[virjog]

> They quit a good job, a job they liked, because other people got a raise.

> This is our culture of 'getting ahead' talking.

That's a pretty bold conclusion without any evidence. The concept of a salary is to pay someone in return for work performed. How would Seth feel if I make the same amount of money as him just by sitting at home (obviously an extreme scenario from one aspect)? It would undervalue his contributions, his hard work and dedication, the obstacles he had to overcome, etc. Any reasonable individual would have second thoughts about working at a company that considers a manager as an equal (financially, salary-wise) to a janitor (for example).

It would be safe to say that those two people didn't quit because other employees got a raise. It was probably due to the fact that their contributions didn't hold the same value anymore.

[FLUX-YOU]

>It would be safe to say that those two people didn't quit because other employees got a raise. It was probably due to the fact that their contributions didn't hold the same value anymore.

The linked NYT article in the posted article says that the two that quit were two of the "most valued employees", which to me seems like people who were early hires or responsible for some/most the revenue (through tech/sales/whatever). If that's the case, they took the small/early business risks and when a pay off came, they got passed over. I would absolutely consider other opportunities if that happened to me and I was in a key position because it's likely I was under market value to begin with.

If you want to do this kind of thing, all of your early hires have to be on board with the eventual change or you just need to hire everyone at $70k minimum from the ground up. If not, it's reasonable to expect high performers to leave. Mr. Price either didn't know how those two felt or didn't care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-w...

[jakobegger]

Seth probably doesn't give a shit if you make as much money as he does by sitting at home. As I understood it, that's the whole point of his article: Enjoy what you have, don't waste your time being jealous of other people.

[virjog]

I agree with his overall point, but I don't think the example he used was strong enough to support his case.

[jdietrich]

>It would be safe to say that those two people didn't quit because other employees got a raise. It was probably due to the fact that their contributions didn't hold the same value anymore.

Their contributions held exactly the same absolute value, which is the entire point of Godin's post. Their decision is completely irrational unless they place a significant value on their relative status within the organisation.

[qwer]

> How would Seth feel if I make the same amount of money as him just by sitting at home (obviously an extreme scenario from one aspect)?

That's the entire point of the article. He's saying your compensation for doing nothing at home should have no effect on how happy he is. It certainly doesn't change the actual buying-power of his income in any noticeable way.

[peteretep]

    > How would Seth feel if I make the same amount of
    > money as him just by sitting at home

Why should Seth give a shit? He's making lots of money and having fun. What does it matter to him what/how you're doing?

That's the entire point.

[virjog]

The scenario I was imagining is when we're both in the same company or same business. Obviously, he shouldn't/wouldn't care how much I make if I'm some random person. The idea is that if you have two employees within the same organization and they both make the same amount of money despite one employee doing less work, it definitely would anger the other employee, wouldn't it?

The point isn't about money. I agree with Seth on that. We shouldn't be chasing money and trying to one-up those around us. But the fact that the work I do as an employee is not viewed in the same regard as someone's else work is slightly jarring.

[matwood]

In a business, particularly a small business the amount of money to go around is a fixed pool. Giving raises to low performers means less money for the high performer.

[peteretep]

The amount of money dedicated to salaries is not fixed - particularly in regard to owner compensation, capital investment, marketing costs, team composition, training, etc

[rtpg]

The question is whether Seth's work is undervalued or if your work is overvalued.

If Seth was making $75k, how much you're make is irrelevant to whether that's the number that he was looking for for his skillset.

You could consider the company overvaluing your work a bad signal, but I don't get how that translates to Seth should make even more money than you (Company's made one bad judgement, so should now make two bad judgements?)

EDIT: I understand the sentiment though. It's kind of childish ("why does he get more pasta than me??") but I think most humans are affected with it. I think the feeling is one of wanting to be worth more than others... I have a hard time justifying it on a moral level.

[ansgri]

Though in principle I agree with you, it isn't very nice to throw labels around: the janitor might well deal with dangerous waste and earn 10x the call center manager.

[staticint]

> The concept of a salary is to pay someone in return for work performed.

Not necessarily. Having someone retained for future needs, for example, is worth paying for in some cases. Value isn't limited to work performed.

Pay is, of corse, just the point where the buyer and seller agree. There is no fundamental reason why a janitor position cannot pay the same or more than a manager, if janitors refuse to do the job for any less.