# Low wages and Corporate America..do I have this right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209 "2016-09-17T23:24:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/41 "2016-09-20T05:24:45Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Well, you can reasonably argue that _Wall Street_ may have popularized the idea of greed behind the economy, but a far more intellectual version existed at least as far back as Adam SMith himself: However remember that Alan Greenspan was shocked, _shocked_ that bankers were greedy. One can’t define economic policy ignoring irrational factors or you wind up like Wells Fargo. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/42 "2016-09-20T05:28:20Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Although they do try to put numbers to it. Big companies have employee turnover metrics - what percentage of your workforce voluntarily turns over in a year. A manager at a Target, for instance, will have some of his bonus based off of whether he exceeds his retention targets. Senior executives at big companies aren’t dumb - they know that there is a cost to high turnover - hiring and training costs, customer satisfaction costs, and frankly - goodwill - if you think Wal Mart is a crappy place to work, you might not shop there. If you hear Costco is a good place to work, you might go out of your way to shop there. They don’t really want people to work six weeks and then quit - its costly. As I said above, turnover costs are hard to quantify. I heard that my very large company was well aware that their compensation policy would lead to higher turnover, but thought it worth it. If Amazon is anything like the Times said, ditto. And the cost of turnover for a fry cook is a lot different than for a senior engineer. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/43 "2016-09-20T13:58:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As I said above, turnover costs are hard to quantify. I heard that my very large company was well aware that their compensation policy would lead to higher turnover, but thought it worth it. If Amazon is anything like the Times said, ditto. > And the cost of turnover for a fry cook is a lot different than for a senior engineer. Of course, but they do try. And no company I have ever worked for - from small mom and pop shop to big Fortune 500 - including companies that had a ton of low paid retail employees - didn’t measure voluntary turnover and try and minimize it. i.e. companies, contrary to popular belief, do not see employees as disposable. But they also don’t see them as irreplaceable. i.e. you aren’t paper plates…but you aren’t Faberge Eggs either. Microsoft continues with Bill comfortably retired. Apple lives on though Steve is dead. Companies recognize that even their most high profile employees aren’t irreplaceable. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/44 "2016-09-20T15:42:22Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Economics doesn’t “make up it’s own rules”. It is an attempt to analyze human behavior as it relates to maximizing economic output in a fair and equitable manner. It’s the intersection of behaviorism and accounting, and the only rules it has grounded in anything but malleable theory are basic mathematics. That you can derive endless layers of ‘rules’ from the source materials and use those rules to model and analyze does not make the rules anything but collective opinion. It’s really more akin to a religion than a science; you choose the precepts that make you feel good and then reason your view of the world from them. Next guy over has utterly different precepts and an utterly different view of the world… but it’s neither more or less valid than yours. Economics (beyond simple accounting mathematics) is nothing but made up rules. (And, for the most part, they are rules made up by and serving business and government; people as such barely exist in their view. So the conclusions of a tool of government when talking about human issues are… suspect.) ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/45 "2016-09-20T19:14:16Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > In 1955, the top marginal income tax rate was 91% which was a bit of a disincentive to any greedy business owners. The effective tax rate was much lower, thanks to a more generous system of deductions, trusts etc. > **[Here’s the US tax rate on your income for every year since 1913](https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913)** > > US tax rates have changed wildly since 1913 when the current federal income tax program was first introduced. The above interactive chart shows the difference in rates over time, using data from the Tax Foundation. Enter your taxable income—what... ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/46 "2016-09-20T19:22:48Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s the intersection of behaviorism and accounting, and the only rules it has grounded in anything but malleable theory are basic mathematics. > > That you can derive endless layers of ‘rules’ from the source materials and use those rules to model and analyze does not make the rules anything but collective opinion. It’s really more akin to a religion than a science; you choose the precepts that make you feel good and then reason your view of the world from them. > > Next guy over has utterly different precepts and an utterly different view of the world… but it’s neither more or less valid than yours. > > Economics (beyond simple accounting mathematics) is nothing but made up rules. (And, for the most part, they are rules made up by and serving business and government; people as such barely exist in their view. So the conclusions of a tool of government when talking about human issues are… suspect.) All rules are “made up”. The question is can those “rules” predict the behavior of people and markets. Economists try to evaluate that using math a bit more complex than found in your basic accounting class. But the economy is complex and even legitimate economists don’t always agree on the best course of action. Even if they did, those actions may not be politically acceptable. That doesn’t mean economics is just pulled out of people’s asses. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/47 "2016-09-20T21:00:57Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Of course, but they do try. And no company I have ever worked for - from small mom and pop shop to big Fortune 500 - including companies that had a ton of low paid retail employees - didn’t measure voluntary turnover and try and minimize it. > > i.e. companies, contrary to popular belief, do not see employees as disposable. But they also don’t see them as irreplaceable. i.e. you aren’t paper plates…but you aren’t Faberge Eggs either. Microsoft continues with Bill comfortably retired. Apple lives on though Steve is dead. Companies recognize that even their most high profile employees aren’t irreplaceable. Did you read the articles on Amazon? They have a rewards system that seems to encourage the bottom fairly large percentage of their workforce (much more than the standard 5%) to leave. But it is more than that. The company I used to work for actually felt the way you express - stock options were spread widely, there was a great effort to keep everyone informed, there were lots of little rewards, and the billionaire CEO would drop in on people during his excellent internal webcast. The company who acquired us has a totally different culture. No one below executive VP is ever recognized on our internal web, there is no reward system, all hands meetings to keep employees informed are no more, and internal emails announcing things are slightly less believable than Soviet-era Pravda. And as I mentioned HR seems to say that they understand that the compensation system is going to increase turnover, but that’s okay. They measure it, sure, but their level of alarm is very much higher than other companies I’ve worked for. The philosophy is like grading on a forced curve. It is common to assume that the bottom 5% of workers are losers who are retained out of management laziness and who must be strongly encouraged to leave. But the new normal is assuming the bottom 60% can be improved on due to turnover. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/48 "2016-09-20T21:05:00Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Economics (beyond simple accounting mathematics) is nothing but made up rules. (And, for the most part, they are rules made up by and serving business and government; people as such barely exist in their view. So the conclusions of a tool of government when talking about human issues are… suspect.) Made up rules only in the sense that F = ma is a made up rule. Economics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Models that are made up try to describe the market and then predict the impact of various inputs to the market. They of course rest on lots of assumptions, some of which may be proved wrong. And, like F=ma, the models may not hold in extreme circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/49 "2016-09-20T21:24:25Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > All rules are “made up”. Not in science, which economics keeps straining to associate itself with. > [@Voyager](#): > > Economics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Only in part. Economics fits better with psych and sociology in that it’s an attempt to apply a rigid framework of understanding to an inherently flexible (and often highly subjective) set of conditions. That you can devise rules and models that hold up, for minutes or millennia, in no way makes those rules any kind of natural law or even normative outside any one human culture. The ability of many schools of economics to exist simultaneously, each with at least some degree of consistent results while maintaining rules and precepts greatly at odds with each other, is all that really needs to be noted as proof. I understand the point of economics as a field. I think it is largely successful as long as you limit the definition of “success” to how it’s regarded and used by business and government. I think it has grievous flaws when it comes to accommodating individuals as anything but playing tokens used by business and government to achieve their ends. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/50 "2016-09-20T22:20:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Did you read the articles on Amazon? They have a rewards system that seems to encourage the bottom fairly large percentage of their workforce (much more than the standard 5%) to leave. > But it is more than that. The company I used to work for actually felt the way you express - stock options were spread widely, there was a great effort to keep everyone informed, there were lots of little rewards, and the billionaire CEO would drop in on people during his excellent internal webcast. > The company who acquired us has a totally different culture. No one below executive VP is ever recognized on our internal web, there is no reward system, all hands meetings to keep employees informed are no more, and internal emails announcing things are slightly less believable than Soviet-era Pravda. And as I mentioned HR seems to say that they understand that the compensation system is going to increase turnover, but that’s okay. They measure it, sure, but their level of alarm is very much higher than other companies I’ve worked for. > The philosophy is like grading on a forced curve. It is common to assume that the bottom 5% of workers are losers who are retained out of management laziness and who must be strongly encouraged to leave. But the new normal is assuming the bottom 60% can be improved on due to turnover. I know Amazon - my husband turned down a job there. However, they are still wage competitive (most of your compensation is bonus and stock - if you succeed) and their turnover doesn’t tend to be voluntary. (Netflix operates the same way - hubby doesn’t work there either. And he pulled himself from consideration at Apple). There are a few companies who, for a few years, can do that - they are awesome on your resume. They hire young people (my husband is older) willing to work long hours, get something awesome on your resume - its the law firm associate, Big Four Accounting mindset reset into Corporate America. In my experience, they are the exception. Are they eager to have the bottom 5% move on - you bet - those are the “hiring mistakes.” And laying them off is more expensive (especially in California) than “coaching them out.” But they don’t want much turnover in their top 30%. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/51 "2016-09-21T01:13:56Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I understand the point of economics as a field. I think it is largely successful as long as you limit the definition of “success” to how it’s regarded and used by business and government. I think it has grievous flaws when it comes to accommodating individuals as anything but playing tokens used by business and government to achieve their ends. Well…I suppose it’s called the “dismal science” for a reason. But I think the whole point of economics is to be used by business and economics for making business decisions and economic policies. Ultimately economics is the science of making choices. And people aren’t always happy with the choices that are made. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/52 "2016-09-21T18:37:18Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I know Amazon - my husband turned down a job there. However, they are still wage competitive (most of your compensation is bonus and stock - if you succeed) and their turnover doesn’t tend to be voluntary. > > (Netflix operates the same way - hubby doesn’t work there either. And he pulled himself from consideration at Apple). > > There are a few companies who, for a few years, can do that - they are awesome on your resume. They hire young people (my husband is older) willing to work long hours, get something awesome on your resume - its the law firm associate, Big Four Accounting mindset reset into Corporate America. In my experience, they are the exception. > > Are they eager to have the bottom 5% move on - you bet - those are the “hiring mistakes.” And laying them off is more expensive (especially in California) than “coaching them out.” But they don’t want much turnover in their top 30%. They are all wage competitive in hiring wages, of course. And if you look at average salary, they are targeted against competitive companies. Some target high, Intel targeted at 50%. But wages tend to diverge more than normal in the companies that do big raises / no raise splits. But the company I used to work for is not that hot a place to work (not like Google) and still has this policy. Based on the Times article, the Amazon turnover is voluntary - through burnout and insult. Ours was almost all voluntary, except when someone screwed up big time. The bottom 5% might be hiring mistakes, but it is often people who don’t change with changing circumstances. But I’ve found that coaching them out is hard, since a 0% raise is a plus when you know you are failing. It is especially true if lots of people get 0% raises. Yeah the top 30% might not turnover, but if you have only 30% of your workforce worth a raise you either suck at hiring or suck at managing. And why get someone at say 50% to improve when they are not going to see any impact. You also get what we called in AT&T “retiring in place” - see Wally in Dilbert as an extreme but perfect example. But it happens if there are no feasible rewards. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/53 "2016-09-21T18:47:23Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > But I think the whole point of economics is to be used by business and economics for making business decisions and economic policies. Ultimately economics is the science of making choices. And people aren’t always happy with the choices that are made. So government and business devise a mutually-acceptable tool to model the economic world as they see it, a tool that essentially ignores individuals and consumers as anything but markers in their game, and use it to manage that world to their liking if not their benefit… and “people aren’t always happy with the choices that are made.” I’m reaching for my box of Crayolas… what color is “shocked, shocked I tell you”? When economics starts with consumers as the basic engine of an economy and builds modeling and theory upward from there, it will be something other than a tool of oppression… and I do not use such dialectic casually. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/54 "2016-09-21T20:14:02Z")
Economics is the study of how people allocate limited resources. Someone is going to be unhappy no matter what the decision is or who made it. > [@](#): > > When economics starts with consumers as the basic engine of an economy and builds modeling and theory upward from there, it will be something other than a tool of oppression… Consumers are half the basic engine of an economy. The other half is suppliers. Can’t have one without the other, or you don’t have much of an economy. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/55 "2016-09-21T20:19:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Economics is the study of how people allocate limited resources. It’s also the study of how populations manage wealth, which is not quite the same thing. > [@](#): > > Consumers are half the basic engine of an economy. The other half is suppliers. Can’t have one without the other, or you don’t have much of an economy. I’d agree entirely except that the current nearly universal view is almost entirely that of, or about, suppliers/sellers, with nearly everything about consumers left for granted. Consumers are “sales” - and the longer you think about that, the more you might realize how biased standard economic theory is. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/56 "2016-09-21T20:34:51Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s also the study of how populations manage wealth, which is not quite the same thing. No, it is the same thing. No wealth is unlimited. > [@](#): > > I’d agree entirely except that the current nearly universal view is almost entirely that of, or about, suppliers/sellers, with nearly everything about consumers left for granted. Since it’s nearly universal, you should be able to produce a cite. That is, that nearly all economists pay little to no attention to consumers. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/57 "2016-09-23T13:58:03Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Not in science, which economics keeps straining to associate itself with. Yes in science. And then scientists collect data to see how well the rules match what actually happens in nature. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > I know Amazon - my husband turned down a job there. However, they are still wage competitive (most of your compensation is bonus and stock - if you succeed) and their turnover doesn’t tend to be voluntary. > > (Netflix operates the same way - hubby doesn’t work there either. And he pulled himself from consideration at Apple). > > There are a few companies who, for a few years, can do that - they are awesome on your resume. They hire young people (my husband is older) willing to work long hours, get something awesome on your resume - its the law firm associate, Big Four Accounting mindset reset into Corporate America. In my experience, they are the exception. > > Are they eager to have the bottom 5% move on - you bet - those are the “hiring mistakes.” And laying them off is more expensive (especially in California) than “coaching them out.” But they don’t want much turnover in their top 30%. There are some slight differences. The Big-4 accounting/consulting firms (EY, Deloitte, PwC and KPMG), consulting firms like Accenture or McKinsey, big law firms and other professional services firms work on a “partnership” pyramid model. They tend to hire masses of young people with the right “look” and right resume right out of school. Then every year they are evaluated against each other on a “rank and yank” system. Essentially the ones who bill the most work, they keep. The ones at the bottom get counselled out. As you progress in your career, you go from being an analyst (grinder) to a manager (minder) and eventually start taking on more of a sales and business development role until you make partner (finder). At each stage, the firm may decide they simply don’t want you to move to the next level, then you will be counselled out. They call this “up or out”. Although many firms are moving away from this model, finding that there is value in having individual contributors as strong subject matter experts or managers who are good and mid-level leadership, without trying to push them into sales roles. I should point out that in practice it is a petty and arbitrary system. An solid analyst billing away 40 hours a week on a long-term multi-year engagement might get ranked higher than an ambitious, strong performer with a string of shorter projects because he has more “bench time” (downtime) between gigs. And someone might get downgraded because he couldn’t work one weekend because his wife was giving birth or upgraded because the partner on his project likes taking him to strip clubs every night. Regular big companies in “industry” sometimes do a similar ranking system based off of Jack Welch’s A, B, C system at GE. A players are your superstars who you do anything to keep happy. B players are run of the mill solid performers who you try to develop. C players are your underperforming fuckups who you try to get rid of. In practice, the big companies can’t just arbitrarily dismiss a large percent of their workforce every year because they don’t have a thousand MBAs trying to get into their analyst programs. So the rankings tend to be meaningless. The work tends to be meaningless to, since as far as I can tell, most people in these big companies just sit in meetings and fill out the same reports each month. So your “performance” is basically an exercise in keeping your head down and sucking up to your VP until natural attrition creates an opening to move up. Malcom Gladwell wrote a piece on how this sort of “superstar worship” led to Enron. Tech companies and startups like Amazon, Napster, Google, Uber, AirBnB all operate like weird cults. They tend to look for more eclectic hires. Brilliant weirdos so to speak. Performance is often guided by weird new-agey management techniques like 360 feedbacks (or even 720!), peer reviews and whatnot. Because they new businesses/industries, are often founded by people with no management experience and tend to eschew traditional business and management structures and processes (since “disruption” is a thing!) they are often chaotic places to work. They tend to compensate by approaching most problems by throwing a bunch of smart people at it and making them work all day and night until it’s solved (or a bigger problem draws their attention). Rewards and terminations can often be arbitrary. You may contently hear about some brilliant young employee who became VP at 25 (creating an internal mythology is standard practice in cult-like companies) while seeing the occasional email about someone else “graduating out (we wish them the best in their new adventure!)”. Great for stock options IF you can manage to stay long enough for them to vest and IF (for startups) your shares are actually worth anything after they are diluted by n rounds of VC funding. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/58 "2016-09-23T15:41:22Z")
I’d agree with pretty much all of that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209/59 "2016-09-23T19:44:45Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Regular big companies in “industry” sometimes do a similar ranking system based off of Jack Welch’s A, B, C system at GE. A players are your superstars who you do anything to keep happy. B players are run of the mill solid performers who you try to develop. C players are your underperforming fuckups who you try to get rid of. The difference is how you treat your B employees. You can either pay them reasonably (not as much as A, but that’s okay) or basically stiff them year after year in the expectation that they’ll leave and your next hire will be an A. The CEO of my old company went golfing with Welch and we did it the former way, with B people getting options and cash. The company that bought us did it the latter way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/low-wages-and-corporate-america-do-i-have-this-right/766209.md?page=2)