Re:Seattle C.E.O. Who Promised $70,000 Salaries Wins Suit Fi...
by mgkimsal on Monday July 11, 2016 @12:09PM
(#12072039)
It's all academic until you have a few years of real world results to see how this pay raise will affect people.
Roughly 130 people - let's assume 100 of those people got a $30k raise - this is ~$3m more per year. The CEO went from $1m/year down to $70k, so... approximately $2m/more per year invested in paying people a decent wage.
What affect will this have on retention, employee commitment, training costs, better focus at work by not having to look for a second job, etc.? I would think at least some of the $2m diff would be made up just by reduced hiring/training costs, though it's probably hard to measure that accurately.
These numbers are not much more than a WAG, so perhaps I'm WAY off here...
And... from an article last year
=================
Gravity had about 120 employees, and they earned a little less than $50,000 on average. He found it would cost about $1.8 million to increase wages to $70,000 in steps over three years. Cutting his own pay would cover much of that, and if the wage hikes made his staff more productive, he figured, the whole move just might work.
=================
So that seemed to be the plan (well, the plan that's made its way in to the media stories)
Roughly 130 people - let's assume 100 of those people got a $30k raise - this is ~$3m more per year. The CEO went from $1m/year down to $70k, so... approximately $2m/more per year invested in paying people a decent wage.
What affect will this have on retention, employee commitment, training costs, better focus at work by not having to look for a second job, etc.? I would think at least some of the $2m diff would be made up just by reduced hiring/training costs, though it's probably hard to measure that accurately.
These numbers are not much more than a WAG, so perhaps I'm WAY off here...
And... from an article last year
=================
Gravity had about 120 employees, and they earned a little less than $50,000 on average. He found it would cost about $1.8 million to increase wages to $70,000 in steps over three years. Cutting his own pay would cover much of that, and if the wage hikes made his staff more productive, he figured, the whole move just might work.
=================
So that seemed to be the plan (well, the plan that's made its way in to the media stories)