exactly it. There is nothing wrong with being happy where you are at... Just realize no one is stopping you from making more money but you.

Well, I've given you **** about this before but the extra money didn't bring happiness.   Got a lot of stuff but I paid for it with a lot time that could have been spent with family/friends.   You can't buy extra time.

That's not just a problem with young people. 

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I was listening to Scott Walker talk about jobs a few weeks ago. He said that business owners are telling him they are indeed hiring but they aren't finding qualified candidates.... And by qualified they are referring to people that simply know that being on time to work is important. I've run into this a lot especially with younger hires. It baffles me every time I have to fire someone for chronic tardiness. Being on time is pretty much the easiest part of your job.

Maybe they should offer higher pay, that's how you attract better candidates.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I was listening to Scott Walker talk about jobs a few weeks ago. He said that business owners are telling him they are indeed hiring but they aren't finding qualified candidates.... And by qualified they are referring to people that simply know that being on time to work is important. I've run into this a lot especially with younger hires. It baffles me every time I have to fire someone for chronic tardiness. Being on time is pretty much the easiest part of your job.

Maybe they should offer higher pay, that's how you attract better candidates.

Lol.... Wait I thought the most valuable employees weren't always the highest paid employees.

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 6:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I was listening to Scott Walker talk about jobs a few weeks ago. He said that business owners are telling him they are indeed hiring but they aren't finding qualified candidates.... And by qualified they are referring to people that simply know that being on time to work is important. I've run into this a lot especially with younger hires. It baffles me every time I have to fire someone for chronic tardiness. Being on time is pretty much the easiest part of your job.

Maybe they should offer higher pay, that's how you attract better candidates.

Lol.... Wait I thought the most valuable employees weren't always the highest paid employees.

I don't see how those can't both be true. In general, offering higher pay attracts better candidates. Specifically, just because someone makes a lot of money doesn't mean they are very valuable.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 6:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I was listening to Scott Walker talk about jobs a few weeks ago. He said that business owners are telling him they are indeed hiring but they aren't finding qualified candidates.... And by qualified they are referring to people that simply know that being on time to work is important. I've run into this a lot especially with younger hires. It baffles me every time I have to fire someone for chronic tardiness. Being on time is pretty much the easiest part of your job.

Maybe they should offer higher pay, that's how you attract better candidates.

Lol.... Wait I thought the most valuable employees weren't always the highest paid employees.

I don't see how those can't both be true. In general, offering higher pay attracts better candidates. Specifically, just because someone makes a lot of money doesn't mean they are very valuable.

Actually studies like the one below show money is not the major driver as to why people leave their employer. People value a strong culture, purpose, advancement, etc way more than money. I could find to 500+ studies all showing the same thing. I once told my wife if I got paid enough I wouldn't care how miserable my job was.... I've never been more wrong. In fact I spent 6 months evaluating the culture of my new company as well as how likely I was to succeed before I committed. That was more important to me than a raise.

http://www.retentionconnection.com/retention_5reasons.html

Five Principal Reasons People Change Jobs

1. It doesn't feel good around here. This is a corporate culture issue in most cases. Workers are also concerned with the company's reputation; the physical conditions of comfort, convenience, and safety, and the clarity of mission.

2. They wouldn't miss me if I were gone. Even though leaders do value employees, they don't tell them often enough. If people don't feel important, they're not motivated to stay. No one wants to be a commodity, easily replaced by someone off the street. If they are regarded as expendable, they'll leave for a position where they're appreciated.

3. I don't get the support I need to get my job done. Contrary to opinions heard all-too-often from management, people really do want to do a good job. When they're frustrated by too many rules, red tape, or incompetent supervisors or co-workers, people look for other opportunities.

4. There's no opportunity for advancement. No, we're not talking about promotions, although many deserving people would like to move up. The issue here is learning. People want to learn, to sharpen their skills and pick-up new ones. They want to improve their capacity to perform a wide variety of jobs. Call it career security. The desire is for training and development. If workers can't find the growth opportunities with one company, they'll seek another employer where they can learn.

5. Compensation is the last reason people most leave. That's a brash statement, but it's true. Workers want fair compensation, but the first four aspects must be strong. If they're not, but money's high, you'll hear people say "you can't pay me enough to stay here." Even with these values in place, there are a lot of employees who feel they can better themselves just by chasing more income.

I'm sure those are all true. I'm also sure that you get a different group of applicants when you offer $17 an hour instead of $10.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 9:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure those are all true. I'm also sure that you get a different group of applicants when you offer $17 an hour instead of $10.

Do employer's even post what they'd pay before a person applies? Most pay can be negotiated anyways....at least in my experience and I do hire people around $11/hr. Talented people too.

So, if you offer $17 the people who were going to apply at $10 won't?   

You get a larger group of applicants, I'm not so sure it's all that different.

Posted by moy23 on 10/27/2014 9:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2014 9:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure those are all true. I'm also sure that you get a different group of applicants when you offer $17 an hour instead of $10.

Do employer's even post what they'd pay before a person applies? Most pay can be negotiated anyways....at least in my experience and I do hire people around $11/hr. Talented people too.

Different companies have different policies. My old firm gave a range. For things like admin positions, they'd post 45-55k, depending on experience, in the description. For higher up positions they either omitted or gave a much broader range. Low level stuff like facilities/mail room positions were posted with a low hourly figure. Obviously all were negotiable.

The 10 and 17 numbers were just examples. No need to get bogged down in specific dollar figures.