I know what you're saying, but I've never understood this logic personally. How does someone else earning more money hurt you? It's not like a person doing better than you is taking your money.
Also, it does impact you directly. As those around you get paid more, there is more disposable income which impacts pricing. Now, a hundred employees in a large city has zero actual impact, but the psychological resistance is already there because it will have an actual impact at larger scale (also could impact if there is a company store/cafeteria or such, but I don't think that applies here).
Then there is the notion of unequal raises. If someone else gets a 200% raise because the company has enough money, you are left wondering why you didn't get one. Did you not do good enough? Even if you already had a raise, if it was for some other reason, you are left wondering why you don't get one. Once again, even with a rational reason (because you were already making above the new minimum), the emotional damage is still there. Such a raise doesn't feel fair, regardless if it is or isn't.
Finally, considering how many times people are denied wages 'because the money isn't in the budget for it' (even if that is just used as an excuse), there is a chance one who deserves a raise can be denied it because the budgeted money for raises was already spent on other raises.
It's not that simple. The employees were already working under conditions that job/person a was worth 2x and job/person b was worth 3x. That was established and everyone was content (or reasonably so).
All of a sudden, someone declared that job/person a is worth 3x too, with no corresponding change to the output or expectations of either job.
Job/Person b, having been previously told that their value was, at 3x, MORE than job/person a, is now told that their value is now equal.
That's a redefining of the previously established contract of understanding. To expect Job/person b to completely agree to that redefinition is rather naive, to say the least.
I'm more valuable to my company as their key software developer than the receptionist. I've got more knowledge of how the company works, contribute more to the bottom line and am harder to properly replace. I expect my compensation to reflect that.
If you suggest all of a sudden that I'm not any more valuable than the receptionist hired last month, you should rightly expect that I'd be a little pissed.
What this guy tried to do is in effect just raise the floor of the minimum wage, which is also unfair to you.
My assistant is ridiculously valuable. She's a multiplier for the team. Her presence means invoices get paid, visitor logistics are taken care of, contracts get renewed, the office is in order. I don't control her pay, but every hour she is present easily saves me a quarter hour, and probably saves my direct reports a similar amount of time.
Essentially that role for me is manufacturing an asset that I cannot buy -- time. If I could control her salary, I would double it.
Look, I understand the value of a really good personal assistant, at times they can be like magic, but let's be serious, all jobs are not equally difficult.
On the other end of the scale, the maximum price is value of her productive output to the company - it is irrational to pay her more than she can generate.
Negotiation is the skill of convincing your employer that you're harder (ie, more expensive) to replace, thus propelling your pay closer to that maximum.
Then leave.
Seriously. If you are so upset then leave.
But when interviewing, you might want to come up with a different reason for leaving the job. The interviewer might not be so understanding.
Update: wow, a downvote. :-) I welcome the downvotes.
Be happy for them.
Be happy that they can now afford to get married.
Be happy that they can now save money to buy a house.
Be happy that they can now save for their kid's college education.
Be happy that you work for someone who cares so deeply about his employees and will be there for you when you need help.
All else being equal, people were happier earning $70,000 knowing that their peers earned $50,000, and unhappier earning $90,000 knowing that their peers earned $110,000.
I am likely wrong on exact numbers, but studies are well-known enough to be quoted in "Fooled by Randomness", "Predictably Irrational" and some other pop-psych titles.
When I used to work in Denmark, I noticed expats were often much more annoyed about the (approximate) wage equality than Danes were. I was making $80k or so, and most people I knew were making in the $70k-$100k range, doing jobs ranging from professor to software developer. Meanwhile, a typical full-time restaurant waiter or construction worker might make around $50-60k. So, we had higher incomes, but not by a huge margin, certainly less than the spread would be in the US. Many expats found this grossly unfair, that despite them having a high-status and supposedly high-end job, they were still in approximately the same socioeconomic class as basically any other worker. They considered themselves underpaid, and the other workers overpaid. But most Danes didn't really see an issue, and considered the Danish wage spreads to be normal.
Whether you agree or disagree, that's how I think those who are offended by this sort of change see it.
I think that was in the article. If you work your ass off sacrificing your personal life for years helping build a company, at most companies there is a financial payout at some point for that hard work, but in this case, the money resulting from that hard work it seems is largely going to top up the incomes of the nine to fivers. I don't see how it's hard to understand that some people would be upset about these, it's pretty simple math (actual hourly pay based on hours worked).
Do you not understand the logic of people who feel that way, or do you simply not believe in it yourself? If you were getting paid $35k/year to do the same job as everyone else who was getting paid $115k/year, would you feel that it was somewhat unfair?
So, what you are really asking is: If you were getting paid $115k/year to do a job where $115k/year was the normal competitive salary in your area, would you feel that it was somewhat unfair?
I ask this because I wonder what would have happened if he'd not said anything.
^ How in the world did you come to that conclusion? oh_sigh's whole point was that a person would be upset if they knew they were getting much less compensation than others for the same kind of job.
I'm guessing you had a point there, but I'm not sure how the quoted phrase above is supposed to support whatever the point was.
:-D
Well, yeah. But that assumes you know what other people are getting. As I said, I'm assuming most people don't know or share what they are making (at least in the US) with their coworkers.
So, for the average person, this really comes down to the question I asked as most people don't know what others are making (again, total assumption on my part).
And that all comes down to my last statement in my original comment, which I guess is really just a way of saying "ignorance is bliss." And if you are ignorant of what others are making, the question is really as I put it: If you were getting paid $115k/year to do a job where $115k/year was the normal competitive salary in your area, would you feel that it was somewhat unfair? Don't assume $115k/year is higher or lower (you don't know).
I'm not pushing an agenda or anything. Just really wondering.
The impact? Nothing at all.
The only situation where I would be concerned about it would be a case where the company discriminating against people or aggressively ripping the employees off. I've witnessed both.
The big argument here is that the 10x producers are pissed off about others benefiting. The reality is that most of these "10x" people are mythical, and the ones who are real are either getting screwed anyway or make a salary consistent with their value.
There are times when that can be part of the problem.
But it can also be part of the solution, when e.g. the problem is discrimination, lack of consideration for the not-so-squeaky wheel, etc.
In some respects they ARE taking my money ... the company now has less money to distribute based upon merit.
Also, I would immediately become a 9-5 employee and enjoy my weekends like my now equally paid peers.
I mean if the market rate for the job you were doing is $70k, and all of a sudden fresh college grads are getting paid that at your company, it doesn't mean that you'll now get $100k elsewhere if you leave. If that is the case, you should have already left.
Now if you were already being underpaid and you were staying at the company for some other reason I could see bailing when others got a pay bump regardless of their contribution.
To the point the person you responded to brought up though:
Those years of sacrifice could have been compensated through equity grants instead.
It's interesting how disingenuous conversations can become on HN. Where in one thread everyone will happily acknowledge that lots of developers work extremely long hours at startups for peanuts (in hopes of a possible big future payday) compared to what they could make guaranteed going to work at a larger established company, in another thread the mentality is that everyone is always optimizing for short term earnings.
Don't force your value system on others.
I personally am happiest when I'm working 70-80 hours a week and appreciate being compensated for my hard work. Just because that doesn't describe you doesn't mean I should be forced to attain an artificial "balance."
No, but I would start looking for another job. If the company has the excess profit to be giving out huge raises, I'd be upset that those raises were allocated only to low performers.
Secondly, Ensorceled specifically said (s)he would start "enjoying the weekends", which implies the long hours were, unlike for you, not being particularly enjoyable.
Don't be so certain that the company will be sad to see you leave. The people who replace you might be even better than you.
There were a number of people making less than that at Gravity Payments; so it seems likely that there are other qualified people in the area who will appreciate the salary that you are now grumpy over.
In fact, apparently 1000s are applying to Gravity Payments hoping to take any grumpy person's job.
So if you are grumpy and 9-5ing it (as you said); why should Gravity Payments keep you?
How would your stated attitude help you work with people who did get a raise?
This kind of attitude is toxic.
1 - My productivity is X per month. (Whatever your definition of productivity, it must be, because I can ask for a bigger salary.) 2 - This other guy productivity is X/2 per month. (By the same rationale.) 3 - The other guy gets a raise, and now is paid twice for the same work. 4 - It follows that I'm losing the opportunity of a raise, because I do more than him.
It's not logically rigorous, it may not be true at all, but it's not an irrational reaction either.
For many people, it's about the relative ranking of their worth as a person.