Comments on: Are you what you earn?

By: Joe Stevens

Joe Stevens — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:26:37 +0000

Can’t you just pay the fair market rate for these positions and leave it at that. If you want to get the best work out of people then pay them enough so that they don’t need to think about money. If the work they are doing is purposeful and inspiring then motivation will not be an issue, at least for the designer position

By: solar power brisbane

solar power brisbane — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:12:50 +0000

Im going to do the same with my employment adds. Like you say when you advertise the big $$$ it distracts from the job

By: joe

joe — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:16:09 +0000

This entire article and discussion made me think of that old list of advice from an old man to a young man that has floated on the net for ages.
One of the pieces of advice was:

If something has a direct benefit to an individual or a class of people, and a theoretical, abstract, or amorphous benefit to everybody else, realize that the proponent’s intentions are to benefit the former, not the latter, no matter what bullshit they try to feed you.

But hey, perhaps we are all way off base. This mostly likely won’t post, as I won’t add in a valid email.

Best of luck to all

Joe

By: JC

JC — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:26:00 +0000

Ben,

If it wasn’t YOUR goal to make money, you wouldn’t be interested in hiring people at lower rates, without benefits, to contract positions for which you do not need to pay employer taxes. Why is it OK for you to implement a strategy in the interest of making money while you scoff at candidates who are interested in making money? If you want to pay minimum wage, and the market is such that it yields decent enough candidates, and you’re not actually breaking labor laws with this “contract” nonsense — which you likely are, but that’s another story — then fine, good for you. But don’t blog from up on high about how unimportant money is when paying low wages directly contributes to your personal wealth.

You’ll respond of course by saying that you pay low wages BECAUSE they yield better candidates, but obviously those same great candidates would be happy to work for you for MORE money so it’s absurd to say they’re only in it for the lack of money. I think you probably view minimum wagers as better candidates because those at the poverty line have much more to lose and you can manipulate and control them more easily as a result.

By: Samuel K.

Samuel K. — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:00:49 +0000

hey ben. btw, you should hire me.

By: Samuel K.

Samuel K. — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:56:53 +0000

ive applied for a job at this company twice. TWICE. i would actually quit my current job that pays twice as much to work there. no questions asked. i’ll cut back my spending.

fact is, i’m pretty sure noone is holding a gun to the employees heads. if the environment there is so bad, as soon as they can find a better job, these employees will leave. that’s life, that’s business.

By: Trina

Trina — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:29:41 +0000

Kelly and Luther, you guys are ridiculous. I make minimum wage in Seattle, working a crappy job that I can’t wait to leave. From what I’ve read and heard about Cheeseburger, I would be more than happy to work there. Currently, at my job, even at minimum wage, it’s a hard living, but a living. The two of you sound like you’re slumming on our behalf. Not to mention that Luther’s continued diss of “college students” and “slackers”.

It’s an effing recession. Did you not hear? Here’s a company creating jobs. Not laying off people, not offering stupid unpaid internships to grab coffee. Not every job is suitable for everyone. Gimme a break and get a life.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:28:27 +0000

Luther,

I was intending to evoke the absurdity of calling minimum wage reasonable for living, although you can get incredibly crappy hole-in-the-wall studios in Chinatown/the International District for that price or cheaper. Yes, $200 is nothing a month for food, even if you’re extremely frugal. That’s the point. 40 hours a week at minimum wage and no benefits is an obscene way to treat people you supposedly value as employees.

By: Luther Blissett

Luther Blissett — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:17:09 +0000

Not to mention, will the 118 “extra” money have to go toward paying your light bill? Your internet access and telephone? Will it go toward paying any other bills? Personally, my PG@E bill is 120 bucks a month, and I’m a stickler for keeping unneeded items off, and things not powered up that don’t need to be.

By: Luther Blissett

Luther Blissett — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:15:26 +0000

I’d like to know where in Seattle you can find a studio apartment for 650, or anywhere, for that matter. Certainly you’ll NEVER find that in the Bay Area, where I live. Also, I’d like to know what you are buying to eat for only 200 for an entire month (sounds like a lot of non-nutritious foods like Ramen, and Macaroni and Cheese, with the occasional can of catfood). Eventually, that sort of diet will catch up to you, and you’ll NEED the insurance benefits to maintain your failing body.

Kelly, your estimates are absurd. No one can afford to live like that, except, as I mentioned, the single people / college kids / slack-off free renters.