average salary: $70k

[JLee]

Observable reality is that we live in a capitalist system where a large amount of inequality is tolerated so that those who plan their finances well, like all of us, can retire off the back of low-income labour provided by those who can't plan well. And while Gravity seems to be bucking the trend, I would be surprised if it catches on in any great numbers.

The large amount of equality is so the billionaires can continue to run things as they see fit. The typical MMMer has no influence in the establishment of this tolerance.

[Bloop Bloop]

None of us has any influence, but we all benefit from it.

[JLee]

None of us has any influence, but we all benefit from it.

Most people do not plan their finances well.  Those who do (i.e. MMM/etc) are not a large enough percent of the population to be able to change politics -- to do that requires mass voter turnout (or to be a well-connected ultra-wealthy individual/dynasty with lobbyists and influence over politics). 

Basically, as we don't have any influence, saying that our tolerance is why it exists does not logically follow.

[jlcnuke]

I bet employee turn over at that place will be pretty close to 0%. Except that some people making close to $70,000 will be pissed because they got a $5,000 raise and other people got a $25,000 raise.

I get the sentiment, but being upset by this is irrational. The X amount of money you make doing your job isn't suddenly worth any less if someone else starts making X for something you consider to be a lesser job.

Go get an engineering degree, work hard, get your FE license after a few years, then get hired at a new company with a nice raise to $75k to find out your work with a guy who just graduated high school and started as a janitor who is making $70k, then tell me you'd honestly feel adequately compensated for your relative education and skill levels. Education, skills, and expertise pay more because they are more valuable to an employer than not having them. When the pay equity for those education/skills/experience disappears or gets smaller then the desire for many to try and gather those things will also decrease. Why spend $100k and 4 years of your life to get a job making $5k/year more than you could earn without doing all that extra work. The janitor probably has a lot less stress at work than the engineer trying to solve 6 different design issues before production is scheduled to start next week and the company loses hundreds of thousands each day until he an get things right.

[JLee]

I bet employee turn over at that place will be pretty close to 0%. Except that some people making close to $70,000 will be pissed because they got a $5,000 raise and other people got a $25,000 raise.

I get the sentiment, but being upset by this is irrational. The X amount of money you make doing your job isn't suddenly worth any less if someone else starts making X for something you consider to be a lesser job.

Go get an engineering degree, work hard, get your FE license after a few years, then get hired at a new company with a nice raise to $75k to find out your work with a guy who just graduated high school and started as a janitor who is making $70k, then tell me you'd honestly feel adequately compensated for your relative education and skill levels. Education, skills, and expertise pay more because they are more valuable to an employer than not having them. When the pay equity for those education/skills/experience disappears or gets smaller then the desire for many to try and gather those things will also decrease. Why spend $100k and 4 years of your life to get a job making $5k/year more than you could earn without doing all that extra work. The janitor probably has a lot less stress at work than the engineer trying to solve 6 different design issues before production is scheduled to start next week and the company loses hundreds of thousands each day until he an get things right.

So go to another company that will pay you more. Problem solved.

[Bloop Bloop]

That's fine as long as it's also your response to anyone else who feels like he or she is not making enough money (or getting enough work) in this capitalist society.

[FIREstache]

I bet employee turn over at that place will be pretty close to 0%. Except that some people making close to $70,000 will be pissed because they got a $5,000 raise and other people got a $25,000 raise.

I get the sentiment, but being upset by this is irrational. The X amount of money you make doing your job isn't suddenly worth any less if someone else starts making X for something you consider to be a lesser job.

Go get an engineering degree, work hard, get your FE license after a few years, then get hired at a new company with a nice raise to $75k to find out your work with a guy who just graduated high school and started as a janitor who is making $70k, then tell me you'd honestly feel adequately compensated for your relative education and skill levels. Education, skills, and expertise pay more because they are more valuable to an employer than not having them. When the pay equity for those education/skills/experience disappears or gets smaller then the desire for many to try and gather those things will also decrease. Why spend $100k and 4 years of your life to get a job making $5k/year more than you could earn without doing all that extra work. The janitor probably has a lot less stress at work than the engineer trying to solve 6 different design issues before production is scheduled to start next week and the company loses hundreds of thousands each day until he an get things right.

So true.  This whole concept is also one of the reasons why I oppose increases in the government mandated minimum wages that artificially increase the pay of unskilled labor, while causing job losses for many others.

[RangerOne]

I mean the reason you are supposed to make more is to encourage people to do harder things with money being the incentive.

Even if I made close to what a janitor makes I would rather develop software than because routine work drives me crazy....

Norway from what I hear isn't far off from greatly squishing the extra pay tech people get over say a starbuck barista. So maybe it can work... I do like getting paid more but I am not sure that is totally healthy for society or my ego.

[JLee]

I mean the reason you are supposed to make more is to encourage people to do harder things with money being the incentive.

Even if I made close to what a janitor makes I would rather develop software than because routine work drives me crazy....

Norway from what I hear isn't far off from greatly squishing the extra pay tech people get over say a starbuck barista. So maybe it can work... I do like getting paid more but I am not sure that is totally healthy for society or my ego.

I run datacenter infrastructure and make decent money.  If the pay was the same as cleaning toilets, I'd still do the job I have today.

[EricEng]

How about we stop comparing it to a janitor and compare it to something people actually would switch to...such as security guard watching youtube/reading a book all day.  Seriously, the guards at my work spend the entire day doing whatever they want as long as they are sitting at their post.  I'd switch to that for same pay.

[JLee]

How about we stop comparing it to a janitor and compare it to something people actually would switch to...such as security guard watching youtube/reading a book all day.  Seriously, the guards at my work spend the entire day doing whatever they want as long as they are sitting at their post.  I'd switch to that for same pay.

If doing nothing provides you satisfaction, sure?

[Bloop Bloop]

That's a bit demeaning of security guards, and it also presupposes that you can't have a productive read while sitting there doing nothing all day.

I doubled my income going from an employee to being self-employed, but of course, the work intensity and stress increased too, even though I'm in the same field and nominally do a lot of the same work albeit now at a higher level. If the financial incentive wasn't there, no one would have done what I do (yet this transition is common in my industry). And of course, if I could, I'd love to have my old relatively easy job as an employee rather than being a small business owner, if the money were the same. That's probably a better example.

[Wrenchturner]

I think your income is generally an indication of how much you cost to be replaced.  Not so much about how hard you work.  I made this mistake as a barista when I was younger.

[EricEng]

How about we stop comparing it to a janitor and compare it to something people actually would switch to...such as security guard watching youtube/reading a book all day.  Seriously, the guards at my work spend the entire day doing whatever they want as long as they are sitting at their post.  I'd switch to that for same pay.

If doing nothing provides you satisfaction, sure?

That depends on what you do.  Reading an educational book tends to provide satisfaction.  I also enjoy watching movies now and then.  You could even work on a degree if you wanted (although what's the point since you would be making degree level money for sitting).  The only restriction is just sitting in one spot for 8+ hours.

[jlcnuke]

How about we stop comparing it to a janitor and compare it to something people actually would switch to...such as security guard watching youtube/reading a book all day.  Seriously, the guards at my work spend the entire day doing whatever they want as long as they are sitting at their post.  I'd switch to that for same pay.

If doing nothing provides you satisfaction, sure?

I'd wager that the vast majority of employees in the country aren't going to work because of the immense job satisfaction it provides, but for the money. Gallup polling seems to support that guess too https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/10/unhappy-employees-outnumber-happy-ones-by-two-to-one-worldwide/#421ee411362a

[FIREstache]

How about we stop comparing it to a janitor and compare it to something people actually would switch to...such as security guard watching youtube/reading a book all day.  Seriously, the guards at my work spend the entire day doing whatever they want as long as they are sitting at their post.  I'd switch to that for same pay.

If doing nothing provides you satisfaction, sure?

I'd wager that the vast majority of employees in the country aren't going to work because of the immense job satisfaction it provides, but for the money. Gallup polling seems to support that guess too https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/10/unhappy-employees-outnumber-happy-ones-by-two-to-one-worldwide/#421ee411362a

I admit I like my job and feel fortunate to have it and get paid double the median U.S. income despite living in a LCOL area, and there are days I even look forward to going to work because of the interest or challenge of certain projects or tasks I'm working with, but when it comes down to it, I wouldn't do it at all if it weren't for the paycheck (and health care benefits).

[MrMoogle]

I would be happy for those getting the bump to $70k.  If I was making $80k, I'd also have some negative feelings about it.  Especially if I had college loans in order to get the $80k.  It means I made a poor decisions with my choices because the rules changed.  I made the best decision I could with the information at the time, but it turned out to be bad.  That never feels good.  I can still feel happy about the others.

I completely agree, there's nothing wrong with doing this on the small scale.  What I somewhat dislike about the story is that *some* democrats could point to it and say why don't we force higher minimum wages, it worked for them.  The story is not about large scale minimum wage changes, and therefore not relevant to that discussion, so it shouldn't be used to argue for broad changes.  Politicians (on all sides) do crap like that, and I hate it.  That said, NYT didn't push that in the article at all.  This is really small, made bigger by reading some of these comments.

Therefore, I liked what the CEO chose to do.  It couldn't have been an easy choice.  I hope he continues to do it.

[MrThatsDifferent]

What a weird debate, $70k is around the minimum for all my staff. People are grossly underpaid in the US and around the world, because society seems to prefer a small group of people making the most money, while everyone just scrapes by. There’s no logical reason for Jeff Bezos to just accumulate money so his ego can be richest guy in the world while Amazon employees work their asses off and make minimum or slightly above minimum wage. And yet we all seem fine with this cause we think, well, it’d be great to be a billionaire and I’m not sharing my money! Greedy fucks.

[nessness]

I have no idea what the janitors or security guards in my organization make. If I found out they made a similar salary to me, my response would be, "awesome! I'm glad my organization values all its employees."

If you're a high-skill employee and are making a similar salary to low-skill employees, ask yourself two questions:
1. Would you rather do the low-skill job? If so, great! Apply for that job as soon as there's a vacancy.
2. Could you make more money elsewhere? If so, great! Start applying for other jobs.

If the answer to both questions is no, what's the problem? Other people's success doesn't take away from yours. And, in my experience, high-skill jobs tend to have a lot of intangible benefits that low-skill jobs don't have - flexibility, variety, autonomy, prestige, etc., so it's not true that you went to engineering school (for example) for nothing.