What's new

CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits are met.

Hold up, my parents having a 5000+ sq foot home on over an acre of land is wasteful Dala? Them owning 4 different vehicles is wasteful? Even though they're spending the money that they earned through their own hard work, that's wasteful and we should look down on that? Because that certainly is what you are implying.

Just think, if they wouldn't have done that, they could've paid for an employee's children's college education (oh wait, they did do that). I have plenty more examples just like that too.

Let's not equate quantity of house or personal ownership to wasteful. It's ridiculously short sighted.
 
Hold up, my parents having a 5000+ sq foot home on over an acre of land is wasteful Dala? Them owning 4 different vehicles is wasteful? Even though they're spending the money that they earned through their own hard work, that's wasteful and we should look down on that? Because that certainly is what you are implying.

Isn't it? Don't you think that 5000+ square feet on over an acre is a bit wasteful? No?

Ok... where do you draw the line? 5000+ square feet per person? 12k? 20k?

When does enjoying what you've spent a lifetime earning go from ok to straight up gluttony?
 
I love it when N. American libs travel European castles and praise the vanity objects of a storied past only to come home and bitch about those who do the same here.
 
Isn't it? Don't you think that 5000+ square feet on over an acre is a bit wasteful? No?

Ok... where do you draw the line? 5000+ square feet per person? 12k? 20k?

When does enjoying what you've spent a lifetime earning go from ok to straight up gluttony?

Perhaps I think that after a lifetime of working, they've earned the right to spend their money as they see fit. Who is it hurting? Who is hurting that they have that much? It's not about any certain amount of property or anything, but why do people think they have the right to regulate how much somebody can have? Should people be shamed for buying things they can afford?


Anyways, is all that house necessary? Nope. But they wanted a big home for their children and their friends to play in. For their grandchildren to play in. And when you consider they own a couple thousand acres, no, I do not consider a house on one acre gluttonous.
 
People rarely hurt others with their money (and by "money" I mean the hard coins and paper money that they call theirs). People hurt others via debt and extracting rents that go beyond fair limits.

This is a simplification, of course. But you are barking up the wrong trees if you continue to talk about "money" without addressing what it actually is, and without talking about where it comes from in each particular case.
 
Isn't it? Don't you think that 5000+ square feet on over an acre is a bit wasteful? No?

Ok... where do you draw the line? 5000+ square feet per person? 12k? 20k?

When does enjoying what you've spent a lifetime earning go from ok to straight up gluttony?

I am going to assume you support the right for anybody, regardless of station in life, to bring a child into the world? Don't you find it curious, upon self-reflection, that you could not be troubled by and avoid judgement of people living in urban and rural poverty willingly bringing a child, and usually multiple children into the world, yet have no problem judging the size of somebody's home or the number of cars in the driveway?

It is simple logic that society is exposed to a much smaller downsize risk when people with the means to engage in "gluttony" do so, as opposed to those that engage in behavior below a minimum responsible standard required as a member of society.
 
I am going to assume you support the right for anybody, regardless of station in life, to bring a child into the world? Don't you find it curious, upon self-reflection, that you could not be troubled by and avoid judgement of people living in urban and rural poverty willingly bringing a child, and usually multiple children into the world, yet have no problem judging the size of somebody's home or the number of cars in the driveway?

It is simple logic that society is exposed to a much smaller downsize risk when people with the means to engage in "gluttony" do so, as opposed to those that engage in behavior below a minimum responsible standard required as a member of society.

^absolute trash^
 
Obamacare is a step in the right direction-- any reversal would be damaging. With this said, the system is still largely insufficient, and needs large-scale rehaul. What you seem to be missing is the fact that most people who file for bankruptcy from health care costs actually HAVE health insurance of some kind. Consequently, the more widespread adoption of health insurance alone will not stymie the economic impacts of health care costs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

Hence the problem, and why advocates of both parties tend to fight against initial major pieces of law that goes against their "core" beliefs. We are always sold these types of laws as solving problem A, B, C, D, etc. Yet in reality, two things almost always result. First, the law solves only A and B and has unintended consequences of creating problem, F, G, H, etc. Secondly, the initial law than mushrooms into something bigger than it was ever marketed to be, either unintentionally, or as a cynic like me often thinks, by design.

Simple example, tax cuts are never enough for those on the right and spending programs are never enough for those on the left.
 
Perhaps I think that after a lifetime of working, they've earned the right to spend their money as they see fit. Who is it hurting? Who is hurting that they have that much? It's not about any certain amount of property or anything, but why do people think they have the right to regulate how much somebody can have? Should people be shamed for buying things they can afford?


Anyways, is all that house necessary? Nope. But they wanted a big home for their children and their friends to play in. For their grandchildren to play in. And when you consider they own a couple thousand acres, no, I do not consider a house on one acre gluttonous.

Then what do you consider gluttonous?

Can you see how other MIGHT see it as gluttonous?
 
I am going to assume you support the right for anybody, regardless of station in life, to bring a child into the world? Don't you find it curious, upon self-reflection, that you could not be troubled by and avoid judgement of people living in urban and rural poverty willingly bringing a child, and usually multiple children into the world, yet have no problem judging the size of somebody's home or the number of cars in the driveway?

It is simple logic that society is exposed to a much smaller downsize risk when people with the means to engage in "gluttony" do so, as opposed to those that engage in behavior below a minimum responsible standard required as a member of society.

The whole point of this was not to call his parents gluttons, merely to see where someone might draw the line in the sand, and illustrate how others may see that line in a different location.
 
Then what do you consider gluttonous?

Can you see how other MIGHT see it as gluttonous?

I wouldn't consider it gluttonous considering how much they have.

Is an 80 lb child eating 5 pounds of shrimp the same as The Rock eating the same amount? If building that home caused financial issues, then it probably would have been.

Now tell me why you think it's wasteful, because you insinuated that it was.
 
The whole point of this was not to call his parents gluttons, merely to see where someone might draw the line in the sand, and illustrate how others may see that line in a different location.

Fair enough. I find it curious that when it comes to these type of economic/behavior issues that many folks default starting point for "drawing the line in the sand" starts at the top, rather than the bottom, yet in every other situation, we solve problems from the bottom up.
 
I wouldn't consider it gluttonous considering how much they have.

Is an 80 lb child eating 5 pounds of shrimp the same as The Rock eating the same amount? If building that home caused financial issues, then it probably would have been.

Now tell me why you think it's wasteful, because you insinuated that it was.

I absolutely did not. You assumed that was my opinion. That's all on you.

I'm not sure I know what's wasteful. I admit I'm a glutton. I could be doing a hell of a lot more with what I have. I'm sure a 2000 square foot house would work fine for me, but I have no kids, and I never have anyone over besides a female companion of mine.

But remember; Wasteful or gluttonous, neither are illegal.

Fair enough. I find it curious that when it comes to these type of economic/behavior issues that many folks default starting point for "drawing the line in the sand" starts at the top, rather than the bottom, yet in every other situation, we solve problems from the bottom up.

I think you miss something terribly. We did start at the bottom, and we realized we need tools to fix the issues we see. The ones at the top have those tools.
 
And there is a difference between wasteful and gluttonous.

this conwersation has been dumb for a while.... but ... please... what is this difference you speak of? and how does it pertain to the conwersation?
 
Seattle CEO who set firm's minimum wage to $70G says he has hit hard times

The Seattle CEO who reaped a publicity bonanza when he boosted the salaries of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year says he has fallen on hard times.

Dan Price, 31, tells the New York Times that things have gotten so bad he’s been forced to rent out his house.

Only three months ago Price was generating headlines—and accusations of being a socialist -- when he announced the new salary minimum for all 120 employees at his Gravity Payments credit card processing firm. Price said he was doing it, and slashing his $1 million pay package to pay for it, to address the wealth gap.

“I’m working as hard as I ever worked to make it work,” he told the Times in a video that shows him sitting on a plastic bucket in the garage of his house. “I’m renting out my house right now to try and make ends meet myself.”

The Times article said Price’s decision ended up costing him a few customers and two of his “most valued” employees, who quit after newer employees ended up with bigger salary hikes than older ones.

“He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump,” Gravity financial manager Maisey McMaster, 26, told the paper.

She said when she talked to Price about it, he treated her as if she was being selfish and only thinking about herself.

“That really hurt me,” she said. “I was talking about not only me, but about everyone in my position.”

Approaching burnout, she quit.

Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting

“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

Price said McMaster and Moran, or even critic Rush Limbaugh, the talk show host, were not wrong.

“There’s no perfect way to do this and no way to handle complex workplace issues that doesn’t have any downsides or trade-offs,” he said.

The Times said customers who left were dismayed at what Price did, viewing it as a political statement. Others left fearful Gravity would soon hike fees to pay for salary increases.

Brian Canlis, co-owner of a family restaurant, already worried about how to deal with Seattle’s new minimum wage, told Price the pay raise at Gravity “makes it harder for the rest of us.”

“It pains me to hear Brian Canlis say that,” Price said. “The last think I would ever want to do is make a client feel uncomfortable.”

The Times said Price has dozens of new clients inspired by his move but those accounts won’t start generating profits for at least another year.

Making matters worse for Price is a lawsuit his older brother filed two weeks after the pay hike announcement.

Lucas Price, who owns 30 percent of the company, accuses his brother of taking millions of dollars out of the company while denying him the benefits of his minority ownership.

The lawsuit has forced Gravity to pay mounting legal fees at a time when the new salary scale is being eaten up by profits.

“We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees,” Dan Price said.

yeah socialism doesnt work on a small scale why would it on a national scale. source is fox
 
Seattle CEO who set firm's minimum wage to $70G says he has hit hard times



yeah socialism doesnt work on a small scale why would it on a national scale. source is fox
That's a poorly written article.

“The last think I would ever want to do is..."

the new salary scale is being eaten up by profits.
Is that good or bad?
 
But I do wonder if people have considered this in regard to $15min wage. A lot of people who make around $15 now have the pride that they make a lot more than min wage. If they suddenly find themselves making min wage when they consider their position more significant than a min wage position they are going to want that status reflected in their own pay. That doesn't mean $16.50. Many people will be upset that they suddenly only make min wage.
 
Seattle CEO who set firm's minimum wage to $70G says he has hit hard times



yeah socialism doesnt work on a small scale why would it on a national scale. source is fox

How is that socialism? The guy on his own is setting the wages to what he feels is appropriate. There is no government intervention whatsoever. He's a private citizen choosing how much he wants to spend in direct labor and how much each member of his labor force gets.

It's total capitalism. Since where is there a wage requirement and a profit percentage requirement in capitalism?
 
Top