Seattle Business offering $70K min wage is failing

[BehindBlueI's]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why it's "abnormal" to run a company as a commune? There is no law against it. In fact, other than some insignificant ribbing from posters on right-wing gun discussion boards, there's really nothing to prevent somebody from doing it.

So, why can't you produce a similar list of companies who operate that way?

There has to be a reason.

Well, you're going to have to tell me what you think running a company like a commune is before we know if I can make a list of companies that operate that way.

If you simply mean why don't many companies maximize their employee's compensation, that's a pretty simple answer. The same reason most people don't donate 10% of their income to charity. That's not really a commune, though. So, tell me what you think it means and we'll go from there.

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, you're going to have to tell me what you think running a company like a commune is before we know if I can make a list of companies that operate that way.

If you simply mean why don't many companies maximize their employee's compensation, that's a pretty simple answer. The same reason most people don't donate 10% of their income to charity. That's not really a commune, though. So, tell me what you think it means and we'll go from there.

"Commune" was my pejorative reference to the subject of the OP, but to avoid a pedantic discussion of the finer points of communes, I'll just borrow your definition and pose the question thus: why don't more non-employee-owned companies operate to maximize employee salaries? (Rather than minimize them, which for purposes of this discussion we'll agree that "maximize" and "minimize" are being used somewhat loosely). I'll further narrow it to non-public companies, since it's obvious public companies' charter is to maximize shareholder value. There are still plenty of non-public companies out there, with nothing preventing them from operating this way. And some are even fairly philanthropic, so pure unrestrained greed doesn't seem to fully explain it, either. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I even know of any non-profits that operate in this manner?

It's right there to be done, and it would make a great display of egalitarian principles, while theoretically attracting great employees. I know there are people who have the money and perhaps inclination to do it. What gives? When I look at all the money pouring into liberal PACs, why couldn't somebody take that money and create something truly inspiring and set an example as you suggest, instead of using it trying to wrest control of the same old (supposedly) dysfunctional system to bend it to their advantage? You wouldn't need a PAC, you wouldn't need to change the Constitution or how legislative districts are drawn, you wouldn't even need to "get the money out of politics" for it to happen. Just good old, American, direct positive action. (And, best of all, the Congressional Neo-Cons and Koch Brothers couldn't do a damn thing about it).

More money would flow directly into peoples' pockets, without flowing through Washington, or being skimmed to buy votes. (Oh...snap?)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

why don't more non-employee-owned companies operate to maximize employee salaries? (Rather than minimize them, which for purposes of this discussion we'll agree that "maximize" and "minimize" are being used somewhat loosely).

I give up. Why?

Also interesting that 80% of profits into worker salaries requires a pejorative. That reminds me of this older article:

Even more depressing is the fact that concepts like "fairness" and "sharing" are now seen as evidence of bleeding-heart socialist tendencies — as though the only way to be a bona fide capitalist is to treat your employees like costs and pay them as little as possible.

Read more: Companies Need To Share More Profits With Employees - Business Insider

The "no one else is doing it" argument is pretty weak, no matter what the topic is, just like "everyone else is doing it." It's a reason without having a reason.

There are certainly companies in the middle ground. Delta comes to mind, with a pretty robust profit sharing program. UPS, if you are a part time worker. Pepsi, as mentioned, or at least they used to be. I don't care enough to look up current wages, but in the 90's and 00's they were starting at over double other manufacturing jobs around their plant in southern Indiana.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just for fun, I am gong to review the problems:

1. If this were a sound, viable, and sustainable decision, the company would not be having financial difficulties.

2. Brother would not have filed a lawsuit that the company cannot afford had the CEO not only bet his own financial well-being, but involuntarily forced his brother into the same situation, devaluing his holdings to next to nothing, which in my reckoning is tantamount to theft given that it was a willful redistribution rather than simply business difficulties.

3. If being 'fair' to workers is really an issue, let's explore some alternatives. First, if I were a top producer, I would be pretty pissed if some underachiever were given a huge raise bringing us to parity or near parity in income even though he fails to produce. I don't go to work to carry anyone else, and if income equalization becomes the standard rather than pay in proportion to the value produced, that is exactly what is happening.

4. How can the argument be made that this was a sound decision of the CEO can't even pay his personal bills while having the best-paid janitors in the country? One could make the argument that the janitor is of equal value as a human being, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the shareholders whose money is on the line to support the company. Negative return on investment is not a viable business plan.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I give up. Why?

Also interesting that 80% of profits into worker salaries requires a pejorative. That reminds me of this older article:



The "no one else is doing it" argument is pretty weak, no matter what the topic is, just like "everyone else is doing it." It's a reason without having a reason.

There are certainly companies in the middle ground. Delta comes to mind, with a pretty robust profit sharing program. UPS, if you are a part time worker. Pepsi, as mentioned, or at least they used to be. I don't care enough to look up current wages, but in the 90's and 00's they were starting at over double other manufacturing jobs around their plant in southern Indiana.

This is all well and good so long as the money exists to do it without having the company hit the rocks the first time something doesn't work just perfect, and can do it without the shareholders receiving a negative return on investment. For example, it is fair to me if you decide to open a little side business, Blue Eyes Investigations, and allow me to invest in it and make decisions similar to this guaranteeing that I will never see a positive return on investment? Wouldn't that seem to be at least on the border of theft?

 

[jamil]

Just for fun, I am gong to review the problems:

1. If this were a sound, viable, and sustainable decision, the company would not be having financial difficulties.

2. Brother would not have filed a lawsuit that the company cannot afford had the CEO not only bet his own financial well-being, but involuntarily forced his brother into the same situation, devaluing his holdings to next to nothing, which in my reckoning is tantamount to theft given that it was a willful redistribution rather than simply business difficulties.

3. If being 'fair' to workers is really an issue, let's explore some alternatives. First, if I were a top producer, I would be pretty pissed if some underachiever were given a huge raise bringing us to parity or near parity in income even though he fails to produce. I don't go to work to carry anyone else, and if income equalization becomes the standard rather than pay in proportion to the value produced, that is exactly what is happening.

4. How can the argument be made that this was a sound decision of the CEO can't even pay his personal bills while having the best-paid janitors in the country? One could make the argument that the janitor is of equal value as a human being, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the shareholders whose money is on the line to support the company. Negative return on investment is not a viable business plan.

Yer just jealous of pie.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yer just jealous of pie.

Absolutely! 3.14 isn't good enough! I want it raised to at least 3.25!

 

[oldpink]

Absolutely! 3.14 isn't good enough! I want it raised to at least 3.25!

As long as that's not an irrational number (one that goes off into infinity) you could resolve the eternal mathematical problem of squaring a circle with a compass and a straightedge.
Not only generous to your grateful employees, but a boon to science!

 

[IndyDave1776]

As long as that's not an irrational number (one that goes off into infinity) you could resolve the eternal mathematical problem of squaring a circle with a compass and a straightedge.
Not only generous to your grateful employees, but a boon to science!

I always try to be of service!

 

[jamil]

There's just one problem with that theory. There's an extra letter on the end of that particular pi that makes it taste pretty good whether it's round or square.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Just for fun, I am gong to review the problems:

1. If this were a sound, viable, and sustainable decision, the company would not be having financial difficulties.

2. Brother would not have filed a lawsuit that the company cannot afford had the CEO not only bet his own financial well-being, but involuntarily forced his brother into the same situation, devaluing his holdings to next to nothing, which in my reckoning is tantamount to theft given that it was a willful redistribution rather than simply business difficulties.

3. If being 'fair' to workers is really an issue, let's explore some alternatives. First, if I were a top producer, I would be pretty pissed if some underachiever were given a huge raise bringing us to parity or near parity in income even though he fails to produce. I don't go to work to carry anyone else, and if income equalization becomes the standard rather than pay in proportion to the value produced, that is exactly what is happening.

4. How can the argument be made that this was a sound decision of the CEO can't even pay his personal bills while having the best-paid janitors in the country? One could make the argument that the janitor is of equal value as a human being, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the shareholders whose money is on the line to support the company. Negative return on investment is not a viable business plan.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to IndyDave1776 again."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just for fun, I am gong to review the problems:

1. If this were a sound, viable, and sustainable decision, the company would not be having financial difficulties.

2. Brother would not have filed a lawsuit that the company cannot afford had the CEO not only bet his own financial well-being, but involuntarily forced his brother into the same situation, devaluing his holdings to next to nothing, which in my reckoning is tantamount to theft given that it was a willful redistribution rather than simply business difficulties.

3. If being 'fair' to workers is really an issue, let's explore some alternatives. First, if I were a top producer, I would be pretty pissed if some underachiever were given a huge raise bringing us to parity or near parity in income even though he fails to produce. I don't go to work to carry anyone else, and if income equalization becomes the standard rather than pay in proportion to the value produced, that is exactly what is happening.

4. How can the argument be made that this was a sound decision of the CEO can't even pay his personal bills while having the best-paid janitors in the country? One could make the argument that the janitor is of equal value as a human being, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the shareholders whose money is on the line to support the company. Negative return on investment is not a viable business plan.

1) Why is it any less viable than 80% to shareholders? This goes back to if he fails, it will be blamed on salaries, if he succeeds, it will be blamed on salaries. Either way is an oversimplification. 80% of profits is 80% of profits, no matter who it's being distributed to.

2) Ok, support the brother wouldn't have filed or that the reason is the pay raises.

If you look into it a bit, you'll see the lawsuit stems from allegations that Dan was taking to much money out of the business for himself.

During the restructuring, Lucas Price agreed to a minority interest and a reduced employee role, which let Dan Price continue as CEO. In the process, the brothers entered into several contracts, which limited Dan’s compensation as a CEO and protected Lucas’ minority-shareholder rights, court records show.

Lucas Price claims his brother excessively paid himself and deprived Lucas Price of his minority-shareholder benefits.

Gravity Payments CEO, who set $70K minimum pay, sued by brother | The Seattle Times

Dan has taken millions of dollars out of the company for himself while denying me the benefits of the ownership of my shares, and otherwise favoring his own interests as the majority shareholder over my interests.” He said his complaints predated the pay raises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0

The complaints were initially signed March 13 and filed April 24, 11 days after Dan Price announced the pay raises. Attorney Greg Hollon, who represents Lucas Price, said that while that announcement may play a role in the proceedings, it does not relate directly to the lawsuit.

Flabbergasted when the suit arrived, Dan said he was puzzled by the accusations, saying that Lucas agreed to his $1.1 million salary and bonus package, instituted for 2012.

Source: Gravity Payments CEO, who set $70K minimum pay, sued by brother | The Seattle Times

Looks pretty cut and dried that it's actually about his $1m salary. If I was a cynic, I'd say the drastic reduction in pay was due to the impending lawsuit. Get PR on his side, reduce his own income versus his brothers. This could be the most passive aggressive d-bag move to ever benefit employees.

Ok, ok, you say. They are just saying that after the fact. It's really about the salaries. I thought of that, too. I tried to find the actual filing date, and it PREDATES the salary announcement. Interestingly, I'm not the only one who suspects the salary changes are related to the impending lawsuit:

While the complaints were signed exactly one month before Dan’s headline-grabbing announcement, papers were officially filed 11 days afterward. Lucas’ lawyer, Greg Hollon, said the conflict between the brothers has been brewing for some time. He called an “interesting question” the notion whether Dan's decision to set a minimum salary for his workers -- and lower his own pay to $70,000 -- was a response to the pending lawsuit.

Seattle CEO Who Set Minimum Salaries to $70,000 Sued By Brother for Allegedly Overpaying Himself


Theft? Let's explore that.
Investor gets less of the proceeds from the company in exchange for workers getting more = theft.
Workers getting less of the proceeds from the company in exchange for investors getting more = ???.

Regardless, I think we can put to bed the notion his brother is only suing due to the pay increases for employees. Two sources list the original filing as BEFORE the pay announcements. That was actually pretty interesting, and let's revisit that in #4.


3) I don't think anyone has claimed this is the only way. However no one here has yet to show its not a reasoanble way, either.

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. When other entrepreneurs suggested that stock options or profit-sharing would have been a better approach, he said that’s the way capitalism works: Everyone tries to invent the best mousetrap. “I came up with the best solution I could.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0

OK, you are a top performer. Let's readdress the question I brought up earlier.

You are a web designer. Averages are all over the place depending on you source, but let's say the average pay is roughly $50k. Average salary, not average starting salary, so of course that counts experienced guys as well. So, let's say you are leaving your current job and have 4 years experience. You get the following offers:

Company A: $70k/yr, janitor also makes $70k/yr

Company B: $45k/yr, janitor makes $30k/yr

Company C: $55k/yr, janitor makes $32k/yr

Substitute janitor with "underachiever" and who do you go to work for? You are arguing it doesn't matter what you are paid, it matters what you are paid compared to someone else. Would you quit company A to go to work for either of the others? Pay in proportion to value produced is worthy of a whole other thread, and I'd be happy to have that debate with you if you like. I'd just point out that worker productivity has never been higher in the US, yet the workers get a smaller percentage of the profits than before. So, maybe that isn't happening like you and HoughMade and some others think it is. Value produced and market wages are not the same thing.

Thought exercises are neat, but what are actual employees doing?

Leah Brajcich, who oversees sales at Gravity, fielded complaints from several customers who accused her boss of communist or socialist sympathies that would drive up their own employees’ wages and others who felt it was a public relations stunt. A few were worried that fees would rise or service would fall off. “What’s their incentive to hustle if you pay them so much?” Ms. Brajcich said they asked. Putting in 80-hour weeks after the announcement, she called the mistrustful clients, stopping by their offices or stores, and invited them to visit Gravity to see for themselves the employees’ dedication. She said she eventually lured most back.

So the head of sales is putting in 80 hour weeks, doing sales calls out of the office, and increasing retention of customers via offering people the chance to see the employee's dedication. Why? Several posters have talked about how this will kill people's motivation. Why is she working so hard, and apparently so effectively?

4) You quit taking a million dollar a year salary 3 months ago and now you can't pay your bills? Your net worth is $3 million and you can't pay your bills? Yet you had the financial sense to build a multi-million dollar company? I'm having a bit of trouble believing that to be true. At first I thought it was probably for the publicity. Now I'm wondering if it isn't a ploy for the court battle with his brother. Gosh your honor, I am so very very poor that I must rent out my very own dwelling so as to put food on my plate, your honor, sir. Really.

I'm under no illusion that this whole thing is based entirely an altruism. While that might be part of it, the very public nature of the announcement of it made me think marketing was a strong contender for the motivation as well, a hook to gather attention and to differentiate the company. Sort of like the "we are so Green" thing companies do. Now I'm starting to see the family business element of it, too, and the drama of the lawsuit. It seems VERY well timed to announce this "I'm so altruistic, and poor, don't forget poor!" after a complaint leading to a lawsuit is filed. He said he'll be reclaiming his old salary once the company grows enough...which will be after the lawsuit is settled. Maybe he gets to buy his brother out and a reduced figure in the mean time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

BBI, I just got a phone call advising me that I don't have time to address this at the length I would like to. Quick version:

1. Making equal pay with the janitor isn't so bad if it is that much higher than any other alternative.

2. No, I would not work my tail off for the same money as a pack of slackers. This is one of the primary reasons that socialism/communism fails every time it is tried.

3. As for the sales manager, you will find a Dagny Taggart in most operations. They eventually burn out or else come to the realization that they are attempting the impossible.

4. As for how much is given in dividends rather than salaries, one can argue this one 'til the cows come home, and will find such extreme examples as sweat shops on one end and European labor unions on the other which consider any profit whatsoever made by the company to be money 'taken out of their pockets'. At the end of the day, risking one's wealth in a business venture comes with a very reasonable expectation of making a profit. At the same time, reasonable pay for reasonable work is a reasonable expectation. It really is a balance, and being shoved to one extreme or the other is not a balance. In this case, the question is not really relevant since the money supposedly doesn't exist, as opposed to the near doubling that your example rests upon.

5. I would agree in light of the additional information for which I really didn't care enough to dig that this likelihood is that this is more about screwing his brother than being altruistic and/or a Marx-believing socialist.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok. We can agree he's probably sticking it to his brother. One point of agreement.

Can we agree that the sustainability argument didn't stand up to scrutiny? That as far as the health of the business is concerned, it's irrelevant if employees get it or shareholders get it?

 

[rhino]

Absolutely! 3.14 isn't good enough! I want it raised to at least 3.25!

Uh, that's 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736225994138912497217752834791315155748572424541506959508295331168617278558890750983817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429555961989467678374494482553797747268471040475346462080466842590694912933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935112533824300355876402474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653449872027559602364806654991198818347977535663698074265425278625518184175746728909777727938000816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685481613611573525521334757418494684385233239073941433345477624168625189835694855620992192221842725502542568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929848960841284886269456042419652850222106611863067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172874677646575739624138908658326459958133904780275900994657640789512694683983525957098258226205224894077267194782684826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091906592509372216964615157098583874105978859597729754989301617539284681382686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359977001296160894416948685558484063534220722258284886481584560285060168427394522674676788952521385225499546667278239864565961163548862305774564980355936345681743241125150760694794510965960940252288797108931456691368672287489405601015033086179286809208747609178249385890097149096759852613655497818931297848216829989487226588048575640142704775551323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159195618146751426912397489409071864942319615679452080951465502252316038819301420937621378559566389377870830390697920773467221825625996615014215030680384477345492026054146659252014974428507325186660021324340881907104863317346496514539057962685610055081066587969981635747363840525714591028970641401109712062804390397595156771577004203378699360072305587631763594218731251471205329281918261861258673215791984148488291644706095752706957220917567116722910981690915280173506712748583222871835209353965725121083579151369882091444210067510334671103141267111369908658516398315019701651511685171437657618351556508849099898599823873455283316355076479185358932261854896321329330898570642046752590709154814165498594616371802709819943099244889575712828905923233260972997120844335732654893823911932597463667305836041428138830320382490375898524374417029132765618093773444030707469211201913020330380197621101100449293215160842444859637669838952286847831235526582...

to you, bub.

 

[HoughMade]

Uh, that's 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736225994138912497217752834791315155748572424541506959508295331168617278558890750983817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429555961989467678374494482553797747268471040475346462080466842590694912933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935112533824300355876402474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653449872027559602364806654991198818347977535663698074265425278625518184175746728909777727938000816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685481613611573525521334757418494684385233239073941433345477624168625189835694855620992192221842725502542568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929848960841284886269456042419652850222106611863067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172874677646575739624138908658326459958133904780275900994657640789512694683983525957098258226205224894077267194782684826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091906592509372216964615157098583874105978859597729754989301617539284681382686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359977001296160894416948685558484063534220722258284886481584560285060168427394522674676788952521385225499546667278239864565961163548862305774564980355936345681743241125150760694794510965960940252288797108931456691368672287489405601015033086179286809208747609178249385890097149096759852613655497818931297848216829989487226588048575640142704775551323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159195618146751426912397489409071864942319615679452080951465502252316038819301420937621378559566389377870830390697920773467221825625996615014215030680384477345492026054146659252014974428507325186660021324340881907104863317346496514539057962685610055081066587969981635747363840525714591028970641401109712062804390397595156771577004203378699360072305587631763594218731251471205329281918261861258673215791984148488291644706095752706957220917567116722910981690915280173506712748583222871835209353965725121083579151369882091444210067510334671103141267111369908658516398315019701651511685171437657618351556508849099898599823873455283316355076479185358932261854896321329330898570642046752590709154814165498594616371802709819943099244889575712828905923233260972997120844335732654893823911932597463667305836041428138830320382490375898524374417029132765618093773444030707469211201913020330380197621101100449293215160842444859637669838952286847831235526582...

to you, bub.

Mmmmmmm pi

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Uh, that's 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736225994138912497217752834791315155748572424541506959508295331168617278558890750983817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429555961989467678374494482553797747268471040475346462080466842590694912933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935112533824300355876402474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653449872027559602364806654991198818347977535663698074265425278625518184175746728909777727938000816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685481613611573525521334757418494684385233239073941433345477624168625189835694855620992192221842725502542568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929848960841284886269456042419652850222106611863067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172874677646575739624138908658326459958133904780275900994657640789512694683983525957098258226205224894077267194782684826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091906592509372216964615157098583874105978859597729754989301617539284681382686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359977001296160894416948685558484063534220722258284886481584560285060168427394522674676788952521385225499546667278239864565961163548862305774564980355936345681743241125150760694794510965960940252288797108931456691368672287489405601015033086179286809208747609178249385890097149096759852613655497818931297848216829989487226588048575640142704775551323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159195618146751426912397489409071864942319615679452080951465502252316038819301420937621378559566389377870830390697920773467221825625996615014215030680384477345492026054146659252014974428507325186660021324340881907104863317346496514539057962685610055081066587969981635747363840525714591028970641401109712062804390397595156771577004203378699360072305587631763594218731251471205329281918261861258673215791984148488291644706095752706957220917567116722910981690915280173506712748583222871835209353965725121083579151369882091444210067510334671103141267111369908658516398315019701651511685171437657618351556508849099898599823873455283316355076479185358932261854896321329330898570642046752590709154814165498594616371802709819943099244889575712828905923233260972997120844335732654893823911932597463667305836041428138830320382490375898524374417029132765618093773444030707469211201913020330380197621101100449293215160842444859637669838952286847831235526582...

to you, bub.

Somebody call 911! Rhino must have cut himself and passed out on his keyboard!

 

[jamil]

BBI, I respect all the time that you've put into supporting your beliefs about these things, but I think we can never reach agreement. We apparently are worlds apart on it. When you say things like:

Theft? Let's explore that.
Investor gets less of the proceeds from the company in exchange for workers getting more = theft.
Workers getting less of the proceeds from the company in exchange for investors getting more = ???.

We're just not going to agree on that. The theft part isn't at all the way you've spun it. The investors are the owners. The employees are hired help. Exactly what is being stolen from employees that they owned? When they're hired, they agree to the conditions of employment. If those conditions aren't met by the employer, THEN you can call that theft.

If one owner ****s another other owner out of the profits, yeah, that's a form of theft. You seem to see employment more as a social tool, the very purpose of which is to provide a means of living to employees. Almost as if they're entitled to the company's profits. But I see the purpose of employment as a mutual benefit; a resource for business owners to achieve their goals, and a source of income the employees can earn by creating value for the employer, and getting compensated according to that.

And I think you've hit on the purpose behind the 70K salary. It's like a guy I knew who put everything he had into buying a new Mercedes that cost 3 times his salary, just so his ex-wife wouldn't get much in the divorce settlement.

This story is sounding a lot less altruistic and much more like, "**** you, brother". Either way, I don't think this story serves as a useful datapoint in this new trend of employers being held socially responsible for their employees earning power.

 

[jamil]

Uh, that's 3.141592653589793238462643383...

to you, bub.

That must be blueberry pi. I love it, but it gives me the sh*ts too.

 

[jamil]

Ok. We can agree he's probably sticking it to his brother. One point of agreement.

Can we agree that the sustainability argument didn't stand up to scrutiny? That as far as the health of the business is concerned, it's irrelevant if employees get it or shareholders get it?

I don't think so. For one, I doubt seriously that any of the employees making 75K will ever get another raise. I think it will eventually lead to some infighting. And, financially, if the profits are being diverted from the shareholders to the employees, it's only sustainable as long as the shareholders are motivated more by ****ing each other. Usually shareholders become shareholders to make money.