Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Alvito View Post
    I am all for these people getting better wages. I do wonder how many of the people that are going to get upset over and article like this will also flip their lid at the suggestion of say subscription prices or game costs going up.
    I agree, but I also feel like the employee's were being a tad unrealistic. They did a survey and expected a 10% raise to come from it? Come on. Now, this isn't me defending Activision-Blizzard because they sure as hell could afford it, but if I expected a 10% raise every year my company did our internal survey, I would never be happy because it just won't happen unless the government puts in a minimum wage that bumps it up that much higher every year.

  2. #22
    Brewmaster Tiev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Khelek View Post
    Then why do people choose to work there? If they are being paid less, wouldn't they simply move to a better paying company?
    If you grew up playing Blizzard games, being employed by blizzard is kind of your dream job. They don't want to quit anymore than a player saying BFA sucks wants to stop playing WoW. They just want their compensation to be fair.

    I know you're trying to go over these things logically, but you're ignoring the intangibles. They might have a much bigger effect on people's decision than numbers.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by elnimrod View Post
    Should they? I think the problem is the distribution right now is obscenely unequal.
    Should they, probably not. They almost certainly would though.
    "Privilege is invisible to those who have it."

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiev View Post
    If you grew up playing Blizzard games, being employed by blizzard is kind of your dream job. They don't want to quit anymore than a player saying BFA sucks wants to stop playing WoW. They just want their compensation to be fair.

    I know you're trying to go over these things logically, but you're ignoring the intangibles. They might have a much bigger effect on people's decision than numbers.
    What is a fair compensation? Because you know, people aren't equal. Having same job title doesn't really make you receive equal payment.

    Quick example, in my previous company we had a developer who got paid about half of what other senior developers received.
    He was only a "senior" because he was already long employed. But... he was straight up bad. Incomparably less efficient and prone to fuck ups.
    Others had to fix his code frequently.

    He knew that, he knew that he was bad, maybe even not suited for the job that required logical thinking. He also knew he was getting paid half.
    Never in that 10 years he asked for a raise.

    My point is: your work is only worth that much how others are willing to pay you.
    If you think you are worth more, fight for it or find a better job. If you are not doing it, means you are fine with what you are getting paid.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Alvito View Post
    I am all for these people getting better wages. I do wonder how many of the people that are going to get upset over and article like this will also flip their lid at the suggestion of say subscription prices or game costs going up.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not too long ago they didn't in my lifetime the wages for the top employees has sky rocketed while the bulk of the workforce has seen little pay growth. Be it golden parachutes, absurd perks and bonuses or people at the top controlling their own paydays.
    Yes, the compensation has skyrocketed, but the question is why. No compensation can occur without revenue. The size and scope of business has changed. Amazon provides a service for hundreds of millions of people who voluntarily utilize that service. This growth has not changed the average worker's job at all. They still drive the trucks, stack the boxes, etc. so their pay has remained relatively (inflation and such aside) similar with the numbers of employees increasing to match the greater scope, but the CEOs are required to run much larger and more complex businesses as a single individual. Since there are not many people capable of running such companies, the boards in charge of hiring such people use lavish incentives to lure the best candidates.

    Are CEOs over paid? Probably, but there is not some sinister plan to overpay them, but rather companies are overestimating their value to the organization. If you are looking to have your car repaired, you look for the cheapest mechanic, but also one that can do the job. You may pay extra for a better or faster job. It is the same in business, they don't want to pay CEOs a ton of money, but are choosing to do so as they believe it to be cost effective.
    Last edited by Khelek; 2020-08-04 at 04:54 AM.

  6. #26
    The Patient october breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia, aka Outland
    Posts
    262
    Let's see. According Mr. Google, Blizzard has 4700 employees. Not all of them are in the central office, but lets assume they are all in one place. assuming an average lunch to be $15 and all 4700 workers work everyday in a year:

    4700 x 15 x 365 = $25,732,500

    Yep, with Bobby pay check they could have actually give ALL of them free lunch every day!

    That was a very very generous assumptions I did there. The actual price with a contractor and 5/7 working day in a week will be much cheaper.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiev View Post
    If you grew up playing Blizzard games, being employed by blizzard is kind of your dream job. They don't want to quit anymore than a player saying BFA sucks wants to stop playing WoW. They just want their compensation to be fair.

    I know you're trying to go over these things logically, but you're ignoring the intangibles. They might have a much bigger effect on people's decision than numbers.
    The intangibles are benefits as well. Say I'm offered a 50K salaried position and a 60K salaried position. I may choose the 50K because the hours are better or it is closer to where I live. I am not being underpaid at 50K, I simply value those benefits more than the 10k. If employees are passionate about blizz games and are choosing to work there, at what they know to be lower pay, it simply means they value where they work more than the possible increase in pay they may get elsewhere.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Khelek View Post
    I'm not saying that at all. It is the market that determines value. Do you think companies want to pay their CEOs that much?
    Yes, as the board of directors are run by people who are usually friends or tight co-workers who also make deals to steal as much money as possible.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MyWholeLifeIsThunder View Post
    For some people is really just easier to believe the CEO must be worth "800%" more than the laborers than to realize the system itself is messed up. Higher echelons benefit from inflated salaries in upper management, why would a CEO choose to work on a company that actually payed what the job is worth instead of going for one of the ones that inflate the value of those positions?

    Surprise, it's all a scam. People on the higher positions just keep inflating their salaries to accrue more wealth, and of course it works, because everyone wants to get a payday when they reach the top. It's a hilariously broken system, but that's just unregulated capitalism for you.
    It's odd as people will fight against what benefits them! It's literal insanity.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Khelek View Post
    Then why do people choose to work there? If they are being paid less, wouldn't they simply move to a better paying company? This would be a benefit to them and also force blizz to increase pay or risk losing valuable employees.

    This is what boggles my mind about people howling about compensation at any level: Companies do not want to pay employees any more than they have to. This is countered by employees wanting as much as they can get. The company does have a hard cap, however, which is true for every employee from the CEO on down. You cannot be paid more than the value you produce otherwise you are no longer an assets to the company. If my employment generates $8 of revenue an hour and the company pays me $10 per hour, they will lose money and I will either be fired or never hired to begin with. The actual value of your labor is dependent of the supply (how many people can and are willing to do the job) and the demand for your services.

    This is as true for the CEO as for the janitor. A company does not want to pay millions for a CEO. If they could hire a janitor to do the CEOs job for a fraction of the pay, they sure as hell would do so. The fact that they do pay such salaries/bonuses indicates that they believe the cost (the salary/bonuses) is out weighed by the value (generated revenue) the CEO brings to the company. They could be very wrong, but the market should even out for every level of employment.
    In a perfectly competitive world it is that simple. But this is not a perfectly competitive world. The issue is if you work at a company and you've been there for a long time, the relationship is symbiotic - you earn them more revenue than you would earn at another competitor because you've built up a ton of company specific skills and knowledge over time. So you and Blizz have to decide how much of that excess value goes to you, and how much goes to them. But because Blizz is one big monolithic entity negotiating with thousands of individuals, they can gradually ensure that more of that excess goes to them than goes to you because they're just in a stronger, more organized bargaining position.

    Then there's the other costs. For people, employment is sticky. If you leave and go to a competitor, you maybe have to spend a year, 2 years getting acclimated to the point where you're worth as much to them as you were at your original employer, and maybe you have to move, take your kids out of school. So you take the crappy raise. Then you do it again next year. Pretty soon everyone is doing it, and eventually the big honchos are rolling in it while the employees are struggling.

  10. #30
    Get your guillotines ready, time for Kotick's head to roll.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Khelek View Post
    Then why do people choose to work there? If they are being paid less, wouldn't they simply move to a better paying company? This would be a benefit to them and also force blizz to increase pay or risk losing valuable employees.

    This is what boggles my mind about people howling about compensation at any level: Companies do not want to pay employees any more than they have to. This is countered by employees wanting as much as they can get. The company does have a hard cap, however, which is true for every employee from the CEO on down. You cannot be paid more than the value you produce otherwise you are no longer an assets to the company. If my employment generates $8 of revenue an hour and the company pays me $10 per hour, they will lose money and I will either be fired or never hired to begin with. The actual value of your labor is dependent of the supply (how many people can and are willing to do the job) and the demand for your services.

    This is as true for the CEO as for the janitor. A company does not want to pay millions for a CEO. If they could hire a janitor to do the CEOs job for a fraction of the pay, they sure as hell would do so. The fact that they do pay such salaries/bonuses indicates that they believe the cost (the salary/bonuses) is out weighed by the value (generated revenue) the CEO brings to the company. They could be very wrong, but the market should even out for every level of employment.
    dude..have you seen how IT companies treat people in this country....

  12. #32
    Lets see, engineer. A highly complex job you have to be smart and train for getting over 100k a year or a game tester/ customer service rep that just plays a game or reads from a script getting minimum wage. Sounds right to me. Im not going to pay someone 100k to read from set questions about how to deal with customers. And im not paying someone 100k a year to test my game.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by The-Shan View Post
    Some producers and engineers at Blizzard can make well over $100,000 a year, but others, such as video game testers and customer-service representatives, are often paid minimum wage or close to it.
    Read: Skilled jobs (developers) make a high wage, unskilled jobs (testers and customer service) make entry-level wage... just like ever other industry.
    Grand Crusader Belloc <-- 6608 Endless Tank Proving Grounds score! (
    Dragonslayer Kooqu

  14. #34
    WC3 Megathreader Lilithvia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    No matter the topic, someone will find a way to redirect it to complain about their current aggro.
    Posts
    3,383
    Quote Originally Posted by october breeze View Post
    Let's see. According Mr. Google, Blizzard has 4700 employees. Not all of them are in the central office, but lets assume they are all in one place. assuming an average lunch to be $15 and all 4700 workers work everyday in a year:

    4700 x 15 x 365 = $25,732,500

    Yep, with Bobby pay check they could have actually give ALL of them free lunch every day!

    That was a very very generous assumptions I did there. The actual price with a contractor and 5/7 working day in a week will be much cheaper.
    $15 lunch? where do you live for it to cost that much?

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by CcB View Post
    Yes, as the board of directors are run by people who are usually friends or tight co-workers who also make deals to steal as much money as possible.
    They all want to make money and also the investors want a return on investment. Giving all that money to one person would cut their share and being evil greedy capitalists, they wouldn't want that. If a company could pay the CEO the same wage as a janitor and still get the same results they would do so, Hell, why have a CEO at all? Just spread that 40 million amongst the board of directors.

    CEOs are paid like everyone else--based on the demand for their services and the supply of qualified people. From this pool companies try and lure the best candidate they can get for the lowest price they can, but since the number of candidates is low and many companies are vying for their services the CEO's compensation has skyrocketed.

    I agree that companies are over paying their CEOs, but that is b/c they are doing a poor job estimating their value to the company and not b/c there is a cabal out to screw over people. Time will tell, b/c if they are over paid, some company will figure it out and be just as successful while not paying their CEO as much. We'll see.

  16. #36
    Seeing as Activision-Blizzard hasnt actually released a top level product in 10 years, maybe the kikes at the top should take a pay cut.

  17. #37
    Extreme capitalism and a rightist government will do that to any country. I watched a traumatic video earlier where a woman's home got broken into and she was hidden in her bathroom which got broken into too. The guy reporting used that opportunity to sell this product that would secure your bathroom door. There is capital on everything in the US.

    I agree with paying based on input and services provided but some of them are on minimum wage (customer service personnel) just because of their job role. It's their job to please and potentially retain customers, is that not valuable to ActiBlizz?
    Night Elves NEED long hair to the ground and more elegant/regal beautiful options to show their Highbourne heritage

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Khelek View Post
    They all want to make money and also the investors want a return on investment. Giving all that money to one person would cut their share and being evil greedy capitalists, they wouldn't want that. If a company could pay the CEO the same wage as a janitor and still get the same results they would do so, Hell, why have a CEO at all? Just spread that 40 million amongst the board of directors.

    CEOs are paid like everyone else--based on the demand for their services and the supply of qualified people. From this pool companies try and lure the best candidate they can get for the lowest price they can, but since the number of candidates is low and many companies are vying for their services the CEO's compensation has skyrocketed.

    I agree that companies are over paying their CEOs, but that is b/c they are doing a poor job estimating their value to the company and not b/c there is a cabal out to screw over people. Time will tell, b/c if they are over paid, some company will figure it out and be just as successful while not paying their CEO as much. We'll see.
    Yikes.
    10char

  19. #39
    Companies pay their workers the lowest they can. More news at 11.

    I love how you even copy-pasted the "read more" link in the middle.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by deenman View Post
    not rly,plenty of CEO's have cut their own benefits and salaries to keep empleyees
    In which universe?

    I don't doubt that companies exploit their employees' passion for games, and not ATVI alone. Workers' rights are generally very poor in the US, people really have to unionize and fight for it to improve.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •