Revenue rising at twice previous rate!!!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...aying-off-for-that-seattle-company-2015-10-25
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...aying-off-for-that-seattle-company-2015-10-25
$70,000 minimum wage paying off big time for that Seattle company!!
- Thread starter jscott78
- Start date
Methinks something is wrong with this story. Revenues doubled; profits doubled... costs didn't increase because he cut his own salary and he sold off all his shares and he's mortgaged himself to the hilt.
I bet he sells for an inflated valuation and will be Costa Rica when the SHTF.
I bet he sells for an inflated valuation and will be Costa Rica when the SHTF.
Exactly how does employee pay affect the revenue line? Profit would have more than doubled if salaries were more in line, that's what shareholders would say.
Employee pay impacted revenue in this case because it is possible all of the publicity this company got , made them more visible, possibly leading to new business. That is just a guess
Need to wait a little to see. Salaries are not 70K now they go up to 60K in 2016 and 70K in 2017.
100 employees get a 10K jump that is a 1.0M jump per the next two years minimum. He better generate a lot of new business.
100 employees get a 10K jump that is a 1.0M jump per the next two years minimum. He better generate a lot of new business.
If I remember right this company was growing at an extremely high rate before this guy decided to do this anyways and the growth had not yet slowed down.
So the change of the pay structure may not have affected revenues either way.
Isn't this exactly how it should happen? A company pays a better wage and gets a return on the investment by attracting more productive, dependable and loyal employees? Because of that the company does better. The company decided to take this path, it was not mandated by law. Other companies may see this and try it themselves. Many will not because it does not work for them. Once again, the market decides.
But didn't this company lose some of it's most valuable employees, because they felt their extra effort went to waste, as lazy, less productive employees were making the same as they were
Very possible. I was just guessing, as I do not know enough about the details to make more than just a guess. But they did get a ton of publicity, which I would think would not hurt sales
Yes, typical liberal hyperbole here. I wonder if they reported the amount it took to recruit, hire and train new (much less experienced with the company) and the long term effects that loss of 'knowledge'? Typical America...F you to the people that got us this far, the lazy people want a turn!
Yeah that would be my second guess. I doubt the direct action of paying your employee's more would double your revenues unless a large amount of your employee's are sales force and the increased pay inspired them to work harder.
If you believe in free enterprise, it does not matter. If what the company did is right for the company, then, assuming it is legal, so be it. Recruit and pay as you see fit.
What the OP is inferring is raising the minimum wage will not hurt and he is using this as his proof. Mandating what this company has done will not work.
I don't know if it was so much more productive employee's so much as more tenured ones. You had ones who where with this guy almost from the beginning and had worked their way up to a higher salary after so many years. He neglected to raise their pay at all and so you had people who where with him from the beginning watching new people just come into the fold making the same amount as them.
I admire that he's trying to do something about wage inequality and all of that and making sure to pay all of your employee's a living wage is totally laudable.
But at the same time there is going to be some issues if new guys suddenly get their wages set to the same level as someone who's been there for 10 years. So I do also disagree with a system that pays everyone the same amount.
Well there was an article with quotes from a couple of employees who quit, so that is where the info came from
All without the need for government involvement.
I didn't realize you were such a capitalist!
At some point, this guy is going to have to pay off all his bills he's incurred in pumping money into the business. He emptied his retirement, sold all his stock, took out mortgages on his two homes and is renting one out to make ends meet - according to the article.
He is gambling everything on this as a business strategy.
I'm betting, soon, this guy will want to give himself a raise in some fashion. Like pumping up the business to sell it off, or canning employees or not continuing the hiring...I wonder what his graciousness will look like to the clamdiggers hailing him as a hero then. It will happen - it has to happen really.
People are greedy folks...don't ever convince yourselves otherwise.
He is gambling everything on this as a business strategy.
I'm betting, soon, this guy will want to give himself a raise in some fashion. Like pumping up the business to sell it off, or canning employees or not continuing the hiring...I wonder what his graciousness will look like to the clamdiggers hailing him as a hero then. It will happen - it has to happen really.
People are greedy folks...don't ever convince yourselves otherwise.
