What's new
By:

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
DutchJazzer said:
why cant a business be run socialistic?
if a coutnry can be socliastic.
a small communicty can also be run that way.

so can a bussiness, it will fail msot likely. but a business can be run that way
Click to expand...

In the case of the aforementioned cooperative, it can.

This guy's business isn't run that way. He owns the business. His employees don't. He owns the property of the business. His employees don't. He sets the salaries. The employees don't.

Everything about his business is capitalism. You're just hung up on the wages he's paying his employees. You know, the wages he choose to pay them because he owns his business.
 
Nate505 said:
In the case of the aforementioned cooperative, it can.

This guy's business isn't run that way. He owns the business. His employees don't. He owns the property of the business. His employees don't. He sets the salaries. The employees don't.

Everything about his business is capitalism. You're just hung up on the wages he's paying his employees. You know, the wages he choose to pay them because he owns his business.
Click to expand...

And those wages are paying off.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-70000-minimum-wage-is-paying-off-for-that-seattle-company-2015-10-25

Gravity Payments, that Seattle credit-card-payments processing company that said all its employees would earn at least $70,000 in three years, is defying the doomsayers.

Revenue is growing at twice the rate it was before Chief Executive Dan Price made his announcement this spring, according to a report on Inc.com. Profits have doubled. Customer retention is up, despite some who left because they disagreed with the decision or feared service would suffer. (Price said he’d make up the extra cost by cutting his own $1.1 million pay.)
Click to expand...
 
ElRoach0 said:
And those wages are paying off.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-70000-minimum-wage-is-paying-off-for-that-seattle-company-2015-10-25
Click to expand...

more from this link:

The company has hired an extra 10 people to handle the anticipated new business, Gravity’s vice president of operations, Maria Haley, told Inc.

Price, meanwhile, has invested another $3 million in the company after selling all his stocks, emptying his retirement accounts and taking out mortgages on two homes, according to Inc. (He told the New York Times three months ago that he was “renting out my house right now to try to make ends meet.)
[as noted in an earlier post in this thread]

“Having to depend on modest pay is not a bad thing,” he told the magazine, speaking about himself. “It will help me stay focused.”

Still hanging over him is a lawsuit filed by his brother, a Gravity co-founder and minority shareholder, that alleges Dan Price had previously paid himself “excessive compensation.” Lucas Price’s lawsuit isn’t related to the pay increases, Inc. said, citing Lucas Price’s lawyer.
Click to expand...

interesting...
 
Stoked said:
So one guy is mortgaging every thing to help the others. Exceptionally noble of him.

But doesn't seem to be working. Not yet at least.
Click to expand...

Revenue is growing at twice the rate it was before Chief Executive Dan Price made his announcement this spring, according to a report on Inc.com. Profits have doubled. Customer retention is up, despite some who left because they disagreed with the decision or feared service would suffer. (Price said he’d make up the extra cost by cutting his own $1.1 million pay.)

From a corporate perspective, it appears it is. However, if that has anything to do with his salary policy is another story. One would have to dive deeper in his books to have a more informed opinion. And one would really have to see his books to see if he's not cooking them in some way to paint his business in a favorable light.

Now I'm just a simple idiot who is really close to an Accounting degree, but from a purely financial (and math) perspective, paying 2 people 100k and 2 people 50k is the exact same on the wages line of Income Statement as paying 4 people 75k, so in general I'm not stunned his business didn't suffer just because the numbers got shifted around (unless of course his salary expense did skyrocket). Still, there's a lot more to business than that (such as the guy making 100k who leaves may have brought more revenue to the table to justify his extra $25k per year than the new guy making 75k). According to that article he might be attracting talent who is willing to take a paycut just for the novelty purpose of working for such a swell company, but in general that principle doesn't hold water.
 
Stoked said:
So one guy is mortgaging every thing to help the others. Exceptionally noble of him.

But doesn't seem to be working. Not yet at least.
Click to expand...


the intent is noble.
but if he goes out of business. he and all his employees would go on welfare, and america will get more in debt(yeah thats possible)

ever heard of the saying. the road to hell are paved with good intentions?
sometimes good intentions/ noble deeds lead to hell.
 
Nate505 said:
Revenue is growing at twice the rate it was before Chief Executive Dan Price made his announcement this spring, according to a report on Inc.com. Profits have doubled. Customer retention is up, despite some who left because they disagreed with the decision or feared service would suffer. (Price said he’d make up the extra cost by cutting his own $1.1 million pay.)

From a corporate perspective, it appears it is. However, if that has anything to do with his salary policy is another story. One would have to dive deeper in his books to have a more informed opinion. And one would really have to see his books to see if he's not cooking them in some way to paint his business in a favorable light.

Now I'm just a simple idiot who is really close to an Accounting degree, but from a purely financial (and math) perspective, paying 2 people 100k and 2 people 50k is the exact same on the wages line of Income Statement as paying 4 people 75k, so in general I'm not stunned his business didn't suffer just because the numbers got shifted around (unless of course his salary expense did skyrocket). Still, there's a lot more to business than that (such as the guy making 100k who leaves may have brought more revenue to the table to justify his extra $25k per year than the new guy making 75k). According to that article he might be attracting talent who is willing to take a paycut just for the novelty purpose of working for such a swell company, but in general that principle doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

Seems to be working to me.
 
Not sure if it's in the thread but I read about a highly skilled person in the industry that actually quit her job and took a pay CUT to come work for him. Said she's tired of chasing money and would rather work for someone and something she believes in.

Income disparity will kill this country faster than anything else - drugs, immigration, you name it. It's chipping away at our (so-called) democracy now little by little. No, socialism is not the answer but neither is the path we're on now.
 
candrew said:
Not sure if it's in the thread but I read about a highly skilled person in the industry that actually quit her job and took a pay CUT to come work for him. Said she's tired of chasing money and would rather work for someone and something she believes in.

Income disparity will kill this country faster than anything else - drugs, immigration, you name it. It's chipping away at our (so-called) democracy now little by little. No, socialism is not the answer but neither is the path we're on now.
Click to expand...

Biological warfare. It never really took hold. Watch, just watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top