[skyhatch1]

The author has failed the open letter litmus test, where the positive result is reserved for thoughtful discourses of potential public interest or concern. This Medium post read more like something you tell your friends after a few drinks - and even then, they would be silently thinking, "We're all in the same boat but I haven't sunk yet so quit complaining!"

At the end of the day, the author - like anybody living in the free world - has the choice to pack and move to a more accommodating work/home situation.

[chris11]

It is of public interest. It may sound like someone just complaining about a bad job, but I'd say companies have responsibility to make sure that they pay a livable wage to their employees. And that should be of interest to the public.

[skyhatch1]

I'll concede to the fact that this has stirred a debate the public cares for. Also, I am genuinely sympathetic to the plight of workers being exploited by their employers.

However, the post risks polarizing readers, most of whom could start to see or confirm that managers don't care about the plight of their lowest rung. At my work, our lowest level employees get paid ~$23/hour, but even at that level, a few still complain about their wages being too low to live on. Managers are perhaps myopic in thinking about living wages, but they don't have much choice.

Companies like Yelp are coming of age, and that means they need to turn profits, not just grow. Most such businesses have strict wage budgets, usually a % of revenue, to control operating costs. In this case, if Yelp's CEO capitulates and increases wages, his team will have to hire less people than before.

Perhaps once again, a lose-lose situation. The business loses servicing power and less people get the opportunity to work towards their dream of working in media.