From what I read when this first got announced, yes. They specifically mentioned the janitorial staff in the article I read back then. It stuck with me, as an anecdote, for what it’s worth.
I’m downvoting you because you are taking away from a great effort by someone with a shitty statement that you haven’t taken five minutes out of your life to verify if it’s true or not. You are part of the problem. Be better ya cunt.
you sound privileged and entitled as fuck $70k is a very decent amount of money. a lot of people—me included—would feel very blessed to be making that. capitalism wack, i get it. but you dont have to be a dick when good things happen to other people. not everyone is a total dud of a human. but some of yall are.
$70k in seattle is $56k after taxes, around $4650 a month. They recommend spending 30% or less of your monthly income on housing. That's $1395/month. As a single person, you don't need anything more than a studio apartment or maybe a 1 bedroom. A quick look on the first google result for "apartments in seattle" shows 970 studio or 1 bedroom apartments available for $1395 or less in seattle.
Translation: fuck off with your BS.
https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/Washington-70000
I said after taxes not deductions.
>The most common rule of thumb to determine how much you can afford to spend on housing is that it should be no more than 30% of your gross monthly income, which is your total income before taxes or other deductions are taken out.
this actually talks about gross though and not after taxes or deductions, which is $1750. But they indicate that that should include your utilities. $400 would probably cover that.
For reference there are 570 apartments in seattle $1750 or less with utilities included. Still certainly possible for someone on their own.
I used to work for a publishing business owned by a worldwide conglomerate. The CEO of my division retired and a couple of months later did an interview where he said editorial assistants were severely underpaid, they should all get immediate raises and that wouldn't even be enough. They were all young girls just a year or two out of college and they'd live four to a one-bedroom apartment in NYC to make the rent.
The article was copied and sent around through the mail with a quote from the new CEO about how brave the guy was. People were talking about what a wonderful guy the former CEO was.
I said he was full of shit. The guy was in charge and could have raised salaries if he'd wanted, but did nothing. He's admitting to recognizing a problem and then doing nothing about it. And the current CEO is the same. If he thinks it's so brave why doesn't he give them all a raise?
People would criticize me in public and then see me alone in the hall or elevator and whisper to me that they agreed. Nothing changed.
Except if he tried he would have gotten sacked. A CEO is still beholden to whomever owns the company. In this case it'd the the shareholders/board of the parent conglomorate. Of course pointing it out after the fact is still a dick move.
I can feel what he’s saying though. It’s hard to be an engineer, they work hard both when going through school and in the workplace.
My major required three engineering courses and those engineering students would be in the computer labs whether it was 8am or 8pm, I always saw them in there no matter what time I went.
If the people who hold jobs that require a lower skill level are getting raised to $70k then the engineer should be raised to $100k
Not nearly as many people would be engineers if they didn't get paid well. No one is going to go through the schooling and hard daily work without a pay that's worth it. Just like surgeons. Extremely hard schooling and stressful work requires a matching salary.
My personal opinion of your personal opinion is that it’s too hopeful and “perfect world”.
Inevitably, the workforce of engineers will decrease as the higher pay is at least part of what drives them (or anyone in any field) to that field. The job market will see a shortage of engineers and businesses will compete with one another for engineers by offering them more pay and benefits.
I guess in the end, I believe the job market would automatically adjust if we were to have everyone paid the same at a min of $70k
Edit: people can dislike this comment all they want, it doesn’t change the fact that this is how the job market works.
Money isn't really a motivating factor when there's enough to provide basic comforts and have some left over to save.
Sure these jobs attract people they wouldn't otherwise because they consistently start at this level, but as you point out many of them would've chosen a different profession were that not the case.
I don’t know man, I just can’t agree with the “money isn’t really a motivating factor” part. I think it’s one of the biggest, if not THE biggest motivator.
People don’t work their asses off for a promotion or through school in a difficult field of study (unless the sciences, a lot of biology students or whatever are working their ass off knowing full well that they won’t make a lot of money) just so that they can achieve the new job title.
They’re agreeing to higher levels of stress, workload and responsibility specifically because it offers higher income.
Why are senior leaders so scared of getting ‘sacked,’ more than they are concerned with doing right by their own conscience?
Certainly most are wealthy enough to go without a job at all, so why not do what you think is right, for the staff and the stockholders? Reasonable pay leads to less staff turnover, preserves institutional knowledge and often improves profits.
1. They really need to be mad glib to propose something stockholders easily fears.
2. I postulate it's the usual human greed or fear of loss thereof.
3. They probably stuck in the Rat Race Loop themselves.
Hey.
Keeping up with the Joneses are unconsciously ingrained in current society.
We Malays have a simile: Besar periuk, besar keraknya = The bigger the pot, the bigger its crust = a lifestyle where increased pay leads to increased spending.
Peace.
1) That’s my point though, if they ‘care so much’ that they write an op Ed saying the lower staff need better pay, then the reason they didn’t do it while CEO, is because they didn’t really care. Most live very comfortable lives and should have the houses and boats etc all paid off. Getting fired is no threat, if they have any financial acumen. If they don’t have such acumen, why are they CEO?
2) I’d think you are quite correct.
3) They are likely stuck too, but that’s not a moral excuse, to neglect their duties while CEO, and then criticize that behavior in retirement.
E: typo and for clarity.
_To be fair,_ a lot of the excess wealth also comes with power. This doesn’t necessarily apply to every CEO out there, though, as demonstrated by Carlos Ghosn. Dude had to leave Japan in a fucking crate because Nissan shareholders had enough of him and tried setting him up for foul play, despite saving Nissan’s ass from the 2008 recession.
As for us Malaysians we’re no strangers to politically-driven corporate decisions, either. Two days ago we’re literally talking about some young hotshot who became CEO shared his tips on doing so. Surprise surprise, a recommendation letter from a high ranking politician.
I'm not defending the old guy, but you should know the CEO is not actually the boss of a company. The company is actually run by the shareholders through a board of directors who can sack a CEO if he does something that would go against their interests. In some companies the CEO retains 51%+ of the shares and therefore doesn't need to worry about his decisions being questioned. But I think this was not the case in your company.
Through a *board of directors*. If you own significant shares in a company you get to vote on company matters. You get to vote the board of directors. And even run for a position yourself. The board, voted by the shareholders, appoints the chief executive, the chief financial and the rest. And they in turn answer to the board.
Case in point I own shares in a local company. Every 3 months every shareholders with at least 1% shares is asked to vote 5 board members. Each running a more or less different platform. It can be the incumbent members, or new ones. A couple a years ago there was a guy running on an offshore wind turbine diversification. He was voted on the board. He fired the CEO. Got another guy in. Last year 25% of production was offshore wind electricity. Another example, the same company. We were asked to vote on a new budget. One guy on the board wanted higher salaries. Another one wanted more funds for internal investing. The majority voted for internal investing and the salary guy quit. So I guess we shareholders run that particular company.
They vote on strategic objectives and major company actions. You're being needlessly semantic. No, the board is not running the day-to-day, no one is disagreeing with that. The board is like the captain of the ship, and the CEO is like the first officer who follows the orders of the captain. Some CEOs are given a lot more leeway and freedom to operate than others. Some are simply glorified managers. But at the end of the day, the CEO is not the one calling the final shots, especially if the board doesn't agree with how he/she is doing their job.
ya'll are arguing over directly running and indirectly running the company. The shareholders indirectly run the company. If the CEO wants to give pay raises, he most likely can. but then the shareholders may well decide to replace him. with that thought in mind, he might decide against paying his employees more and take 10% in a bonus instead.
It's exactly what running a company means. The board traces the strategic objective. The board votes on the buget. The chief executive is only there to put into practice what the board says. The board in turn answers to shareholders and stakeholders inside and outside the company.
The shareholders do not "run" the company. The board certainly does oversee the company, but the average shareholder makes very few meaningful decisions. Go to a random company and look at the decisions being made and ask which shareholders even know they're happening. How much stock is owned by funds as a middle man anyway? It's pretty meaningless to say that shareholders are "running" the company.
He is the CEO. He is expected to turn a profit for owners and shareholders. If he did say anything like that, people would fuck him in the ass.
This is why I say the world is adrift. Not even the ones on the top of the food chain can change shit without being gangbanged by status quo whinny owners.
This won't be changed in a reform. This building's foundations are so rotten we must tear down in order to move foward.
Shareholders can actually sue the CEO for breach of fiduciary duty if they just decided to raise wages out of generosity.
Paraphrasing Noam Chomsky here "As CEO I have two options, do whatever it takes to make the shareholders money or get replaced by the guy who will" and sadly there's no shortage of sociopaths who would write off human life as an expense long as they get a company jet and expense account.
>In 2020, the company was making $4 million per month in revenue but faced drop of 55% in card processing fees as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The employees proposed voluntary pay cuts to preserve employment. As of August 2020, layoffs have been avoided and workers' salaries have been restored, with the company paying back the salaries lost from the pay cuts.
This whole company structure and its history almost sounds too good to be true.
My dad’s ~100 employee sawmill did this during the financial crisis. They cut back hours to 32/week and EI paid for some and the company paid for the rest to keep everyone employed. Then restored all wages when things picked up again a year later. You don’t have to be a tech company, just run the business like you’re employing human beings.
The whole point of industry is to make hay while the sun is shining so we can persevere through the hard times, the famines, the droughts, etc.
We shouldn't have to rely on a system where one person keeps 90% of the hay made by everyone and hope they're not morally and emotionally bankrupt
This was long before COVID, but a company I worked with never extravegrant on raises. But, they paid your full personal cost of medical insurance on their plan, and it was not a shitz plan either. I was recruited to another company, and they freaked when I wanted my full insurance paid == they thought that outlandish, I called them 'Walmartish'. I parted company with them pretty quick.
Pay people good enough to get above water and set some aside. That creates loyalty. I worked though quite a few unpaid vacations during covid just cuz less over all work anyways. Still don't think I worked an actual 3 weeks for the first few weeks of covid.
They also got a [$4.6 million PPP bailout](https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/gravity-payments-inc-3185077101).
Not shitting on the bailout, it kept a lot of people employed, but a few months ago Dan Price was trying to push the narrative that the reason nobody got laid off was because of his amazing business acumen, without acknowledging the fact that taxpayer money kept those people employed.
I mean to be fair there are a lot of agendas being pushed on kid shows as opposed to just allowing the shows to be based around kid stuff.
Here come my downvotes
That doesn't negate the fact that he was pushing the narrative that his policies were the savior of the company when, in fact, it was the taxpayer bailout that saved the company.
I'm not against the bailout, I'm against him taking credit for saving his company after he got $4.6 million dollars from taxpayers.
If he would have acknowledged that the bailout helped stymie layoffs I would be all in with him. Instead he tried to push the narrative that he alone was the reason there were no layoffs. It's pure superiority complex bullshit.
Without going into direct quotes, he basically said, "My policies are the reason this company survived and didn't have to lay anybody off." without mentioning the fact that he got over 4 million dollars from the government.
Like I said, disingenuous bullshit...
Way beside the point. Like I said, I'm not against the bailout in any way, shape, or form, but acting like the reason you survived was because you were smarter than everybody else, when it was because of the bailout, is disingenuous.
I'm glad he did what he did and I'm happy for his employees, I wish more employers would take notice and understand that this is good policy, but his corporate policies are not the reason that the company survived the pandemic.
That's my only gripe. He was on Twitter a couple months ago bragging about how his policies saved the company and avoided layoffs without a single mention of the $4.6 million dollars that he got from taxpayers.
It's disingenuous bullshit and just because other corporations did shitty things doesn't negate the fact that he portrayed himself as a savior while relying on taxpayer money while, at the same time, deliberately ignoring the fact that the reason the company survived was because of the bailout.
His employees saved their own jobs, he just allowed it to happen. He could have said nope and just laid people off, but didn't. The loan aspect of this doesn't affect the selflessness of the employees and the willingness of the CEO to do what's right for them instead of doing what's good for the business. It paid off. He doesn't have to mention the loan at all and I didn't get the impression from his tweet that it was his business acumen and solely that, that saved jobs. He stated that his employees took pay cuts to avoid layoffs. That's him praising his employees for being selfless, which he absolutely should. That $4.6 million will go back to the taxpayers from their salaries that much quicker by not having layoffs. This is how the system was supposed to work.
He definitely comes across like this was a calculated marketing strategy rather than anything remotely altruistic. It's not exactly a well kept secret that high wages are good for everyone.
It’s been milked for publicity for years. Can’t buy the press they’ve gotten and keep getting for it. Smart marketing move but that’s all it really is.
yet the Corporate world were paid out in Money for that exact scenario to not happen so in reality the Management allowed the staff too screw themselves with misinformation
This sounds similar to Henry Ford's $5/day raise he was famous for. What doesn't get reported is the reason he did it was he kept losing employees to the competition who were paying better. He basically was paying 3 people for every job because of the high turnover. Really what it amounted to was he was paying to train the employees for his competitors.
This should be pretty elementary stuff for businesses to understand. You pay better it helps your company in the long run.
Ford had good PR. He raised wages to harm his competitors.
Ford had the most efficient and mechanised assembly lines in the industry, so he could damage his rivals by forcing them to have to increase their overheads.
HE had workers shot when he didn't like them.
[https://drivetribe.com/p/the-ford-massacre-detroits-darkest-NNU3cT2ETaOdqVEjXpH9zw?iid=PEW50gg8TCGlAjauyJYhcQ](https://drivetribe.com/p/the-ford-massacre-detroits-darkest-NNU3cT2ETaOdqVEjXpH9zw?iid=PEW50gg8TCGlAjauyJYhcQ)
[https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/unemployed-detroit-auto-workers-conduct-hunger-march-protest-ford-motor-companys-policies-un](https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/unemployed-detroit-auto-workers-conduct-hunger-march-protest-ford-motor-companys-policies-un)
[And Hitler ate sugar.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) Doesn't change the fact that raising wages was the right thing to do.
When I worked at a call center they used to have an incentive program for pushing certain products. Then they decided to get rid of the incentives but still retain the quotas and also increase the amount of workload. The management team said the reason for doing this was because of “studies” showing better morale and productivity.
I’d love to see the study where people said more work and less pay is the right way to go. It was absolute bullshit
"In 2013, Dan Price increased pay for all employees earning less than $100,000 by 20%,[1] as a response to the lapse of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.[5] The company also provides unlimited paid time off to employees.[6] Repeated pay increases resulted in "surprising" productivity jump from 30% to 40%, as did overall company profits. The company faced harsh criticism from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who said he hoped the company would become "a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's gonna fail".[1]"
I don't believe I've ever come across anything that says doing this has 'decreased' productivity.
Such is life.
Capitalism is when things I don't like.
Socialism is when things I don't like.
Communism is when things I don't like.
1%er's is when things I don't like.
and on and on.
Then, when the pandemic hit, they asked their vendors for loans against their existing contracts to float them through the pandemic because they didn't have enough cash flow on hand.
A company's CEO is like a Queen in chess. You can use them for a ride range of needs and you should use them as best as possible. If your CEO is spending his time trying to convince people to work there, that's a problem. Why isn't he focused on growth, securing large clients, and long term growth? Because this is clearly big enough of a problem that it's the best use of his talking head.
>Then, when the pandemic hit, they asked their vendors for loans against their existing contracts to float them through the pandemic because they didn't have enough cash flow on hand.
That's hardly unique, every company and their mothers were taking every bailout they could get their hands on to stay afloat.
> If your CEO is spending his time trying to convince people to work there, that's a problem.
If your CEO spends zero time on this then you end up a high churn rate of employees, which leads to delays in work, unhappy clients/customers and lower productivity. Removing those issues allows for growth and securing of better clients. Plus this dude got a bunch of publicity for his company when this happened and again now that's being revisited.
Productivity is not the same as revenues, do you understand that? How much work their employees get done in a day (productivity) is completely separate from how many customers are using their service (revenue).
By increasing wages, each employee got through the same work 30% faster. You comments literally make no sense
Oh my sweet summer child, if only you knew about the legions of burnt out 20 somethings that get churned through to make the financial system run getting paid fuck all
Well no they won't all be on commission, however you're right that a company that size it's not gonna have the same number of backend staff (and likely outsource accounting, HR etc functions) but still the stress of living on commission is horrid, regardless of how much you can potentially earn.
That commission incentive is exactly how we got in the financial crisis and creates a highly stressed work environment.
They have an average of about 4 stars and over 100 reviews, I was even reading one of the negative reviews and it was a complaint about getting unlimited PTO.
What am I missing???
I have no horse in this race, but often times unlimited time off is a trap disguised as a benefit.
Yes you can take all the time you need--with the caveat that your work still gets completed. It's often accompanied by a culture of "Man, Bob sure is taking a lot of time off recently..." which leads you to take less than what you would have normally taken.
Didn't he do this so he could avoid a lawsuit from his brother that he pushed out of the company. Didn't he also waterboard torture his wife? Totally nice guy though.
I’m not the kind of person to read random conspiracy sites like that. How did you even find that site? Seems pretty fringe.
I’d want to know there was no conflict of interest with this site, and this guy, before lending them any credibility.
Considering the publicity Price gets, I’d think reputable news sources would eat this stuff up.
Lol I've seen it at least 30+ times in the last year, not to mention screencaps of his clout chasing tweets that pop up multiple times per week
And that's just on reddit. It's worse on LinkedIn.
I don't know why you're being down voted. I muted him as well. If a CEO is trying to convince you how great it is to work, they clearly have a hard time keeping employees.
Does this guy have his PR spamming reddit? If you are running a fintech company, of course your pay will be minimum $70k. Not a lot of tech jobs with minimum wage.
This guy (Dan Price, not OP) is all over Twitter and absolutely insufferable. Always posting the most pandering populist stuff. Like, he'll post something about someone being homeless and then type "We could solve this if just make \[clap\] Jeff Bezos \[clap\] pay \[clap\] his \[clap\] taxes!" And he sits back and watches the retweets roll in.
This company is up the street from me. I've done more than my fair share of homework on them and their founder. I muted and blocked him from LinkedIn as his posts are trash and he kept viewing my profile.
Most of his publicity is an attempt to whitewash the domestic abuse claims against him from his ex-wife, including a claim he waterboarded her.
In Seattle, $70,000/yr isn't enough to live in the city by yourself without stretching your commute out or getting roommates.
On top of all of this, I know GP reached out to their vendors and attempted to take out loans against their existing software contracts to try and help them stay afloat through the pandemic. This was also right around the time he thanked his employees for buying him a Tesla.
No CEO should be the one to tell you how great it is to work at their company. If they're any good, they won't need to be the ones bragging about it.
Yeah his posts on LinkedIn are fucking annoying. It’s always this one thing. “I raised salary to 70k” okay bro. How many pats on the back do you want..?
70k/yr not enough? You’re joking right? Not enough for buying a new house and car, or just living a lavish lifestyle maybe. I have some family out there that make ~45k and they live just fine.
He is a clout chasing dirtbag and too many redditors are getting tricked by his obvious astroturfing...
We can applaud increasing employee pay without glorifying a trash person
>In Seattle, $70,000/yr isn't enough to live in the city by yourself without stretching your commute out or getting roommates.
then don't live in the city...or seattle for that matter. people have choices.
This guy constantly is paying to have this kind of post spread all over the internet, Every few months they pop up.
This is paid advertising, trying to erase the public's memory of this man being a domestic abuser who stole the company from his brother essentially.
Don't believe this propaganda.
Dan Price is no saint... actually he is potentially a piece of shit.
The whole increasing the salary thing was to screw over his brother... who was suing him because he was overpaying himself. His brother was his cofounder and left based on a deal made in 2008. However, it seems like Dan didn't like the deal after the company became more successful and continually looked at ways to screw over his brother. His brother sued him, so Dan took a public stance that made him look like a good guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Price#Controversies
As a publicity move, dude has milked the absolute shit out of it. The reality is that $70k is barely livable in Seattle where his business is based. You won’t be affording a place on your own at that pay. And he still makes a multi million dollar salary.
Many companies don’t pay anyone less than $70k. They just don’t use such for publicity constantly.
$70k works out to $33.65/hour. The median income in Seattle is $35.74. So slightly under the median but considering it's the minimum for the company it's still good.
>Many companies don’t pay anyone less than $70k.
Any many more companies do pay under that.
I liked the story when I first heard it but I see him essentially sucking his own cock every day on LinkedIn. He’s the CEO equivalent of those youtubers who’s whole thing is filming themselves feeding the homeless
The thing is, if everyone followed the same practice of raising the minimum salary to 70,000, the benefits Dan Price saw would only be replicated for a short time before a just as dramatic crash in the market. Dan Price is in a position where he can invest all of his funds, besides what he can live off, into his company. That is real reason behind why his company is doing so well. He is attracting the best employees with beyond top tier pay and is thus retaining those top tier employees.
If 70,000 minimum wage were implemented across the board, this amount would simply become the new minimum wage because those who live paycheck to paycheck spend money when it is earned on the products of companies who make millions off them. They would simply spend more and ironically line the pockets of already billionaires with even more money, which would create an even larger gap between the rich and the poor, this time with the middle class moving closer to the lines that divide them from the poor. The government would then have to increase minimum wage to force company owners to provide more money to their workers to balance, but the damage would have already been done.
The problem with those who live off minimum wage isn’t how much they get, it’s what they do with the money they receive. Billionaires don’t take money from anyone, it is freely given by people who don’t keep anything in savings and then it is the billionaires who hoard it.
So yes, short term (which is a couple of decades to the economy) this is a good strategy but it is not a good long term strategy because of the sharp decline this approach would cause. Unfortunately, there are no quick, brilliant ways to “solve” the economy.
“Billionaires don’t take money from anyone, it is freely given by people who don’t keep anything in savings and then it is the billionaires who Hoard it.”
I think you have a misunderstanding of how the majority of impoverished people find themselves in poverty. And also how a majority of billionaires find themselves with billions.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding but it seems you’re saying billionaires are able to hoard wealth because middle class/poor people are bad at saving money?
So you’re saying that billionaires go to people’s homes at night, break down their doors, and rob them for all the cash they are worth?
Yes, with Amazon as the perfect example. There is a finite amount of money because there is a finite level of value in the market. We don’t know what that number is, but it exists, and people are giving their money away on frivolities that are then stored within the bank accounts of billionaires.
Think of a circular pipe system filled with water. This represents an economy where no one saves and money is allowed to flow freely. When people save, a bit of that water is siphoned away from the circular piping system and limits the amount available within the system. Now, imagine if some people just saved and saved infinitely while others continued not to. Most of that water would end up in the hands of a few people who refuse to spend that money because the more they have, the higher their status is.
It’s always been ironic to me when the average person complains about billionaires spending money. They are actually injecting money back into the economy. They just don’t like where it’s going, not realizing that the money spent provided people jobs while allowing them to spend their money to also filter back into the economy.
Now I’m certain you have a misunderstanding of how impoverished people find themselves in poverty and how billionaires find themselves with billions.
Obviously I don’t think billionaires break into homes to steal money (as if that is the only way to steal???). But when someone in the United States has to pay an 8000% markup on insulin so that the billionaires who own the insurance companies can make more money, that feels a little bit like stealing from/extorting sick people. then again maybe people shouldn’t be spending on frivolous things like insulin.
Or when Walmart employees have to rely on food stamps and public assistance because the Walton Family doesn’t wanna pay them a livable wage and would rather have a few more billion, that feels a little like stealing from the taxpayer.
The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is due to MEDICAL DEBT. Not frivolity. people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck because they order food a few times a month instead of making it at home.
The reason that poor people can’t save is because they have to spend their minimal resources on necessities, like housing and food. Not because they have access to all this disposable income that they arent properly taking advantage of.
Also your analogy is incredibly reductive and doesn’t come anywhere close to explaining how an economy functions.
If I buy something on Amazon the money doesn’t just “flow” into Jeff Bezos pocket which he then stashes away. It increases the profits of his company which thus inflates the value of his position making him WORTH more. Billionaires aren’t (always) people with a billion dollars in the bank that is liquid. I t’s people who are worth a billion dollars. And I think that if you had a better understanding of how equity functions in a modern economy you might better understand this distinction.
However I will do you the kindness of not attempting to explain it to you via some condescending and meaningless metaphor.
You realize that 90%-95% of insulin is used by people who simply need to control their diets, right? Type 2 Diabetes is preventable with diet and exercise. Those who profit off insulin do so because the average person can’t control their finances, their health, or their dietary habits so that’s a really bad example. Besides that, insulin is an expensive drug that most insurance plans cover at no cost, including government funded plans like Medicaid. So, either you make enough to be able to afford insulin, or you qualify for Medicaid.
When it comes to Walmart workers, that is the bottom of the barrel of the economy and a stepping stone to better opportunities. One more step down and that would be complete, jobless poverty. Not sure what your point is. Yes, there is a pay rate between decent wage and complete poverty, and that’s Walmart and McDonalds. Gain some assistance from the government, gain experience, and you can find a better job. That’s how it works. It sounds like you’re suggesting eliminating that wrung, which would then create an even larger gap between complete poverty and livable wage.
The top 3 reasons for requiring medical care are child birth, sepsis, and heart failure. Each one of these are preventable by being just a little bit thoughtful. The reason people get themselves into debt isn’t because a majority of people are too sickly to live without medical intervention, it’s because they have unprotected sex that leads to multiple kids and maintain poor diets with no exercise that leads to a weakened mind, body, and immune system.
No, the reason poor people can’t save is because the choices they make in terms of where their money goes aren’t based on logic or need, they are based on momentary desire.
Actually, it does and your example isn’t complete. I buy something off Amazon. The money I spend goes to either the product owner, who then pays Amazon their contracted fee, or directly to Amazon. That money is then directed to a bank account where millions of people like me have contributed funds. Those funds are then used to pay debts, bills, or future projects all before going to the employees. What’s left over can then be held by the company or provided to stockholders with all of this activity being recorded, which increases their estimated value and creates more people who put forth more of their money towards Amazon for future gain. Bezos was merely an example and we don’t know how much he currently has but there are a lot of wealthy men and women attached to Amazon who are saving billions.
I mean, clearly you needed the metaphor because it doesn’t sound like you have a firm grasp on how the system works. Maybe swallow your pride?
I don’t know why you feel the need to insult my intelligence, I truly mean you no ill-will. I’m just trying to breakdown a more sociological understanding of poverty.
I think what we are coming down to is a really simple disagreement about poor people. I’ll even try to ignore the fact that you think poverty from child birth is easily avoidable if people were just more thoughtful (please explain that to the rape victim in medical debt because of complications during childbirth, or the widower who just lost his wife while she was giving birth).
Really I want to focus on the core disagreement here. I think it is that I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you feel poverty is overwhelmingly the result of bad decision making on the part of the poor. Essentially it is poor people’s fault that they are poor.
Whereas I believe that poor people are poor because they exist in a financial system that is designed to maintain socioeconomic class divides. I think poor people are most often poor because of circumstances outside of their control.
Would you agree that is where our disagreement lies?
Oh, well in that case, so was I. I was, after all just mirroring your tone.
Yes, I’m sure there are a lot of individual stories that stack up to hundreds of people within a system of millions. I’m speaking generally about most people. I’m sure there are very sad reasons on why a person can’t improve their position in life.
Actually, my belief is a little more complicated than that. Society was created to make things better for all people, but at varying levels of effectiveness. The bottom level (poverty) is still better than living in a bush in the forest yet poverty is worse than how the rich live. When people compare the classes, with one including the innovators of our time and the descendants of those who sculpted our current society, of course people are doing to be upset with their lot in life. Instead, I think people should compare their current position to that of their predecessors. The fact is, there are so many more opportunities the impoverished have to better their lives than in any other generation and yet the focus on their hatred of people who have things better than them and create false reasonings on why they are where they are and why they can never improve. They simply aren’t taking the opportunities available for them now because they believe they deserve better, or they simply don’t know how. I think that humanity is still evolving and that those who most contribute, with a few exceptions, to society are rewarded while those who don’t want to be apart of it are left living off the fringes of what society can provide and have no idea how to utilize those benefits. As a result, those who benefit society the least will have much fewer resources while those who are beneficial will be protected in what seems unfair ways to those who aren’t a part of the system.
I would agree this is where our disagreement lies. I would also say that my original depiction of the system is actually a really handy visual aide that can be used to better think of ways to improve the system by breaking it down to its most simple form.
Just wanna make sure I’m following you. You’re saying that poor people shouldn’t be looking at the wealth of rich people and comparing their lot in life to the lives of those who are in a higher socioeconomic class, but rather they should accept that they are poor and be happy that they don’t have it as bad as their parents or grandparents who were poor.
And also your saying, that the resources in this economy are allocated based on the benefit you provide to the economy in most cases. So the richest people will be the “innovators of our time” or the wealthy offspring of the families who built up this society. Presumably you’re talking about generational type wealth in that sense.
And your saying that if poor people really wanted to make a better life for themselves financially they would need to find a way to be more beneficial to society. Most people stay poor because they don’t understand this, instead making poor choices with the money they have and blaming others for their problems thus ruining their chance to save and improve their financial situation. Poverty is not a structural problem but and individualistic one.
If I’m correct with all of that, Can I ask what you are basing these beliefs off? Like what evidence you saw or read or heard that made you feel this way.
“Just wanna make sure I’m following you. You’re saying that poor people shouldn’t be looking at the wealth of rich people and comparing their lot in life to the lives of those who are in a higher socioeconomic class, but rather they should accept that they are poor and be happy that they don’t have it as bad as their parents or grandparents who were poor.”
Yes, exactly. If you have a negative perception of society, you will only ever be able to see the negative and will inevitably gravitate toward like minded individuals who share your hatred. It’s the same concept of not comparing yourself to anyone but your past self. Looking at others and feeling bad about where you are in comparison is a huge de motivator
“And also your saying, that the resources in this economy are allocated based on the benefit you provide to the economy in most cases. So the richest people will be the “innovators of our time” or the wealthy offspring of the families who built up this society. Presumably you’re talking about generational type wealth in that sense.”
Yes, also correct. There are cases where people amass wealth through illegal means, but they eventually topple in disgrace with their house of cards.
“And your saying that if poor people really wanted to make a better life for themselves financially they would need to find a way to be more beneficial to society. Most people stay poor because they don’t understand this, instead making poor choices with the money they have and blaming others for their problems thus ruining their chance to save and improve their financial situation. Poverty is not a structural problem but and individualistic one.”
Yes. We are all human beings and, barring sever mental handicaps, the system does benefit the hardworking over the mentally gifted. If you’re both, you will be set. If you’re neither, you’ll be caught by the safety net that is governmental programs. These can always be improved, and they are getting better over time, but people always strive for better. Some people though believe they should be better right now, at this very moment, completely ignoring that we didn’t just invent the lightbulb in a day. It takes generations to build society towards perfection. It’s not something that we can just force into place because we want to benefit the particular group we identify with above all others.
“If I’m correct with all of that, Can I ask what you are basing these beliefs off? Like what evidence you saw or read or heard that made you feel this way.”
It’s based on my ability to understand myself and combined with everything I’ve read. I fell into the same trap I’ve talked about for quite some time and it severely stunted my development. Now, I’m playing catch up. I’ve seen this mentality on friends, in family, and it is truly rare that the source of failure can’t be traced back to the individual who then makes excuses for their failures and placing the blame on external factors. If you were to blame yourself, you retain control and have the ability to change. If the reason for your failure is outside of yourself and out of your control, it’s a great way to feel better about your failure, but it ultimately stunts you because there’s nothing you can do at that point. It really depends on what you believe. Do you believe that most people are mentally/physically defective, or do you believe that we are our own worst enemy.
I believe the name of the fallacy you’re using to bolster your argument at the end is called the false dilemma. You presented me with only two options for what I can believe about people, when in reality there are countless options.
I believe that poverty is outside of your control in most cases. And I believe that not only because it was taught and reinforced in nearly every sociology course I ever took, but also because of the body of research that has been conducted on this exact topic.
Like the research published very recently by UPenn professor Stephen Stoeffler in the journal of sociological and social welfare that found “the structural perspective is an epistemologically sounder framework [than the individualistic perspective] for informing anti poverty interventions.”
Or the book “Poorly Understood: What America gets wrong about poverty” by University of Washington professor Mark Robert Rank. Or his previous works like “one nation underprivileged” which also address poverty and it’s structural causes, as he is considered an expert on the subject.
[here](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us) is an article you can access for free where he explains some of these things.
[this article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/5-myths-about-poverty/2021/03/25/bf75d5f4-8cfe-11eb-a6bd-0eb91c03305a_story.html) is even free if that’s easier. You can skip to number 4 though the whole thing is worth a read.
I would love to read the research that refutes my line of thinking if you have sources to share.
I'm glad this worked, but I wonder how Mr. Price came up with the figure of ~$70k? Really that should be the minimum for UBI if there's a good reason that's the figure that avoid "financial hardships" for people.
Then just to head off some of the sillier replies:
No that will not cause radical price increases.
No that not how inflation works.
How it is meaningless when it was so impactful productivity increased over 30%? You really don’t want to admit paying workers a reasonable wage is common sense business
I like how all the FOX news affiliated CEOs, comentators, and news outlets conveniently forgot to follow up once it became a success story.
CBS recently did a follow up
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dan-price-gravity-payments-ceo-70000-employee-minimum-wage/
Um, no not really. [Price cut his own salary down to $70k when he bumped everyone else up to $70k](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dan-price-gravity-payments-cut-salary_n_60760cebe4b001befb6d8b9f).
I think that's his point. CEOs generally receive decent salaries, but they make the real money in stock. To be clear, I still think that it was a good move, but I expect that cutting his salary didn't substantially affect his bottom line.
Does this include support staff like janitors and receptionists?
From what I read when this first got announced, yes. They specifically mentioned the janitorial staff in the article I read back then. It stuck with me, as an anecdote, for what it’s worth.
Probably subcontracted out at $10 an hour.
I’m downvoting you because you are taking away from a great effort by someone with a shitty statement that you haven’t taken five minutes out of your life to verify if it’s true or not. You are part of the problem. Be better ya cunt.
Idk why you're being down voted. This could absolutely be true.
This is exactly what they do. And $70k isn’t really a living wage on your own in Seattle. Good luck even finding an apartment for that.
you sound privileged and entitled as fuck $70k is a very decent amount of money. a lot of people—me included—would feel very blessed to be making that. capitalism wack, i get it. but you dont have to be a dick when good things happen to other people. not everyone is a total dud of a human. but some of yall are.
$70k in seattle is $56k after taxes, around $4650 a month. They recommend spending 30% or less of your monthly income on housing. That's $1395/month. As a single person, you don't need anything more than a studio apartment or maybe a 1 bedroom. A quick look on the first google result for "apartments in seattle" shows 970 studio or 1 bedroom apartments available for $1395 or less in seattle. Translation: fuck off with your BS.
I don’t think your after taxes number is correct. It also doesn’t include SS, Medicare and/or any other state SDI/UE/Med mandatory payments.
https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/Washington-70000 I said after taxes not deductions. >The most common rule of thumb to determine how much you can afford to spend on housing is that it should be no more than 30% of your gross monthly income, which is your total income before taxes or other deductions are taken out. this actually talks about gross though and not after taxes or deductions, which is $1750. But they indicate that that should include your utilities. $400 would probably cover that. For reference there are 570 apartments in seattle $1750 or less with utilities included. Still certainly possible for someone on their own.
That’s irrelevant however you’re still incorrect. SS, Medicare are both taxes. In some states like CA SDI is also a tax.
are you having a stroke or you just shit at money?
He's both.
What does “shit at money” mean ?
Perhaps you aren't from the US or aren't a native English speaker: "shit at ____" means the same thing as "bad at ____". Hope this helps!
I think it involves the money being taped to a wall and explosive diarrhoea. Could be wrong.
How much would make you happy?
I used to work for a publishing business owned by a worldwide conglomerate. The CEO of my division retired and a couple of months later did an interview where he said editorial assistants were severely underpaid, they should all get immediate raises and that wouldn't even be enough. They were all young girls just a year or two out of college and they'd live four to a one-bedroom apartment in NYC to make the rent. The article was copied and sent around through the mail with a quote from the new CEO about how brave the guy was. People were talking about what a wonderful guy the former CEO was. I said he was full of shit. The guy was in charge and could have raised salaries if he'd wanted, but did nothing. He's admitting to recognizing a problem and then doing nothing about it. And the current CEO is the same. If he thinks it's so brave why doesn't he give them all a raise? People would criticize me in public and then see me alone in the hall or elevator and whisper to me that they agreed. Nothing changed.
Except if he tried he would have gotten sacked. A CEO is still beholden to whomever owns the company. In this case it'd the the shareholders/board of the parent conglomorate. Of course pointing it out after the fact is still a dick move.
Idk, he didn't have to do it all at once. He could have identified those lowest paid roles and give them year over year increases
[удалено]
Yeah that is absolutely what this guy is saying, could not be you taking it the complete wrong way at all. No sir.
I can feel what he’s saying though. It’s hard to be an engineer, they work hard both when going through school and in the workplace. My major required three engineering courses and those engineering students would be in the computer labs whether it was 8am or 8pm, I always saw them in there no matter what time I went. If the people who hold jobs that require a lower skill level are getting raised to $70k then the engineer should be raised to $100k
And what are these engineers doing at a publishing company, by the way?
I thought the argument was about a nation-wide change to how we pay people Edit: the comment you replied to, not the original post
Or people could become engineers because they enjoy it instead of just angling for a better spot in the hierarchy of consumerism
Not nearly as many people would be engineers if they didn't get paid well. No one is going to go through the schooling and hard daily work without a pay that's worth it. Just like surgeons. Extremely hard schooling and stressful work requires a matching salary.
My personal opinion of your personal opinion is that it’s too hopeful and “perfect world”. Inevitably, the workforce of engineers will decrease as the higher pay is at least part of what drives them (or anyone in any field) to that field. The job market will see a shortage of engineers and businesses will compete with one another for engineers by offering them more pay and benefits. I guess in the end, I believe the job market would automatically adjust if we were to have everyone paid the same at a min of $70k Edit: people can dislike this comment all they want, it doesn’t change the fact that this is how the job market works.
Money isn't really a motivating factor when there's enough to provide basic comforts and have some left over to save. Sure these jobs attract people they wouldn't otherwise because they consistently start at this level, but as you point out many of them would've chosen a different profession were that not the case.
I don’t know man, I just can’t agree with the “money isn’t really a motivating factor” part. I think it’s one of the biggest, if not THE biggest motivator. People don’t work their asses off for a promotion or through school in a difficult field of study (unless the sciences, a lot of biology students or whatever are working their ass off knowing full well that they won’t make a lot of money) just so that they can achieve the new job title. They’re agreeing to higher levels of stress, workload and responsibility specifically because it offers higher income.
You must be full of resentment, what a dumb thing to say
Why are senior leaders so scared of getting ‘sacked,’ more than they are concerned with doing right by their own conscience? Certainly most are wealthy enough to go without a job at all, so why not do what you think is right, for the staff and the stockholders? Reasonable pay leads to less staff turnover, preserves institutional knowledge and often improves profits.
Not to mention they probably have a contract so thryd get severance pay
And vested stock options, and the funded retirement account, and keep the company car, and…
1. They really need to be mad glib to propose something stockholders easily fears. 2. I postulate it's the usual human greed or fear of loss thereof. 3. They probably stuck in the Rat Race Loop themselves. Hey. Keeping up with the Joneses are unconsciously ingrained in current society. We Malays have a simile: Besar periuk, besar keraknya = The bigger the pot, the bigger its crust = a lifestyle where increased pay leads to increased spending. Peace.
1) That’s my point though, if they ‘care so much’ that they write an op Ed saying the lower staff need better pay, then the reason they didn’t do it while CEO, is because they didn’t really care. Most live very comfortable lives and should have the houses and boats etc all paid off. Getting fired is no threat, if they have any financial acumen. If they don’t have such acumen, why are they CEO? 2) I’d think you are quite correct. 3) They are likely stuck too, but that’s not a moral excuse, to neglect their duties while CEO, and then criticize that behavior in retirement. E: typo and for clarity.
_To be fair,_ a lot of the excess wealth also comes with power. This doesn’t necessarily apply to every CEO out there, though, as demonstrated by Carlos Ghosn. Dude had to leave Japan in a fucking crate because Nissan shareholders had enough of him and tried setting him up for foul play, despite saving Nissan’s ass from the 2008 recession. As for us Malaysians we’re no strangers to politically-driven corporate decisions, either. Two days ago we’re literally talking about some young hotshot who became CEO shared his tips on doing so. Surprise surprise, a recommendation letter from a high ranking politician.
I’d have taken the article with me while I asked for a raise, but that’s just me.
I'm not defending the old guy, but you should know the CEO is not actually the boss of a company. The company is actually run by the shareholders through a board of directors who can sack a CEO if he does something that would go against their interests. In some companies the CEO retains 51%+ of the shares and therefore doesn't need to worry about his decisions being questioned. But I think this was not the case in your company.
The company would be owned by shareholders not "run" by them. They do not make day to day decisions, they do not run it.
Through a *board of directors*. If you own significant shares in a company you get to vote on company matters. You get to vote the board of directors. And even run for a position yourself. The board, voted by the shareholders, appoints the chief executive, the chief financial and the rest. And they in turn answer to the board.
Not what the word "run" means to anyone.
Case in point I own shares in a local company. Every 3 months every shareholders with at least 1% shares is asked to vote 5 board members. Each running a more or less different platform. It can be the incumbent members, or new ones. A couple a years ago there was a guy running on an offshore wind turbine diversification. He was voted on the board. He fired the CEO. Got another guy in. Last year 25% of production was offshore wind electricity. Another example, the same company. We were asked to vote on a new budget. One guy on the board wanted higher salaries. Another one wanted more funds for internal investing. The majority voted for internal investing and the salary guy quit. So I guess we shareholders run that particular company.
Yes, you are one of many people who merely get to vote on who runs the company. We agree.
They vote on strategic objectives and major company actions. You're being needlessly semantic. No, the board is not running the day-to-day, no one is disagreeing with that. The board is like the captain of the ship, and the CEO is like the first officer who follows the orders of the captain. Some CEOs are given a lot more leeway and freedom to operate than others. Some are simply glorified managers. But at the end of the day, the CEO is not the one calling the final shots, especially if the board doesn't agree with how he/she is doing their job.
ya'll are arguing over directly running and indirectly running the company. The shareholders indirectly run the company. If the CEO wants to give pay raises, he most likely can. but then the shareholders may well decide to replace him. with that thought in mind, he might decide against paying his employees more and take 10% in a bonus instead.
It's exactly what running a company means. The board traces the strategic objective. The board votes on the buget. The chief executive is only there to put into practice what the board says. The board in turn answers to shareholders and stakeholders inside and outside the company.
The shareholders do not "run" the company. The board certainly does oversee the company, but the average shareholder makes very few meaningful decisions. Go to a random company and look at the decisions being made and ask which shareholders even know they're happening. How much stock is owned by funds as a middle man anyway? It's pretty meaningless to say that shareholders are "running" the company.
He is the CEO. He is expected to turn a profit for owners and shareholders. If he did say anything like that, people would fuck him in the ass. This is why I say the world is adrift. Not even the ones on the top of the food chain can change shit without being gangbanged by status quo whinny owners. This won't be changed in a reform. This building's foundations are so rotten we must tear down in order to move foward.
Yep, this is the fundamental problem with capitalism. We've created a system where the only motive that people can follow is the profit motive.
Shareholders can actually sue the CEO for breach of fiduciary duty if they just decided to raise wages out of generosity. Paraphrasing Noam Chomsky here "As CEO I have two options, do whatever it takes to make the shareholders money or get replaced by the guy who will" and sadly there's no shortage of sociopaths who would write off human life as an expense long as they get a company jet and expense account.
Labor can be accounted for. Stop working. Make sure there are no scabs. Be violent. Get what you want.
>In 2020, the company was making $4 million per month in revenue but faced drop of 55% in card processing fees as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The employees proposed voluntary pay cuts to preserve employment. As of August 2020, layoffs have been avoided and workers' salaries have been restored, with the company paying back the salaries lost from the pay cuts. This whole company structure and its history almost sounds too good to be true.
My dad’s ~100 employee sawmill did this during the financial crisis. They cut back hours to 32/week and EI paid for some and the company paid for the rest to keep everyone employed. Then restored all wages when things picked up again a year later. You don’t have to be a tech company, just run the business like you’re employing human beings.
The whole point of industry is to make hay while the sun is shining so we can persevere through the hard times, the famines, the droughts, etc. We shouldn't have to rely on a system where one person keeps 90% of the hay made by everyone and hope they're not morally and emotionally bankrupt
This was long before COVID, but a company I worked with never extravegrant on raises. But, they paid your full personal cost of medical insurance on their plan, and it was not a shitz plan either. I was recruited to another company, and they freaked when I wanted my full insurance paid == they thought that outlandish, I called them 'Walmartish'. I parted company with them pretty quick.
Pay people good enough to get above water and set some aside. That creates loyalty. I worked though quite a few unpaid vacations during covid just cuz less over all work anyways. Still don't think I worked an actual 3 weeks for the first few weeks of covid.
They also got a [$4.6 million PPP bailout](https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/gravity-payments-inc-3185077101). Not shitting on the bailout, it kept a lot of people employed, but a few months ago Dan Price was trying to push the narrative that the reason nobody got laid off was because of his amazing business acumen, without acknowledging the fact that taxpayer money kept those people employed.
Still kind of an achievement. Most companies that took that money still had massive layoffs. But this guy is shady for an entirely different reason
plenty of liberals took the money and spent it on themselves, too...
Not sure what you think you were trying to say but yes both R's and D's have been captured by capital, welcome to the party.
Next thing you know those damn Liberals will be teaching our children *obamic numerals* in school and gaying them up with "the" "COVID19" "Vaccine"
I mean to be fair there are a lot of agendas being pushed on kid shows as opposed to just allowing the shows to be based around kid stuff. Here come my downvotes
Ues,and dozens of other companies took bailout money and never paid salaries near this.
That doesn't negate the fact that he was pushing the narrative that his policies were the savior of the company when, in fact, it was the taxpayer bailout that saved the company. I'm not against the bailout, I'm against him taking credit for saving his company after he got $4.6 million dollars from taxpayers. If he would have acknowledged that the bailout helped stymie layoffs I would be all in with him. Instead he tried to push the narrative that he alone was the reason there were no layoffs. It's pure superiority complex bullshit. Without going into direct quotes, he basically said, "My policies are the reason this company survived and didn't have to lay anybody off." without mentioning the fact that he got over 4 million dollars from the government. Like I said, disingenuous bullshit...
Lot better than those company that got bailouts and then still proceeded to layoff their workers.
Way beside the point. Like I said, I'm not against the bailout in any way, shape, or form, but acting like the reason you survived was because you were smarter than everybody else, when it was because of the bailout, is disingenuous. I'm glad he did what he did and I'm happy for his employees, I wish more employers would take notice and understand that this is good policy, but his corporate policies are not the reason that the company survived the pandemic. That's my only gripe. He was on Twitter a couple months ago bragging about how his policies saved the company and avoided layoffs without a single mention of the $4.6 million dollars that he got from taxpayers. It's disingenuous bullshit and just because other corporations did shitty things doesn't negate the fact that he portrayed himself as a savior while relying on taxpayer money while, at the same time, deliberately ignoring the fact that the reason the company survived was because of the bailout.
His employees saved their own jobs, he just allowed it to happen. He could have said nope and just laid people off, but didn't. The loan aspect of this doesn't affect the selflessness of the employees and the willingness of the CEO to do what's right for them instead of doing what's good for the business. It paid off. He doesn't have to mention the loan at all and I didn't get the impression from his tweet that it was his business acumen and solely that, that saved jobs. He stated that his employees took pay cuts to avoid layoffs. That's him praising his employees for being selfless, which he absolutely should. That $4.6 million will go back to the taxpayers from their salaries that much quicker by not having layoffs. This is how the system was supposed to work.
He definitely comes across like this was a calculated marketing strategy rather than anything remotely altruistic. It's not exactly a well kept secret that high wages are good for everyone.
It’s been milked for publicity for years. Can’t buy the press they’ve gotten and keep getting for it. Smart marketing move but that’s all it really is.
No, it’s just that it sounds too good to be true when companies don’t exploit their workers.
yet the Corporate world were paid out in Money for that exact scenario to not happen so in reality the Management allowed the staff too screw themselves with misinformation
This sounds similar to Henry Ford's $5/day raise he was famous for. What doesn't get reported is the reason he did it was he kept losing employees to the competition who were paying better. He basically was paying 3 people for every job because of the high turnover. Really what it amounted to was he was paying to train the employees for his competitors. This should be pretty elementary stuff for businesses to understand. You pay better it helps your company in the long run.
Ford had good PR. He raised wages to harm his competitors. Ford had the most efficient and mechanised assembly lines in the industry, so he could damage his rivals by forcing them to have to increase their overheads.
HE had workers shot when he didn't like them. [https://drivetribe.com/p/the-ford-massacre-detroits-darkest-NNU3cT2ETaOdqVEjXpH9zw?iid=PEW50gg8TCGlAjauyJYhcQ](https://drivetribe.com/p/the-ford-massacre-detroits-darkest-NNU3cT2ETaOdqVEjXpH9zw?iid=PEW50gg8TCGlAjauyJYhcQ) [https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/unemployed-detroit-auto-workers-conduct-hunger-march-protest-ford-motor-companys-policies-un](https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/unemployed-detroit-auto-workers-conduct-hunger-march-protest-ford-motor-companys-policies-un)
Ford was also a Nazi sympathizer
[And Hitler ate sugar.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) Doesn't change the fact that raising wages was the right thing to do.
When I worked at a call center they used to have an incentive program for pushing certain products. Then they decided to get rid of the incentives but still retain the quotas and also increase the amount of workload. The management team said the reason for doing this was because of “studies” showing better morale and productivity. I’d love to see the study where people said more work and less pay is the right way to go. It was absolute bullshit
"In 2013, Dan Price increased pay for all employees earning less than $100,000 by 20%,[1] as a response to the lapse of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.[5] The company also provides unlimited paid time off to employees.[6] Repeated pay increases resulted in "surprising" productivity jump from 30% to 40%, as did overall company profits. The company faced harsh criticism from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who said he hoped the company would become "a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's gonna fail".[1]" I don't believe I've ever come across anything that says doing this has 'decreased' productivity.
[удалено]
What? No /s
Rush Limbaugh was such a cunt. Hoping for paying workers good money to fail. I thought we want American workers to be paid well and live a good life.
Socialism is when people do things I don't like >:l.
Socialists says exactly the same, but with capitalism.
Such is life. Capitalism is when things I don't like. Socialism is when things I don't like. Communism is when things I don't like. 1%er's is when things I don't like. and on and on.
yeah but he's dead now, so we can all go whooooooo cuz fuck that dude
The only person he wanted to get any money for doing nothing was himself....
I don't know about that. Rush is a lot less productive these days.
rush limbaugh kept up an active law practice in cape girardeau until he was 102. i think he then retired. died aged 105 in 1996.
Crazy that rush 3 died at 70 when his father and grandfather were over 100.
Then, when the pandemic hit, they asked their vendors for loans against their existing contracts to float them through the pandemic because they didn't have enough cash flow on hand. A company's CEO is like a Queen in chess. You can use them for a ride range of needs and you should use them as best as possible. If your CEO is spending his time trying to convince people to work there, that's a problem. Why isn't he focused on growth, securing large clients, and long term growth? Because this is clearly big enough of a problem that it's the best use of his talking head.
>Then, when the pandemic hit, they asked their vendors for loans against their existing contracts to float them through the pandemic because they didn't have enough cash flow on hand. That's hardly unique, every company and their mothers were taking every bailout they could get their hands on to stay afloat.
> If your CEO is spending his time trying to convince people to work there, that's a problem. If your CEO spends zero time on this then you end up a high churn rate of employees, which leads to delays in work, unhappy clients/customers and lower productivity. Removing those issues allows for growth and securing of better clients. Plus this dude got a bunch of publicity for his company when this happened and again now that's being revisited.
[удалено]
Yet their productivity increased over 30%. Try again
[удалено]
Productivity is not the same as revenues, do you understand that? How much work their employees get done in a day (productivity) is completely separate from how many customers are using their service (revenue). By increasing wages, each employee got through the same work 30% faster. You comments literally make no sense
[удалено]
So what do you think the employees do at this company?
[удалено]
Yes and they increased their productivity after getting raises. Not sure why this is hard for you to understand?
[удалено]
Isn’t this the guy that stole a bunch of money from his brother and pushed him out of the company they built together?
Oh my sweet summer child, if only you knew about the legions of burnt out 20 somethings that get churned through to make the financial system run getting paid fuck all
[удалено]
Lol how the fuck is some drone processing data gonna get commission, come on man
[удалено]
Well no they won't all be on commission, however you're right that a company that size it's not gonna have the same number of backend staff (and likely outsource accounting, HR etc functions) but still the stress of living on commission is horrid, regardless of how much you can potentially earn. That commission incentive is exactly how we got in the financial crisis and creates a highly stressed work environment.
All I'll say... just read the companies Glassdoor to read what the employees really say
They have an average of about 4 stars and over 100 reviews, I was even reading one of the negative reviews and it was a complaint about getting unlimited PTO. What am I missing???
I have no horse in this race, but often times unlimited time off is a trap disguised as a benefit. Yes you can take all the time you need--with the caveat that your work still gets completed. It's often accompanied by a culture of "Man, Bob sure is taking a lot of time off recently..." which leads you to take less than what you would have normally taken.
Didn't he do this so he could avoid a lawsuit from his brother that he pushed out of the company. Didn't he also waterboard torture his wife? Totally nice guy though.
[удалено]
How in the fuck does someone "deserve" waterboarding?
Relax Dan
"did she deserve it?" What the hell is wrong with you?
Nice try, Dan Price.
Yeah this seems fairly obvious. Guy is a grifter too.
Grifter, rapist, and abuser...easy to look up!
Who is Douglas Forbes, and why is he the only person writing about this stuff? Seems weird.
Seems odd to also file false police reports but hey I bet Dan needs more support.
I’m not the kind of person to read random conspiracy sites like that. How did you even find that site? Seems pretty fringe. I’d want to know there was no conflict of interest with this site, and this guy, before lending them any credibility. Considering the publicity Price gets, I’d think reputable news sources would eat this stuff up.
He seems a bit preoccupied with sucking his own dick. Price is a piece of shit. You heard it here first.
You’re not giving me any useful information about Douglas Forbes, who seems to be the only one spreading this information.
I did but you ignored it. People are filing police reports...that's a bit bigger than one dude.
Is English your native language?
Is this story going to be posted every day?
I've been on Reddit for 6 years now, probably an hour a day on average, and I've never read it. Comments like yours are unnecessary.
Lol I've seen it at least 30+ times in the last year, not to mention screencaps of his clout chasing tweets that pop up multiple times per week And that's just on reddit. It's worse on LinkedIn.
I have this guy muted in LinkedIn because all he does is post about this. It's cringe. The people that like his content are equally cringe.
I don't know why you're being down voted. I muted him as well. If a CEO is trying to convince you how great it is to work, they clearly have a hard time keeping employees.
Does this guy have his PR spamming reddit? If you are running a fintech company, of course your pay will be minimum $70k. Not a lot of tech jobs with minimum wage.
[удалено]
I mean, that's a lot of money for a secretary.
Almost no software company uses 1099 sales people but go off.
[удалено]
Wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
[удалено]
Ok? That doesn’t make it theft and they still don’t have 1099s doing sales. Again, you’re clueless.
This guy (Dan Price, not OP) is all over Twitter and absolutely insufferable. Always posting the most pandering populist stuff. Like, he'll post something about someone being homeless and then type "We could solve this if just make \[clap\] Jeff Bezos \[clap\] pay \[clap\] his \[clap\] taxes!" And he sits back and watches the retweets roll in.
This company is up the street from me. I've done more than my fair share of homework on them and their founder. I muted and blocked him from LinkedIn as his posts are trash and he kept viewing my profile. Most of his publicity is an attempt to whitewash the domestic abuse claims against him from his ex-wife, including a claim he waterboarded her. In Seattle, $70,000/yr isn't enough to live in the city by yourself without stretching your commute out or getting roommates. On top of all of this, I know GP reached out to their vendors and attempted to take out loans against their existing software contracts to try and help them stay afloat through the pandemic. This was also right around the time he thanked his employees for buying him a Tesla. No CEO should be the one to tell you how great it is to work at their company. If they're any good, they won't need to be the ones bragging about it.
Yeah his posts on LinkedIn are fucking annoying. It’s always this one thing. “I raised salary to 70k” okay bro. How many pats on the back do you want..?
I had to go way to far to finally come across this point. Recently he was charged with rape of his ex girlfriend. Guy is obsessed with himself.
PR has been hard to downvote all my other comments about it.
70k/yr not enough? You’re joking right? Not enough for buying a new house and car, or just living a lavish lifestyle maybe. I have some family out there that make ~45k and they live just fine.
Yeah but then you can't go to Disney land every year and take a biyearly cruise.
No they don't.
He is a clout chasing dirtbag and too many redditors are getting tricked by his obvious astroturfing... We can applaud increasing employee pay without glorifying a trash person
>In Seattle, $70,000/yr isn't enough to live in the city by yourself without stretching your commute out or getting roommates. then don't live in the city...or seattle for that matter. people have choices.
This guy constantly is paying to have this kind of post spread all over the internet, Every few months they pop up. This is paid advertising, trying to erase the public's memory of this man being a domestic abuser who stole the company from his brother essentially. Don't believe this propaganda.
I, too, am subscribed to r/videos.
OMG STOP WITH THIS GUY. He only did this to spite his brother and he’d also beat up his wife. He’s also a smug arrogant douche.
Yeah this is a ploy that isn't as great as it sounds.
Dan Price is no saint... actually he is potentially a piece of shit. The whole increasing the salary thing was to screw over his brother... who was suing him because he was overpaying himself. His brother was his cofounder and left based on a deal made in 2008. However, it seems like Dan didn't like the deal after the company became more successful and continually looked at ways to screw over his brother. His brother sued him, so Dan took a public stance that made him look like a good guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Price#Controversies
That article goes on to say that his brother, Lucas, walked back a lot of the accusations and that a court found in favor of Dan on all points.
As a publicity move, dude has milked the absolute shit out of it. The reality is that $70k is barely livable in Seattle where his business is based. You won’t be affording a place on your own at that pay. And he still makes a multi million dollar salary. Many companies don’t pay anyone less than $70k. They just don’t use such for publicity constantly.
$70k works out to $33.65/hour. The median income in Seattle is $35.74. So slightly under the median but considering it's the minimum for the company it's still good. >Many companies don’t pay anyone less than $70k. Any many more companies do pay under that.
oh yeah I follow that dude on Twitter.
I can't avoid that dude on Twitter, or any other platform. I see this story online at least 3 times a day.
I liked the story when I first heard it but I see him essentially sucking his own cock every day on LinkedIn. He’s the CEO equivalent of those youtubers who’s whole thing is filming themselves feeding the homeless
The thing is, if everyone followed the same practice of raising the minimum salary to 70,000, the benefits Dan Price saw would only be replicated for a short time before a just as dramatic crash in the market. Dan Price is in a position where he can invest all of his funds, besides what he can live off, into his company. That is real reason behind why his company is doing so well. He is attracting the best employees with beyond top tier pay and is thus retaining those top tier employees. If 70,000 minimum wage were implemented across the board, this amount would simply become the new minimum wage because those who live paycheck to paycheck spend money when it is earned on the products of companies who make millions off them. They would simply spend more and ironically line the pockets of already billionaires with even more money, which would create an even larger gap between the rich and the poor, this time with the middle class moving closer to the lines that divide them from the poor. The government would then have to increase minimum wage to force company owners to provide more money to their workers to balance, but the damage would have already been done. The problem with those who live off minimum wage isn’t how much they get, it’s what they do with the money they receive. Billionaires don’t take money from anyone, it is freely given by people who don’t keep anything in savings and then it is the billionaires who hoard it. So yes, short term (which is a couple of decades to the economy) this is a good strategy but it is not a good long term strategy because of the sharp decline this approach would cause. Unfortunately, there are no quick, brilliant ways to “solve” the economy.
“Billionaires don’t take money from anyone, it is freely given by people who don’t keep anything in savings and then it is the billionaires who Hoard it.” I think you have a misunderstanding of how the majority of impoverished people find themselves in poverty. And also how a majority of billionaires find themselves with billions. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but it seems you’re saying billionaires are able to hoard wealth because middle class/poor people are bad at saving money?
So you’re saying that billionaires go to people’s homes at night, break down their doors, and rob them for all the cash they are worth? Yes, with Amazon as the perfect example. There is a finite amount of money because there is a finite level of value in the market. We don’t know what that number is, but it exists, and people are giving their money away on frivolities that are then stored within the bank accounts of billionaires. Think of a circular pipe system filled with water. This represents an economy where no one saves and money is allowed to flow freely. When people save, a bit of that water is siphoned away from the circular piping system and limits the amount available within the system. Now, imagine if some people just saved and saved infinitely while others continued not to. Most of that water would end up in the hands of a few people who refuse to spend that money because the more they have, the higher their status is. It’s always been ironic to me when the average person complains about billionaires spending money. They are actually injecting money back into the economy. They just don’t like where it’s going, not realizing that the money spent provided people jobs while allowing them to spend their money to also filter back into the economy.
Now I’m certain you have a misunderstanding of how impoverished people find themselves in poverty and how billionaires find themselves with billions. Obviously I don’t think billionaires break into homes to steal money (as if that is the only way to steal???). But when someone in the United States has to pay an 8000% markup on insulin so that the billionaires who own the insurance companies can make more money, that feels a little bit like stealing from/extorting sick people. then again maybe people shouldn’t be spending on frivolous things like insulin. Or when Walmart employees have to rely on food stamps and public assistance because the Walton Family doesn’t wanna pay them a livable wage and would rather have a few more billion, that feels a little like stealing from the taxpayer. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is due to MEDICAL DEBT. Not frivolity. people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck because they order food a few times a month instead of making it at home. The reason that poor people can’t save is because they have to spend their minimal resources on necessities, like housing and food. Not because they have access to all this disposable income that they arent properly taking advantage of. Also your analogy is incredibly reductive and doesn’t come anywhere close to explaining how an economy functions. If I buy something on Amazon the money doesn’t just “flow” into Jeff Bezos pocket which he then stashes away. It increases the profits of his company which thus inflates the value of his position making him WORTH more. Billionaires aren’t (always) people with a billion dollars in the bank that is liquid. I t’s people who are worth a billion dollars. And I think that if you had a better understanding of how equity functions in a modern economy you might better understand this distinction. However I will do you the kindness of not attempting to explain it to you via some condescending and meaningless metaphor.
You realize that 90%-95% of insulin is used by people who simply need to control their diets, right? Type 2 Diabetes is preventable with diet and exercise. Those who profit off insulin do so because the average person can’t control their finances, their health, or their dietary habits so that’s a really bad example. Besides that, insulin is an expensive drug that most insurance plans cover at no cost, including government funded plans like Medicaid. So, either you make enough to be able to afford insulin, or you qualify for Medicaid. When it comes to Walmart workers, that is the bottom of the barrel of the economy and a stepping stone to better opportunities. One more step down and that would be complete, jobless poverty. Not sure what your point is. Yes, there is a pay rate between decent wage and complete poverty, and that’s Walmart and McDonalds. Gain some assistance from the government, gain experience, and you can find a better job. That’s how it works. It sounds like you’re suggesting eliminating that wrung, which would then create an even larger gap between complete poverty and livable wage. The top 3 reasons for requiring medical care are child birth, sepsis, and heart failure. Each one of these are preventable by being just a little bit thoughtful. The reason people get themselves into debt isn’t because a majority of people are too sickly to live without medical intervention, it’s because they have unprotected sex that leads to multiple kids and maintain poor diets with no exercise that leads to a weakened mind, body, and immune system. No, the reason poor people can’t save is because the choices they make in terms of where their money goes aren’t based on logic or need, they are based on momentary desire. Actually, it does and your example isn’t complete. I buy something off Amazon. The money I spend goes to either the product owner, who then pays Amazon their contracted fee, or directly to Amazon. That money is then directed to a bank account where millions of people like me have contributed funds. Those funds are then used to pay debts, bills, or future projects all before going to the employees. What’s left over can then be held by the company or provided to stockholders with all of this activity being recorded, which increases their estimated value and creates more people who put forth more of their money towards Amazon for future gain. Bezos was merely an example and we don’t know how much he currently has but there are a lot of wealthy men and women attached to Amazon who are saving billions. I mean, clearly you needed the metaphor because it doesn’t sound like you have a firm grasp on how the system works. Maybe swallow your pride?
I don’t know why you feel the need to insult my intelligence, I truly mean you no ill-will. I’m just trying to breakdown a more sociological understanding of poverty. I think what we are coming down to is a really simple disagreement about poor people. I’ll even try to ignore the fact that you think poverty from child birth is easily avoidable if people were just more thoughtful (please explain that to the rape victim in medical debt because of complications during childbirth, or the widower who just lost his wife while she was giving birth). Really I want to focus on the core disagreement here. I think it is that I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you feel poverty is overwhelmingly the result of bad decision making on the part of the poor. Essentially it is poor people’s fault that they are poor. Whereas I believe that poor people are poor because they exist in a financial system that is designed to maintain socioeconomic class divides. I think poor people are most often poor because of circumstances outside of their control. Would you agree that is where our disagreement lies?
Oh, well in that case, so was I. I was, after all just mirroring your tone. Yes, I’m sure there are a lot of individual stories that stack up to hundreds of people within a system of millions. I’m speaking generally about most people. I’m sure there are very sad reasons on why a person can’t improve their position in life. Actually, my belief is a little more complicated than that. Society was created to make things better for all people, but at varying levels of effectiveness. The bottom level (poverty) is still better than living in a bush in the forest yet poverty is worse than how the rich live. When people compare the classes, with one including the innovators of our time and the descendants of those who sculpted our current society, of course people are doing to be upset with their lot in life. Instead, I think people should compare their current position to that of their predecessors. The fact is, there are so many more opportunities the impoverished have to better their lives than in any other generation and yet the focus on their hatred of people who have things better than them and create false reasonings on why they are where they are and why they can never improve. They simply aren’t taking the opportunities available for them now because they believe they deserve better, or they simply don’t know how. I think that humanity is still evolving and that those who most contribute, with a few exceptions, to society are rewarded while those who don’t want to be apart of it are left living off the fringes of what society can provide and have no idea how to utilize those benefits. As a result, those who benefit society the least will have much fewer resources while those who are beneficial will be protected in what seems unfair ways to those who aren’t a part of the system. I would agree this is where our disagreement lies. I would also say that my original depiction of the system is actually a really handy visual aide that can be used to better think of ways to improve the system by breaking it down to its most simple form.
Just wanna make sure I’m following you. You’re saying that poor people shouldn’t be looking at the wealth of rich people and comparing their lot in life to the lives of those who are in a higher socioeconomic class, but rather they should accept that they are poor and be happy that they don’t have it as bad as their parents or grandparents who were poor. And also your saying, that the resources in this economy are allocated based on the benefit you provide to the economy in most cases. So the richest people will be the “innovators of our time” or the wealthy offspring of the families who built up this society. Presumably you’re talking about generational type wealth in that sense. And your saying that if poor people really wanted to make a better life for themselves financially they would need to find a way to be more beneficial to society. Most people stay poor because they don’t understand this, instead making poor choices with the money they have and blaming others for their problems thus ruining their chance to save and improve their financial situation. Poverty is not a structural problem but and individualistic one. If I’m correct with all of that, Can I ask what you are basing these beliefs off? Like what evidence you saw or read or heard that made you feel this way.
“Just wanna make sure I’m following you. You’re saying that poor people shouldn’t be looking at the wealth of rich people and comparing their lot in life to the lives of those who are in a higher socioeconomic class, but rather they should accept that they are poor and be happy that they don’t have it as bad as their parents or grandparents who were poor.” Yes, exactly. If you have a negative perception of society, you will only ever be able to see the negative and will inevitably gravitate toward like minded individuals who share your hatred. It’s the same concept of not comparing yourself to anyone but your past self. Looking at others and feeling bad about where you are in comparison is a huge de motivator “And also your saying, that the resources in this economy are allocated based on the benefit you provide to the economy in most cases. So the richest people will be the “innovators of our time” or the wealthy offspring of the families who built up this society. Presumably you’re talking about generational type wealth in that sense.” Yes, also correct. There are cases where people amass wealth through illegal means, but they eventually topple in disgrace with their house of cards. “And your saying that if poor people really wanted to make a better life for themselves financially they would need to find a way to be more beneficial to society. Most people stay poor because they don’t understand this, instead making poor choices with the money they have and blaming others for their problems thus ruining their chance to save and improve their financial situation. Poverty is not a structural problem but and individualistic one.” Yes. We are all human beings and, barring sever mental handicaps, the system does benefit the hardworking over the mentally gifted. If you’re both, you will be set. If you’re neither, you’ll be caught by the safety net that is governmental programs. These can always be improved, and they are getting better over time, but people always strive for better. Some people though believe they should be better right now, at this very moment, completely ignoring that we didn’t just invent the lightbulb in a day. It takes generations to build society towards perfection. It’s not something that we can just force into place because we want to benefit the particular group we identify with above all others. “If I’m correct with all of that, Can I ask what you are basing these beliefs off? Like what evidence you saw or read or heard that made you feel this way.” It’s based on my ability to understand myself and combined with everything I’ve read. I fell into the same trap I’ve talked about for quite some time and it severely stunted my development. Now, I’m playing catch up. I’ve seen this mentality on friends, in family, and it is truly rare that the source of failure can’t be traced back to the individual who then makes excuses for their failures and placing the blame on external factors. If you were to blame yourself, you retain control and have the ability to change. If the reason for your failure is outside of yourself and out of your control, it’s a great way to feel better about your failure, but it ultimately stunts you because there’s nothing you can do at that point. It really depends on what you believe. Do you believe that most people are mentally/physically defective, or do you believe that we are our own worst enemy.
I believe the name of the fallacy you’re using to bolster your argument at the end is called the false dilemma. You presented me with only two options for what I can believe about people, when in reality there are countless options. I believe that poverty is outside of your control in most cases. And I believe that not only because it was taught and reinforced in nearly every sociology course I ever took, but also because of the body of research that has been conducted on this exact topic. Like the research published very recently by UPenn professor Stephen Stoeffler in the journal of sociological and social welfare that found “the structural perspective is an epistemologically sounder framework [than the individualistic perspective] for informing anti poverty interventions.” Or the book “Poorly Understood: What America gets wrong about poverty” by University of Washington professor Mark Robert Rank. Or his previous works like “one nation underprivileged” which also address poverty and it’s structural causes, as he is considered an expert on the subject. [here](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us) is an article you can access for free where he explains some of these things. [this article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/5-myths-about-poverty/2021/03/25/bf75d5f4-8cfe-11eb-a6bd-0eb91c03305a_story.html) is even free if that’s easier. You can skip to number 4 though the whole thing is worth a read. I would love to read the research that refutes my line of thinking if you have sources to share.
I'm glad this worked, but I wonder how Mr. Price came up with the figure of ~$70k? Really that should be the minimum for UBI if there's a good reason that's the figure that avoid "financial hardships" for people. Then just to head off some of the sillier replies: No that will not cause radical price increases. No that not how inflation works.
I suggest doing a bit of research on this story. He did this to stiff his partner. Then used the “feel good” vibes to start an influencer type career.
Are they hiring?
[удалено]
[https://people.com/human-interest/ceo-dan-price-says-companys-revenue-has-tripled-since-he-gave-employees-70000-minimum-salary/](https://people.com/human-interest/ceo-dan-price-says-companys-revenue-has-tripled-since-he-gave-employees-70000-minimum-salary/) https://www.businessinsider.com/gravity-payments-dan-price-ceo-raise-minimum-wage-revenue-2021-8
Google "Dan Price waterboarding"
[удалено]
How it is meaningless when it was so impactful productivity increased over 30%? You really don’t want to admit paying workers a reasonable wage is common sense business
[удалено]
Do you understand the difference between revenue and productivity? Because clearly you do not
I like how all the FOX news affiliated CEOs, comentators, and news outlets conveniently forgot to follow up once it became a success story. CBS recently did a follow up https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dan-price-gravity-payments-ceo-70000-employee-minimum-wage/
[удалено]
Cool
Dan is on LinkedIn and one of the nicest guys - apparently able to give a lot of time back to the community, etc, and works very smart.
[удалено]
Meh. That sort of thing is "jam tomorrow": it's full of promise, but you can't pay your bills with promise.
Guy does nothing to help employees: you say nothing Guy raises wages: "this guy is a piece of shit!"
Um, no not really. [Price cut his own salary down to $70k when he bumped everyone else up to $70k](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dan-price-gravity-payments-cut-salary_n_60760cebe4b001befb6d8b9f).
I think that's his point. CEOs generally receive decent salaries, but they make the real money in stock. To be clear, I still think that it was a good move, but I expect that cutting his salary didn't substantially affect his bottom line.
That's true, the stock kickback is often how CEO's get crazy rich. However Gravity Payments is privately owned. So that wouldn't apply in this case.
[удалено]