Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
Mention of a flag on the top of a Dodge Charger makes me think Confederate Battle Flag, not Union Jack.
So I checked out the company via glassdoor, and there are a few reviews, all pretty positive. Several salaries are listed, ranging from $16 to $28 an hour.He's going to push these all up to $35 an hour.What I want to know is will everyone get a raise, and will it be proportional? or not?Will a guy who is currently making $16 an hour another who is making $28 an hour both be raised to $35 an hour? Or will they be raised to $35 and $61.25? That would be, percentage wise, the same raise. Or perhaps $35 and $47 ($19 bump each).If I was working there 5 years longer than someone else, I would probably expect something along these lines, otherwise I might feel that the other employees are undeserving.
even i'm on glassdoor and yelp and I don't have a company. seems everyone is being rated, no matter how small
He is entitled to experiment with his own company. At least he is not asking taxpayers for it. I give the plan two years before he - or the next CEO reverses it due to plummeting productivity.
Correct analysis, of course. The only insight I might share is that there are lots of Tom Leykis traits worth emulating. The self-confirmation grunt (10:01, 14:16) is NOT one, ryhh.
It's so unfair of you to use mathiness to math the numbers. Math is a white cis-het male privilege and can be triggering for non-normative, gender-fluid persons. To require this advanced, post-graduate level mathitude instead of understanding the sociological implications is a cluster of microaggressions.Plus, it's imperialistic to use your mathing that is based on imperialistic notions of permanence and non-intersectionality. Why should your notion of how to divide be more valid than other, more socially justifiable and just notions?
"That's private property." Exactly. Everybody who is not a shareholder, especially the government, should STFU and MTOFB. Al_in_Ottawa
So I think the "logic" here that is often applied to CEO salary caps is not that redistributing the wealth would actually make a difference for the mass's pay, but rather that if you cap a CEO's salary at some multiplier of the lowest paid employee, then the CEO has the incentive to raise everyone's salary in order to raise their own. This case (CEO giving up his pay) is a very different case than the 300x (or whatever) multiplier incentivising CEO's. I don't know if the logic would actually work or not, but its not that illogical from an incentive standpoint alone.
Post a Comment