Company Near Seattle Introduces $70K Minimum Wage

[Lemon Drop]

Racer X wrote:
That is EXACTLY why the $15 minimum wage is going to SCREW UP some things like early childhood education. Lead teachers with degrees and decades of experience will be making just a few bucks more than some kid with a still drying high school diploma.
:

Not sure why you think that. In Seattle the starting pay for new teachers with BAs now is around $24/hour. That's 60% more than $15/hour, which is what minimum wage will be eventually. And by then the teachers will make more...

[cbelt3]

May I refer you to a company that has been paying a living wage and a notable year end bonus since 1935. Based on the philosophy of "Incentive Management".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-...o-layoffs/

Where factory workers who work hard CAN and DO earn 6 figures.

And where the cost of living is rather... low. Like you can buy a 3 bedroom house in livable condition near the factory for perhaps $45,000.

Being loyal to employees means they will be loyal to you. Rewarding them for their efforts means they will reward you with better effort.

You just have to ignore 'wall street wisdom' and do the right thing.

[rgG]

It just isn't realistic that everyone at a company is worth a minimum of 70K, unless they use an outsource for things like a receptionist, maintenance people, file clerks, etc. A living wage and 70K minimum are worlds apart.

[Lemon Drop]

What a person is "worth" to an employer is what that employer is willing to pay. It's that simple.

[rgG]

Lemon Drop wrote:
What a person is "worth" to an employer is what that employer is willing to pay. It's that simple.

What would things cost if the minimum wage everywhere was 70K? It's all relative.

[Lemon Drop]

rgG wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
What a person is "worth" to an employer is what that employer is willing to pay. It's that simple.

What would things cost if the minimum wage everywhere was 70K? It's all relative.
Has anyone suggested that as legislation?

[Onamuji]

Lemon Drop wrote:
What a person is "worth" to an employer is what that employer is willing to pay. It's that simple.

What a person is "worth" to an employer is how much potential that person represents as an opportunity to capture money and realize profits.

What an employer is willing to pay for those services is an entirely separate matter.

And that's not so simple.

[sekker]

I wish I COULD pay $70k (or more!) per year for EVERYONE that works for me.

But the economics means that's not possible. Most of my employees earn no more than 2/3 of that.

So is it better to fire 1/3 of my team so that the other 2/3 earn more?

[Lemon Drop]

Onamuji wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
What a person is "worth" to an employer is what that employer is willing to pay. It's that simple.

What a person is "worth" to an employer is how much potential that person represents as an opportunity to capture money and realize profits.

What an employer is willing to pay for those services is an entirely separate matter.

And that's not so simple.
the potential is part of what the person is worth to the employer

as your value increases, you'll earn more

we are obviously talking only about for profit enterprises here, not public or nonprofit sector -

[Lemon Drop]

sekker wrote:
I wish I COULD pay $70k (or more!) per year for EVERYONE that works for me.

But the economics means that's not possible. Most of my employees earn no more than 2/3 of that.

So is it better to fire 1/3 of my team so that the other 2/3 earn more?

I don't get why everyone is taking this as some sort of universal rule that needs to apply everywhere

it's one guy, one company, doing the thing that as owner of the business he is 100% entitled to do