Yelp IS in the wrong for paying people $12/hr gross for a job located in SF proper. And Jeremy Stoppleman IS ultimately responsible for that set-up. He may not have realized that was the exact per hour amount but he knows now and could fix it. I saw his solution is move those lower jobs to AZ. Perfect. I'm sure Yelp will pay relocation costs for all the current workers in SF in this lower level role. Oh they'll likely end up laid-off and scrambling for another $12/hr job? Well that's just their fault for not working hard enough to get promoted/being entitled millenials/not doing what I did at their age X number of years ago.
I disagree Yelp is in the wrong, and I think moving the work to a place where the pay is more commiserate makes sense.
Zappos moved their HQ from SF to Vegas around a decade ago (and yes, I believe they did offer to help pay relocation costs for everyone, on down to the call center employees) for that exact reason (cost of living).
Why should it be Yelp's problem how much it costs to live there? If it costs too much compared to the wage they're paying, people should not take that wage. Then Yelp will either have to relocate the jobs or will have to pay more.
Yelp's net income for 2014 was something like $35M. They have 3,250 employees. Let's say of that number ...25 are CSR reps in SF. I know the answer is 'free markets!' but why they couldn't pay reps something like $42k/year (Yes yes you didn't make that much in your first job but not relevant. I'm talking about the reality of a SF-based company hiring entry level employees right now), calibrate the rest of their employees' salaries to account for that and post a lower net income?
Huh? Why should Yelp take a minimum wage job and pay someone a professional salary to do it? A job that takes very little skills or training, or education. What would make you think anyone is owed that wage?
Sure, Yelp could pay that, but... why would they?
I think it's society's job to take care of that stuff. If minimum wage is too low to be a living wage, that's a failure on society's part. I personally believe we should have universal basic income--a flat living amount paid to everyone, regardless of working or not. So I fall on the way more radical side of liberal when it comes to wages and work.
But what I DON'T do is think it's the responsibility of a single company, acting solely out of the goodness of their altruistic corporate hearts to do that. That seems ludicrous, to me. And it just causes a tragedy of the commons, because the companies that DO do that will quickly be at a disadvantage to the companies that don't. We should legislate changes we want to see, not demand them of private companies for no real reason, or logic.
Finally that response from the 29 y/o who "owned" her was some major bullshit.
Eh, I thought it was a pretty great attitude to have. This post summarizes why way more eloquently. Work hard, get ahead. Whatever that entails. For that person, it was waitressing for years. Sacrificing vacations, holidays with families, etc.
Stephanie's post/response wasn't perfect, some of it was a little snarky, but the post you linked to was way ruder (insulting her reading level? Come on.), with flat out name-calling.
I basically disagree with your whole post. Frankly, I'm quite surprised someone can hold the opinions you do. It seems much to victim mentality, and wanting to blame others, to me. That may be a misinterpretation, and if so, I apologize, but it's how I read it. It's not an attitude we see a lot around this forum, since most of us are more take-charge (and, admittedly, are more privileged as well). But I appreciate you sharing. :)