Yeah, it is so easy to find a new job, and still pay the bills when you are already living pay check to pay check.
I think it's such a refreshing take to see the guy who licks Bobby Kotick's boots get a break for long enough to regurgitate such truth bombs onto us all, Thank you.
If everyone quit when they disliked something we wouldn't have any of the medical, scientific, and technological break through's we get to enjoy today.
What needs to happen is a serious over haul of what minimum wage means at the federal level, and it needs to have clear language that takes inflation, and modern basic needs of the average American into account, and guarantees that every American who is an able bodied member of the American work force, to shelter, food, clean water, health care, and some fun money.
Corporate America has shown us time and again that they only care about their top dogs, and that they cannot be trusted to make sure the needs of their employees are met. These monsters of society need to be neutered, and pay their fair damn share for once. I am sick of the have nots getting screwed over time and again.
This has nothing to do with technological break through's...talk about apples and oranges. We are talking about a job...pretty much base level customer service and tester. If mass quitting was not effective against companies to make them make changes unions would not exist. If everyone in a workplace demanded a more reasonable pay or they quit then the company would have to seriously weigh that because they would not want the downtime that would create and loss of revenue. Now you ask for too much and you can just pound sand.
High minimum wages has done great. They raised it to $15/hr where I am and the small businesses and fast food places laid off half their staff and put in kiosks. Great for workers. When you price yourself higher than a robot you lose.
"Pay their fair share" The cry of the uninspired. Not one can say how many flat screens TV's everyone is entitled too before they have met their fair share cause it will not stop at housing and food.
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
I've asked CEOs about their pay - and at least the ones that I've talked to have openly said that the pay has gotten increasingly higher as that's how the market for CEOs is - but yes they said the salaries have gotten too high
When you have employees making $30,000 and the CEO is making 40million the CEO is making
40,000,000/30,000 = 1333
A single person is making 1333 times more per yer - you could hire over a thousand people for 30K and the CEO would still make 10mil dollars
That is an obvious problem
The article says that the skilled employees like Producers and Programmers were making $100k. The positions like game testers were making minimum wage. Now we can have a rational discussion about what minimum wage should be, but in general, a job as a game tester would not be a career but a starter job not meant to support a family.
I can't re-read the Bloomberg article as I am out of free articles but that's what I recall from reading it.
But as I said above... if they are complaining about most raises being below 10% then they have a disconnect from reality.
Its the imbalance is the take away not the 10% raise. Its not the minimum wage. All these things are a problem but we need to look past that stuff and really look at the bigger picture. For example, a few years ago there was a report on what it would cost globally to make sure every person on the planet to have access to clean drinking water. The cost: 2 billion. Could you get the people who hold most of the worlds wealth that's top 0.74% to give that? Would it even effect them? Nope it would not affect them and nope you can't get them to do that.
Really is minimum wage really a fair state of things? Is it fair that people who has pre-existing conditions cant afford medical insurance? Is it fair that drug companies mark up life saving drugs by 5000%? Is it fair thats Blizzard having second quarter revenue growth of 38% or $1.93 billion not look at giving everyone who helped them get thats say 5% of that as a bonus? Or even 1%?
If you libertarian Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are lots of reasons why health care costs what it does. As for drugs depends. I think the generic laws need to be changed to promote competition but I also think a company that spends 2 Billion to make a drug deserves to make profit from it so they have incentive to make new drugs.
Bonuses and salaries are much different things. But again if you do not like it organize, leave, or accept your fate. I am completely against governments stepping in.
because humans by nature are not herd animals. We are self interested animals that like to live in a group. There is a big difference. You are not going to be able to change that.
That is the fundamental problem with for profit business being involved in medicine. It is a lose lose situation for the people who need the medicine. Medical research needs to be done with government money. Our taxes should be used for this, because 1 billion dollars is chump change to the US Government, we spend trillions of dollars on our military every year, and there is no reason that a portion of that money can't be used for medical research. It is a disservice to every American to allow tyrannical corporations control over whether someone lives or dies based on the cost of a medication that is available.
If you really believed that competition is good in the medical field, then you should also believe that patents should be illegal. A patent is the most anti consumer practice ever invented.
Your comparison to humans not being herd animals is willfully deceitful at worst, or ignorant at best.
Human's have lived in "Herds" or as people call them "Tribes" for millions of years. Humans have lived for as long, and been as successful as we have been due to herd mentality and tribalism.
Even as hunters and gatherers we would give food to others that didn't have a successful hunt, knowing that they would give back if you had a bad hunt.
People who share a mentality like yours used to be the outliers, but have slowly over thousands of years twisted, and bastardized human survival into a hunter and prey relationship.
I am not pro-consumer or pro-producer. Patents on drugs are needed to inspire more drugs being made. Getting rich is a great motivator for invention. Being able to rebrand your drug after changing it shape or color and extending your patent to stop generics needs to be stopped though. But this has nothing to do with Blizzard and their pay.
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
Sure, than they would say "Ok , we will keep working...", but guess what? They will no longer hold true to the company vision and they will be "whatever".
So if a company is having (much) higher revenues every year, is SAFER to also increase workers wages, if you want them to keep working like before and keep the company revenues growing. 2/3 % will not help. Not at all.
And stop making this comparation with other companies OUT of this industry. Every industry is different.
Also I have no problem if an CEO is making this much money, IF, the workers are also happy with the company and with their wages. When the workers starts to "lose hope", because of the salary, the said company will, sooner rather then later, collapse. Not totally, but .. to a point where it will be very hard to "come back".
And I kinda see this ...trend @ Blizzard!
So you would support a pay for performance model? When the company makes a lot of money the folks get large raises and when the company loses a lot of money they get salary reductions? Or in your mind does it only work one way?
It would be nice for a company to share a great year by handing out bonuses. That's more sustainable than adjusting base pay.
Yes, I do support a "pay for performance" model. In this way you are encouraging your workers to "do their best". But a ..pay for performance on top of your usual salary.
However, for this to work, requires a very, very strong leadership and vision from whoever is in charge with X team to create Y game. If things go bad, well .. they will still have the base salary.
No you don’t actually support a true performance model then. You only want the good and not the bad. You want the bonus in the good times but not give anything up when they lose money.
How can you give more when you lose money?! "..not give anything", I already said that they should receive the base salary in case of .. "losing money".
And of course I wanna encourage good over bad. The fuck? They are a business company on top of everything. If financial speaking, they are doing bad, then the whole company collapse.
You can't act like everything is OK when you lose money. And I would rather keep the employers and pay them less, when things go bad, than to fire them.
It seems you like a.."communism" approach here, where everyone is..equal. Or am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. You also are not following the concept. But that’s ok.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Not a very informative article, all things said and done.
I will say there is a problem in America with corporate greed, this is well known issue, where the CEO of Blizzard is making near to 31 Million + Benefits/Perks, and needs to lay off a bunch of employees after having a banner quarter of sales.
While I do expect some employees to be on the low end of the income scale, when it comes to game companies, the Front Desk and CS department don't get paid nearly enough for the douchebaggery they have to deal with. But then again, I also don't think they do a very good job.. so.. fuck them.
Kinda a mixed feeling on that.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
I've asked CEOs about their pay - and at least the ones that I've talked to have openly said that the pay has gotten increasingly higher as that's how the market for CEOs is - but yes they said the salaries have gotten too high
When you have employees making $30,000 and the CEO is making 40million the CEO is making
40,000,000/30,000 = 1333
A single person is making 1333 times more per yer - you could hire over a thousand people for 30K and the CEO would still make 10mil dollars
That is an obvious problem
The article says that the skilled employees like Producers and Programmers were making $100k. The positions like game testers were making minimum wage. Now we can have a rational discussion about what minimum wage should be, but in general, a job as a game tester would not be a career but a starter job not meant to support a family.
I can't re-read the Bloomberg article as I am out of free articles but that's what I recall from reading it.
But as I said above... if they are complaining about most raises being below 10% then they have a disconnect from reality.
Its the imbalance is the take away not the 10% raise. Its not the minimum wage. All these things are a problem but we need to look past that stuff and really look at the bigger picture. For example, a few years ago there was a report on what it would cost globally to make sure every person on the planet to have access to clean drinking water. The cost: 2 billion. Could you get the people who hold most of the worlds wealth that's top 0.74% to give that? Would it even effect them? Nope it would not affect them and nope you can't get them to do that.
Really is minimum wage really a fair state of things? Is it fair that people who has pre-existing conditions cant afford medical insurance? Is it fair that drug companies mark up life saving drugs by 5000%? Is it fair thats Blizzard having second quarter revenue growth of 38% or $1.93 billion not look at giving everyone who helped them get thats say 5% of that as a bonus? Or even 1%?
If you libertarian Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are lots of reasons why health care costs what it does. As for drugs depends. I think the generic laws need to be changed to promote competition but I also think a company that spends 2 Billion to make a drug deserves to make profit from it so they have incentive to make new drugs.
Bonuses and salaries are much different things. But again if you do not like it organize, leave, or accept your fate. I am completely against governments stepping in.
because humans by nature are not herd animals. We are self interested animals that like to live in a group. There is a big difference. You are not going to be able to change that.
That is the fundamental problem with for profit business being involved in medicine. It is a lose lose situation for the people who need the medicine. Medical research needs to be done with government money. Our taxes should be used for this, because 1 billion dollars is chump change to the US Government, we spend trillions of dollars on our military every year, and there is no reason that a portion of that money can't be used for medical research. It is a disservice to every American to allow tyrannical corporations control over whether someone lives or dies based on the cost of a medication that is available.
If you really believed that competition is good in the medical field, then you should also believe that patents should be illegal. A patent is the most anti consumer practice ever invented.
Your comparison to humans not being herd animals is willfully deceitful at worst, or ignorant at best.
Human's have lived in "Herds" or as people call them "Tribes" for millions of years. Humans have lived for as long, and been as successful as we have been due to herd mentality and tribalism.
Even as hunters and gatherers we would give food to others that didn't have a successful hunt, knowing that they would give back if you had a bad hunt.
People who share a mentality like yours used to be the outliers, but have slowly over thousands of years twisted, and bastardized human survival into a hunter and prey relationship.
I am not pro-consumer or pro-producer. Patents on drugs are needed to inspire more drugs being made. Getting rich is a great motivator for invention. Being able to rebrand your drug after changing it shape or color and extending your patent to stop generics needs to be stopped though. But this has nothing to do with Blizzard and their pay.
BULLSHIT - Patents do not have to be 20-30 years long. 2-5 is plenty. The problem being that the drug companies just change something in the process to get 0.1% more and they get a reissue. The other issue is most drug patents, in the US, were paid for using government grants. It should be a law that if patents are funded through grants, the companies should get minimal profit.
We keep talking about Blizzard but other companies have the same problem. CIG, has raised how much money? over 300 million with only a tech demo to show for it? It is pure greed that is the problem.
Unfettered Capitalism is the problem. We need to regulate it or it will be the poor and the rich. Nothing in between.
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
I've asked CEOs about their pay - and at least the ones that I've talked to have openly said that the pay has gotten increasingly higher as that's how the market for CEOs is - but yes they said the salaries have gotten too high
When you have employees making $30,000 and the CEO is making 40million the CEO is making
40,000,000/30,000 = 1333
A single person is making 1333 times more per yer - you could hire over a thousand people for 30K and the CEO would still make 10mil dollars
That is an obvious problem
The article says that the skilled employees like Producers and Programmers were making $100k. The positions like game testers were making minimum wage. Now we can have a rational discussion about what minimum wage should be, but in general, a job as a game tester would not be a career but a starter job not meant to support a family.
I can't re-read the Bloomberg article as I am out of free articles but that's what I recall from reading it.
But as I said above... if they are complaining about most raises being below 10% then they have a disconnect from reality.
Its the imbalance is the take away not the 10% raise. Its not the minimum wage. All these things are a problem but we need to look past that stuff and really look at the bigger picture. For example, a few years ago there was a report on what it would cost globally to make sure every person on the planet to have access to clean drinking water. The cost: 2 billion. Could you get the people who hold most of the worlds wealth that's top 0.74% to give that? Would it even effect them? Nope it would not affect them and nope you can't get them to do that.
Really is minimum wage really a fair state of things? Is it fair that people who has pre-existing conditions cant afford medical insurance? Is it fair that drug companies mark up life saving drugs by 5000%? Is it fair thats Blizzard having second quarter revenue growth of 38% or $1.93 billion not look at giving everyone who helped them get thats say 5% of that as a bonus? Or even 1%?
If you libertarian Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are lots of reasons why health care costs what it does. As for drugs depends. I think the generic laws need to be changed to promote competition but I also think a company that spends 2 Billion to make a drug deserves to make profit from it so they have incentive to make new drugs.
Bonuses and salaries are much different things. But again if you do not like it organize, leave, or accept your fate. I am completely against governments stepping in.
because humans by nature are not herd animals. We are self interested animals that like to live in a group. There is a big difference. You are not going to be able to change that.
That is the fundamental problem with for profit business being involved in medicine. It is a lose lose situation for the people who need the medicine. Medical research needs to be done with government money. Our taxes should be used for this, because 1 billion dollars is chump change to the US Government, we spend trillions of dollars on our military every year, and there is no reason that a portion of that money can't be used for medical research. It is a disservice to every American to allow tyrannical corporations control over whether someone lives or dies based on the cost of a medication that is available.
If you really believed that competition is good in the medical field, then you should also believe that patents should be illegal. A patent is the most anti consumer practice ever invented.
Your comparison to humans not being herd animals is willfully deceitful at worst, or ignorant at best.
Human's have lived in "Herds" or as people call them "Tribes" for millions of years. Humans have lived for as long, and been as successful as we have been due to herd mentality and tribalism.
Even as hunters and gatherers we would give food to others that didn't have a successful hunt, knowing that they would give back if you had a bad hunt.
People who share a mentality like yours used to be the outliers, but have slowly over thousands of years twisted, and bastardized human survival into a hunter and prey relationship.
I am not pro-consumer or pro-producer. Patents on drugs are needed to inspire more drugs being made. Getting rich is a great motivator for invention. Being able to rebrand your drug after changing it shape or color and extending your patent to stop generics needs to be stopped though. But this has nothing to do with Blizzard and their pay.
BULLSHIT - Patents do not have to be 20-30 years long. 2-5 is plenty. The problem being that the drug companies just change something in the process to get 0.1% more and they get a reissue. The other issue is most drug patents, in the US, were paid for using government grants. It should be a law that if patents are funded through grants, the companies should get minimal profit.
We keep talking about Blizzard but other companies have the same problem. CIG, has raised how much money? over 300 million with only a tech demo to show for it? It is pure greed that is the problem.
Unfettered Capitalism is the problem. We need to regulate it or it will be the poor and the rich. Nothing in between.
yes regulate it like USRR did, that worked so well.
regulation don't fix, it just creates more issues, less freedom, less people willing to risk, and less willing to work
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
I've asked CEOs about their pay - and at least the ones that I've talked to have openly said that the pay has gotten increasingly higher as that's how the market for CEOs is - but yes they said the salaries have gotten too high
When you have employees making $30,000 and the CEO is making 40million the CEO is making
40,000,000/30,000 = 1333
A single person is making 1333 times more per yer - you could hire over a thousand people for 30K and the CEO would still make 10mil dollars
That is an obvious problem
The article says that the skilled employees like Producers and Programmers were making $100k. The positions like game testers were making minimum wage. Now we can have a rational discussion about what minimum wage should be, but in general, a job as a game tester would not be a career but a starter job not meant to support a family.
I can't re-read the Bloomberg article as I am out of free articles but that's what I recall from reading it.
But as I said above... if they are complaining about most raises being below 10% then they have a disconnect from reality.
Its the imbalance is the take away not the 10% raise. Its not the minimum wage. All these things are a problem but we need to look past that stuff and really look at the bigger picture. For example, a few years ago there was a report on what it would cost globally to make sure every person on the planet to have access to clean drinking water. The cost: 2 billion. Could you get the people who hold most of the worlds wealth that's top 0.74% to give that? Would it even effect them? Nope it would not affect them and nope you can't get them to do that.
Really is minimum wage really a fair state of things? Is it fair that people who has pre-existing conditions cant afford medical insurance? Is it fair that drug companies mark up life saving drugs by 5000%? Is it fair thats Blizzard having second quarter revenue growth of 38% or $1.93 billion not look at giving everyone who helped them get thats say 5% of that as a bonus? Or even 1%?
If you libertarian Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are lots of reasons why health care costs what it does. As for drugs depends. I think the generic laws need to be changed to promote competition but I also think a company that spends 2 Billion to make a drug deserves to make profit from it so they have incentive to make new drugs.
Bonuses and salaries are much different things. But again if you do not like it organize, leave, or accept your fate. I am completely against governments stepping in.
because humans by nature are not herd animals. We are self interested animals that like to live in a group. There is a big difference. You are not going to be able to change that.
That is the fundamental problem with for profit business being involved in medicine. It is a lose lose situation for the people who need the medicine. Medical research needs to be done with government money. Our taxes should be used for this, because 1 billion dollars is chump change to the US Government, we spend trillions of dollars on our military every year, and there is no reason that a portion of that money can't be used for medical research. It is a disservice to every American to allow tyrannical corporations control over whether someone lives or dies based on the cost of a medication that is available.
If you really believed that competition is good in the medical field, then you should also believe that patents should be illegal. A patent is the most anti consumer practice ever invented.
Your comparison to humans not being herd animals is willfully deceitful at worst, or ignorant at best.
Human's have lived in "Herds" or as people call them "Tribes" for millions of years. Humans have lived for as long, and been as successful as we have been due to herd mentality and tribalism.
Even as hunters and gatherers we would give food to others that didn't have a successful hunt, knowing that they would give back if you had a bad hunt.
People who share a mentality like yours used to be the outliers, but have slowly over thousands of years twisted, and bastardized human survival into a hunter and prey relationship.
I am not pro-consumer or pro-producer. Patents on drugs are needed to inspire more drugs being made. Getting rich is a great motivator for invention. Being able to rebrand your drug after changing it shape or color and extending your patent to stop generics needs to be stopped though. But this has nothing to do with Blizzard and their pay.
BULLSHIT - Patents do not have to be 20-30 years long. 2-5 is plenty. The problem being that the drug companies just change something in the process to get 0.1% more and they get a reissue. The other issue is most drug patents, in the US, were paid for using government grants. It should be a law that if patents are funded through grants, the companies should get minimal profit.
We keep talking about Blizzard but other companies have the same problem. CIG, has raised how much money? over 300 million with only a tech demo to show for it? It is pure greed that is the problem.
Unfettered Capitalism is the problem. We need to regulate it or it will be the poor and the rich. Nothing in between.
yes regulate it like USRR did, that worked so well.
regulation don't fix, it just creates more issues, less freedom, less people willing to risk, and less willing to work
Regulate it like it was done in the 1950's and 1960's in the US. USSR had no regulations, just on the people doing small businesses.
Deregulation in the US is what screwed our country to begin with.
Tell me what jobs get annual 10% increases in their pay. That is an absurd amount for most people. Hell most only get something around 3% if that. They shouldn't be using that as an excuse.
Maybe a big part of problem is this company has it's headquarters in one of the worse places it can as far as living cost. The cost of living in the state of California is almost 6 times higher than where I live. That means you have to make 6 times what people here make just to live, when you consider taxes, home ownership, food cost, ect... That state is one of the reasons we have so much inflation in cost now. The median home cost where I live is around $150k, the median there is around $700k. That is a huge difference, and that is just the median. Maybe people need to look at where they are living as a reason for struggling also.
@alkanrionlog That is a Red Herring argument. If there are no rules or laws, for companies or workers, then how does one get a fair shake? You see, the problem being is greed is driving deregulation and loosening of all the environmental laws in the US. If you have money, you get a fair shake, the rest, f' em. That is what is happening.
Peoples also probably say UNIONS ARE CORRUPT. WELL, WITHOUT UNIONS WE WOULDN'T HAVE medical benefits, 40 hour work week, paid vacation and sick leave, retirement funding, OSHA, etc. Since unions are declining in the US, look how all those job related perks are going away. Why? Because it cuts away from the 2-3 month profit that the people who have huge investments in the stock market make.
Deregulation in the US is what screwed our country to begin with.
Automation is also going to eventually put everyone out of work. It will be within my life time, probably within the next 20 years. What do you propose we do for the hundreds of millions of American's that through no fault of their own, have been replaced by robots?
What do YOU propose? As I said earlier, Universal Basic Income is a suicide pact that ends up in total Government/Company dependence within a generation. What proposal do you have to solve the automation/robotics/AI dilemma?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Customer service staff in the UK (Call Centres) only receive minimum wage so not sure why that would be a surprise.
The gap of the worlds wealth used to be the 1%. That number is getting worse, in recent years its now something like 0.74% hold the world's wealth. Around the world the middle class keeps shrinking and every year 3-5 mill children die from malnutrition. It surprises me every day how greed is getting worse and humanity can turn a blind eye to our common problems we all face. Empathy is waning.
In short: Blizzard seems to be part of that problem.
At least in the United States, the reason the middle class has been shrinking is that more people have become classified as rich. The percentage of people below the middle class has also been shrinking.
It is important to distinguish between relative poverty in rich countries and absolute poverty in poor countries. The latter is, indeed, an enormous problem. But tremendous progress has been made in recent decades. Go back a few centuries and there largely weren't people who would be wealthy by today's standards, but that didn't mean that the poor were better off. A considerable majority of the world lived in absolute poverty then--by today's standards, under $2 per day.
So, World of Warcraft pulls in nearly $2 Billion by itself. Blizzard brings in just over $4 Billion combined between all of it's games. The customer service staff and game testers make minimum wage. 800 of those staff members get fired. The CFO gets a $15 Million sign on bonus. The top dog makes $40 million a year. Ya... Blizzard can kiss my ass. They not only have no respect for the gamers that put over $4 Billion in their pockets, they have even less respect for their own team members. I'm over all things Blizzard.
@alkanrionlog That is a Red Herring argument. If there are no rules or laws, for companies or workers, then how does one get a fair shake? You see, the problem being is greed is driving deregulation and loosening of all the environmental laws in the US. If you have money, you get a fair shake, the rest, f' em. That is what is happening.
Peoples also probably say UNIONS ARE CORRUPT. WELL, WITHOUT UNIONS WE WOULDN'T HAVE medical benefits, 40 hour work week, paid vacation and sick leave, retirement funding, OSHA, etc. Since unions are declining in the US, look how all those job related perks are going away. Why? Because it cuts away from the 2-3 month profit that the people who have huge investments in the stock market make.
Deregulation in the US is what screwed our country to begin with.
So much BS...your so called "job related perks going away" they are bankrupting both the companies and the country as well.
How in the world can anything keep going if you work for 20-30 years then spend another 20-30 years getting great pay and full benefits without having to work any more?
That is the greatest pyramid scheme ever designed, and like all of them, they eventually fall apart and destroy far more than they ever helped.
Early people that got in on these schemes, great, but all the rest that also paid and supported the early lucky ones get the shaft.
Well get ready....you buy a few decades of ever growing debt and welfare to pay for these "benefits". And the bill is starting to come due.
Just about every country out there, that has decent economies, has been foolishly taken in by this notion of being able to support themselves with fewer and fewer people that actually pay the bills for those that do not.
Ya welcome to the future, it aint gonna be pretty....
Corporate greed is a chronic global problem - the huge pay gap between CEOs/other top execs and everyone else in the company is bordering on absurd.
You take top/best employees in the company and they make X amount - but CEO makes more than 20 times that - it's complete idiocy.
Especially the fact that most CEOs are jack shit and don't even deserve anywhere near 40million pay.
It is economically illiterate to pretend that CEO pay is coming out of employee pay, and that if the CEO were paid less, everyone else would be paid more. CEO pay comes out of company profits, as does everyone else's pay. If a CEO is overpaid, then the people harmed by that are the business owners--who conveniently, have a considerable say in setting the CEO pay. If a company could get the same level of CEO performance while paying the CEO far less, then that would just mean more profits for the business and everyone else would still be paid the same.
The real question of how much money a CEO deserves is one of how much value he adds to the business--just like with all other employees. If paying a particular CEO $30 million to work for you one year means that your business makes an extra $100 million because the CEO is really good at his job, then paying him $30 million was a bargain. If the business doesn't do any better than it would have done if you had gotten the best CEO that you could have had for $1 million, then that $30 million salary was a waste of money. Unfortunately, it's hard to do empirical comparisons to see just how well huge corporations would have done if they had insisted on paying their CEO much less.
Income for the top income earners is extremely volatile. The really high salaries are largely driven by incentive-based packages that make it possible to make a ton of money if the business does far better than anyone reasonably expected, and that isn't terribly repeatable. Some people look at their own salary and say, hey, I get paid $50k every year, and then think that if someone got paid $30 million this year, he gets $30 million every year. The CEO who got paid $30 million one year might get basically nothing another year, and it will be a different CEO of a different company that got paid $30 million in that other year.
Customer service staff in the UK (Call Centres) only receive minimum wage so not sure why that would be a surprise.
The gap of the worlds wealth used to be the 1%. That number is getting worse, in recent years its now something like 0.74% hold the world's wealth. Around the world the middle class keeps shrinking and every year 3-5 mill children die from malnutrition. It surprises me every day how greed is getting worse and humanity can turn a blind eye to our common problems we all face. Empathy is waning.
In short: Blizzard seems to be part of that problem.
At least in the United States, the reason the middle class has been shrinking is that more people have become classified as rich. The percentage of people below the middle class has also been shrinking.
It is important to distinguish between relative poverty in rich countries and absolute poverty in poor countries. The latter is, indeed, an enormous problem. But tremendous progress has been made in recent decades. Go back a few centuries and there largely weren't people who would be wealthy by today's standards, but that didn't mean that the poor were better off. A considerable majority of the world lived in absolute poverty then--by today's standards, under $2 per day.
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
Sure, than they would say "Ok , we will keep working...", but guess what? They will no longer hold true to the company vision and they will be "whatever".
So if a company is having (much) higher revenues every year, is SAFER to also increase workers wages, if you want them to keep working like before and keep the company revenues growing. 2/3 % will not help. Not at all.
And stop making this comparation with other companies OUT of this industry. Every industry is different.
Also I have no problem if an CEO is making this much money, IF, the workers are also happy with the company and with their wages. When the workers starts to "lose hope", because of the salary, the said company will, sooner rather then later, collapse. Not totally, but .. to a point where it will be very hard to "come back".
And I kinda see this ...trend @ Blizzard!
So you would support a pay for performance model? When the company makes a lot of money the folks get large raises and when the company loses a lot of money they get salary reductions? Or in your mind does it only work one way?
It would be nice for a company to share a great year by handing out bonuses. That's more sustainable than adjusting base pay.
While you can have a model of giving employees more money when the business does well, it comes at the expense of reducing your base pay. For example, instead of knowing that you'll get $50k for a year, you'll get $60k if the company does well and only $40k if it does poorly. CEOs commonly have a lot of money saved up and are personally fine if the company does poorly and they get basically nothing for a year. A lot of people who were expecting to make $50k for a year would be in a lot more trouble if they suddenly made only $40k. That's why such incentive pay is less common for people who get lower salaries.
"In 2019, however, the report said that the "bottom half of wealth holders collectively accounted for less than 1% of total global wealth," while "the richest 10% own 82% of global wealth and the top 1% alone own 45%."
"Overall, global wealth also grew over the past year by 2.6%, reaching the new high of $360 trillion. If divided equally, that would mean there is approximately $70,850 per adult in the world."
Where do you think this wealth is coming from? From the lower erans, people in poverty and the middle class. There have been many reports showing there are less middle class today and also that the middle class is making less.
And what? You gonna give them a job. This is systemic problem.
If everyone walks out the company either has to offer more cash to get them to stay or they just prove the market demand for that job with that pay is right. Asking an outside force to come in and "fix" your systemic problem is a problem. Who gets to set the rates? Who gets to pick what jobs are important and which are not?
While unions in the past killed themselves by becoming parasites instead of partners with companies they serve a purpose is done right.
People just need to stop thinking that flipping burgers at McD's is a job that should support a family by itself.
If we let market supply and demand cause a situation where many people can't see viable alternatives to support their family legally, many of those people will turn into crime, and eventually it's bad for the society too.
There must be a balance between free market and taking care that vast enough majority can live their lives legally. If that balance is broken it becomes a systemic problem.
Even on minimum wage, it's very possible to survive legally. Most Americans can live on far less than they think they could. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should be forced to live on less, but we're a long, long way away from starvation.
If the problem is that relatively poor people in rich countries don't have enough money, then mandating that businesses must pay their employees more won't fix the problem. If your labor is only worth $20k per year, and the government mandates that a business cannot hire you for less than $30k per year, then you can expect to be unemployed and get $0k per year. That really doesn't solve the problem.
If you want the relatively poor to have more money, then the better way to do it is with government subsidies, especially stuff like the earned income tax credit. Tell people go ahead and work and make the $20k that your labor is worth, and then get another $10k from various government programs, and now you've got your $30k.
At least in the United States, most people who make minimum wage are very young, and not supporting a family. Many come from households that have relatively high incomes, even, as it's a kid with a minimum wage job just getting his start in the labor market while still partially relying on his parents.
And what? You gonna give them a job. This is systemic problem.
not really. It's a change in the market. Employers used to value good employees and work to keep them, thus nice regular raises. But as with any mega corporation and the changing of times, we now just try to get the cheapest product out, not the best. With that you need the cheapest emplyees. But there are still many growing companies (in terms of market share) out there who are still proving themselves and need to make the best product. So as the job market changes, so does the path to making more money. Vertical climb is dead. Now instead of staying with a company for a nice pension and salary increases, you find better retirement benefits and salary by climbing horizontally from company to company. My boomer dad likes to call millennials job hoppers, but it's just the new market. Gone are the days of companies taking care of their employees for the long haul. So you do have to quit your job if you are frustrated with the way your company is treating you, and find someone who values you more. If you can't, then work on yourself to increase your market value, or be content. There is really no wrong answer except being angry and doing nothing to help your case other than demanding something from someone that they aren't compelled to give you. Compel them.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
"It seems that more than 50% of the company’s employees are unhappy in their current compensation. An anonymous spreadsheet was created and circulated around Blizzard. Bloomberg reports that most raises are actually below 10%. "
1. No shit... I'm sure that at least 50% of employees in most companies wish they made more money.
2. Outside of promotions I have never received any annual raise that was close to 10%. Last 2 years my company gave blanket 3% and 2% raises.
Sure, than they would say "Ok , we will keep working...", but guess what? They will no longer hold true to the company vision and they will be "whatever".
So if a company is having (much) higher revenues every year, is SAFER to also increase workers wages, if you want them to keep working like before and keep the company revenues growing. 2/3 % will not help. Not at all.
And stop making this comparation with other companies OUT of this industry. Every industry is different.
Also I have no problem if an CEO is making this much money, IF, the workers are also happy with the company and with their wages. When the workers starts to "lose hope", because of the salary, the said company will, sooner rather then later, collapse. Not totally, but .. to a point where it will be very hard to "come back".
And I kinda see this ...trend @ Blizzard!
So you would support a pay for performance model? When the company makes a lot of money the folks get large raises and when the company loses a lot of money they get salary reductions? Or in your mind does it only work one way?
It would be nice for a company to share a great year by handing out bonuses. That's more sustainable than adjusting base pay.
While you can have a model of giving employees more money when the business does well, it comes at the expense of reducing your base pay. For example, instead of knowing that you'll get $50k for a year, you'll get $60k if the company does well and only $40k if it does poorly. CEOs commonly have a lot of money saved up and are personally fine if the company does poorly and they get basically nothing for a year. A lot of people who were expecting to make $50k for a year would be in a lot more trouble if they suddenly made only $40k. That's why such incentive pay is less common for people who get lower salaries.
Problem being even if the CEO does poorly, they still get bonuses. This is due to the 'old boys network' where board members are CEO's of other companies and they don't want to vote to cut a fellow 'bud's' pay because they may get their pay cut the same way.
If you libertarian Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are lots of reasons why health care costs what it does. As for drugs depends. I think the generic laws need to be changed to promote competition but I also think a company that spends 2 Billion to make a drug deserves to make profit from it so they have incentive to make new drugs.
Bonuses and salaries are much different things. But again if you do not like it organize, leave, or accept your fate. I am completely against governments stepping in.
I read some comments on another site and I think they hit the nail on the head. H-1B visas are a problem. So is off-shoring. I think those are areas that the government should address. As long as companies can bring in cheap labor by exploiting the visa system, or just farm it out to another country, it's not really a fair situation.
You can't really stop American companies from hiring foreign workers without also stopping foreign companies from hiring American workers--and there is more of the latter than the former.
In some cases, insisting that an American company can't hire foreign workers would mean putting the company out of business, and then they don't hire anyone. Some jobs are readily done by unskilled employees anywhere in the world, and even if you mandate that American companies can't hire foreign workers, foreign companies will, and then they'll be able to undercut prices of American companies due to their cheaper labor costs.
Customer service staff in the UK (Call Centres) only receive minimum wage so not sure why that would be a surprise.
The gap of the worlds wealth used to be the 1%. That number is getting worse, in recent years its now something like 0.74% hold the world's wealth. Around the world the middle class keeps shrinking and every year 3-5 mill children die from malnutrition. It surprises me every day how greed is getting worse and humanity can turn a blind eye to our common problems we all face. Empathy is waning.
In short: Blizzard seems to be part of that problem.
At least in the United States, the reason the middle class has been shrinking is that more people have become classified as rich. The percentage of people below the middle class has also been shrinking.
It is important to distinguish between relative poverty in rich countries and absolute poverty in poor countries. The latter is, indeed, an enormous problem. But tremendous progress has been made in recent decades. Go back a few centuries and there largely weren't people who would be wealthy by today's standards, but that didn't mean that the poor were better off. A considerable majority of the world lived in absolute poverty then--by today's standards, under $2 per day.
This is 100% false.
Actually, it is true that the middle class is shrinking.
And what? You gonna give them a job. This is systemic problem.
not really. It's a change in the market. Employers used to value good employees and work to keep them, thus nice regular raises. But as with any mega corporation and the changing of times, we now just try to get the cheapest product out, not the best. With that you need the cheapest emplyees. But there are still many growing companies (in terms of market share) out there who are still proving themselves and need to make the best product. So as the job market changes, so does the path to making more money. Vertical climb is dead. Now instead of staying with a company for a nice pension and salary increases, you find better retirement benefits and salary by climbing horizontally from company to company. My boomer dad likes to call millennials job hoppers, but it's just the new market. Gone are the days of companies taking care of their employees for the long haul. So you do have to quit your job if you are frustrated with the way your company is treating you, and find someone who values you more. If you can't, then work on yourself to increase your market value, or be content. There is really no wrong answer except being angry and doing nothing to help your case other than demanding something from someone that they aren't compelled to give you. Compel them.
Who will make the change? The rich? Why would they? The politicians? They are owned by the rich. New politicians? They cant get elected without having having $100s of millions. So they are the rich or need the backing of the rich. So who will make that change?
Customer service staff in the UK (Call Centres) only receive minimum wage so not sure why that would be a surprise.
The gap of the worlds wealth used to be the 1%. That number is getting worse, in recent years its now something like 0.74% hold the world's wealth. Around the world the middle class keeps shrinking and every year 3-5 mill children die from malnutrition. It surprises me every day how greed is getting worse and humanity can turn a blind eye to our common problems we all face. Empathy is waning.
In short: Blizzard seems to be part of that problem.
At least in the United States, the reason the middle class has been shrinking is that more people have become classified as rich. The percentage of people below the middle class has also been shrinking.
It is important to distinguish between relative poverty in rich countries and absolute poverty in poor countries. The latter is, indeed, an enormous problem. But tremendous progress has been made in recent decades. Go back a few centuries and there largely weren't people who would be wealthy by today's standards, but that didn't mean that the poor were better off. A considerable majority of the world lived in absolute poverty then--by today's standards, under $2 per day.
This is 100% false.
Actually, it is true that the middle class is shrinking.
Comments
High minimum wages has done great. They raised it to $15/hr where I am and the small businesses and fast food places laid off half their staff and put in kiosks. Great for workers. When you price yourself higher than a robot you lose.
"Pay their fair share" The cry of the uninspired. Not one can say how many flat screens TV's everyone is entitled too before they have met their fair share cause it will not stop at housing and food.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I will say there is a problem in America with corporate greed, this is well known issue, where the CEO of Blizzard is making near to 31 Million + Benefits/Perks, and needs to lay off a bunch of employees after having a banner quarter of sales.
While I do expect some employees to be on the low end of the income scale, when it comes to game companies, the Front Desk and CS department don't get paid nearly enough for the douchebaggery they have to deal with. But then again, I also don't think they do a very good job.. so.. fuck them.
Kinda a mixed feeling on that.
We keep talking about Blizzard but other companies have the same problem. CIG, has raised how much money? over 300 million with only a tech demo to show for it? It is pure greed that is the problem.
Unfettered Capitalism is the problem. We need to regulate it or it will be the poor and the rich. Nothing in between.
Deregulation in the US is what screwed our country to begin with.
Maybe a big part of problem is this company has it's headquarters in one of the worse places it can as far as living cost. The cost of living in the state of California is almost 6 times higher than where I live. That means you have to make 6 times what people here make just to live, when you consider taxes, home ownership, food cost, ect... That state is one of the reasons we have so much inflation in cost now. The median home cost where I live is around $150k, the median there is around $700k. That is a huge difference, and that is just the median. Maybe people need to look at where they are living as a reason for struggling also.
Just something to think about.
Peoples also probably say UNIONS ARE CORRUPT. WELL, WITHOUT UNIONS WE WOULDN'T HAVE medical benefits, 40 hour work week, paid vacation and sick leave, retirement funding, OSHA, etc. Since unions are declining in the US, look how all those job related perks are going away. Why? Because it cuts away from the 2-3 month profit that the people who have huge investments in the stock market make.
Deregulation in the US is what screwed our country to begin with.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It is important to distinguish between relative poverty in rich countries and absolute poverty in poor countries. The latter is, indeed, an enormous problem. But tremendous progress has been made in recent decades. Go back a few centuries and there largely weren't people who would be wealthy by today's standards, but that didn't mean that the poor were better off. A considerable majority of the world lived in absolute poverty then--by today's standards, under $2 per day.
How in the world can anything keep going if you work for 20-30 years then spend another 20-30 years getting great pay and full benefits without having to work any more?
That is the greatest pyramid scheme ever designed, and like all of them, they eventually fall apart and destroy far more than they ever helped.
Early people that got in on these schemes, great, but all the rest that also paid and supported the early lucky ones get the shaft.
Well get ready....you buy a few decades of ever growing debt and welfare to pay for these "benefits". And the bill is starting to come due.
Just about every country out there, that has decent economies, has been foolishly taken in by this notion of being able to support themselves with fewer and fewer people that actually pay the bills for those that do not.
Ya welcome to the future, it aint gonna be pretty....
The real question of how much money a CEO deserves is one of how much value he adds to the business--just like with all other employees. If paying a particular CEO $30 million to work for you one year means that your business makes an extra $100 million because the CEO is really good at his job, then paying him $30 million was a bargain. If the business doesn't do any better than it would have done if you had gotten the best CEO that you could have had for $1 million, then that $30 million salary was a waste of money. Unfortunately, it's hard to do empirical comparisons to see just how well huge corporations would have done if they had insisted on paying their CEO much less.
Income for the top income earners is extremely volatile. The really high salaries are largely driven by incentive-based packages that make it possible to make a ton of money if the business does far better than anyone reasonably expected, and that isn't terribly repeatable. Some people look at their own salary and say, hey, I get paid $50k every year, and then think that if someone got paid $30 million this year, he gets $30 million every year. The CEO who got paid $30 million one year might get basically nothing another year, and it will be a different CEO of a different company that got paid $30 million in that other year.
"In 2019, however, the report said that the "bottom half of wealth holders collectively accounted for less than 1% of total global wealth," while "the richest 10% own 82% of global wealth and the top 1% alone own 45%."
"Overall, global wealth also grew over the past year by 2.6%, reaching the new high of $360 trillion. If divided equally, that would mean there is approximately $70,850 per adult in the world."
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/half-worlds-entire-wealth-hands-millionaires/story?id=66440320#:~:text=The%20total%20amount%20of%20global,world's%20millionaires%2C%20the%20report%20noted.
Where do you think this wealth is coming from? From the lower erans, people in poverty and the middle class. There have been many reports showing there are less middle class today and also that the middle class is making less.
If the problem is that relatively poor people in rich countries don't have enough money, then mandating that businesses must pay their employees more won't fix the problem. If your labor is only worth $20k per year, and the government mandates that a business cannot hire you for less than $30k per year, then you can expect to be unemployed and get $0k per year. That really doesn't solve the problem.
If you want the relatively poor to have more money, then the better way to do it is with government subsidies, especially stuff like the earned income tax credit. Tell people go ahead and work and make the $20k that your labor is worth, and then get another $10k from various government programs, and now you've got your $30k.
At least in the United States, most people who make minimum wage are very young, and not supporting a family. Many come from households that have relatively high incomes, even, as it's a kid with a minimum wage job just getting his start in the labor market while still partially relying on his parents.
not really. It's a change in the market. Employers used to value good employees and work to keep them, thus nice regular raises. But as with any mega corporation and the changing of times, we now just try to get the cheapest product out, not the best. With that you need the cheapest emplyees. But there are still many growing companies (in terms of market share) out there who are still proving themselves and need to make the best product. So as the job market changes, so does the path to making more money. Vertical climb is dead. Now instead of staying with a company for a nice pension and salary increases, you find better retirement benefits and salary by climbing horizontally from company to company. My boomer dad likes to call millennials job hoppers, but it's just the new market. Gone are the days of companies taking care of their employees for the long haul. So you do have to quit your job if you are frustrated with the way your company is treating you, and find someone who values you more. If you can't, then work on yourself to increase your market value, or be content. There is really no wrong answer except being angry and doing nothing to help your case other than demanding something from someone that they aren't compelled to give you. Compel them.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
'Golden Parachutes' anyone?
In some cases, insisting that an American company can't hire foreign workers would mean putting the company out of business, and then they don't hire anyone. Some jobs are readily done by unskilled employees anywhere in the world, and even if you mandate that American companies can't hire foreign workers, foreign companies will, and then they'll be able to undercut prices of American companies due to their cheaper labor costs.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/
The US middle class ceased to be a majority of the US population in 2015.