This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
CEO Hikes Minimum Wage To $70K, Capitalist Tragicomedy Ensues
Meet 31-year-old Dan Price.
Dan is the CEO of Seattle-based credit card payments processing firm Gravity Payments, and three months ago, he did a funny thing.
After talking with a friend who confessed to having difficulties making student loan payments and rent each month on an annual salary of $40,000, Dan decided to set a $70,000 per year pay floor at Gravity.
Dan was not, The New York Times says, looking to insert himself into "the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor." All he wanted to do was improve the lives of the 120 or so people who worked for him and after reviewing some literature on the subject, he decided that $70,000 was the level at which workers start to experience "an enormous difference in [their] emotional well-being."

Predictably, the initial response to the new policy was quite positive. Here’s The Times:
Talk show hosts lined up to interview Mr. Price. Job seekers by the thousands sent in résumés. He was called a "thought leader." Harvard business professors flew out to conduct a case study. Third graders wrote him thank-you notes. Single women wanted to date him.
But even as Dan adjusted to life as a rebel hero and basked in his newfound popularity among third graders and single women, he quickly learned that whether he liked it or not, he had waded waist deep into the minimum wage debate and he would soon discover a few very hard lessons about the unintended consequences of hiking the pay floor.
First, some employees felt it wasn’t fair to indiscriminately give everyone a raise. That is, some felt Gravity should at least pay lip service to the notion that there's a connection between higher pay and performance and because the new pay plan didn't seem to acknowledge that link, the company lost some workers.
Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees.
Maisey McMaster was also one of the believers. Now 26, she joined the company five years ago and worked her way up to financial manager, putting in long hours that left little time for her husband and extended family. "There’s a special culture," where people "work hard and play hard," she said. "I love everyone there."
She helped calculate whether the firm could afford to gradually raise everyone’s salary to $70,000 over a three-year period, and was initially swept up in the excitement. But the more she thought about it, the more the details gnawed at her.
"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," she said. To her, a fairer proposal would have been to give smaller increases with the opportunity to earn a future raise with more experience.
A couple of days after the announcement, she decided to talk to Mr. Price.
"He treated me as if I was being selfish and only thinking about myself," she said. "That really hurt me. I was talking about not only me, but about everyone in my position."
Already approaching burnout from the relentless pace, she decided to quit.
Next, Gravity began to lose some of its long-standing customers and while the across-the-board pay raise won the company more than enough new business to make up the difference, the new accounts won’t be immediately accretive and in the meantime, Gravity has had to hire more people to service the new accounts and thanks to the new salary floor, all of those new employees will eventually have to be paid $70,000.
A few customers, dismayed by what they viewed as a political statement, withdrew their business. Others, anticipating a fee increase — despite repeated assurances to the contrary — also left. While dozens of new clients, inspired by Mr. Price’s announcement, were signing up, those accounts will not start paying off for at least another year. To handle the flood, he has already had to hire a dozen additional employees — now at a significantly higher cost — and is struggling to figure out whether more are needed without knowing for certain how long the bonanza will last.
Dan’s benevolence is also costing him friends in the business community where some say Gravity’s new pay floor will embolden minimum wage workers in their quest for higher pay.
Brian Canlis, a co-owner of his family-named restaurant, is also a client. He said he was fond of Mr. Price, but was more discomfited by his actions.
Mr. Canlis is already worried about how to deal with Seattle’s new minimum wage, which rose to $11 an hour in April and is scheduled to reach $15 an hour for small businesses within five years.
The pay raise at Gravity, Mr. Canlis told Mr. Price, "makes it harder for the rest of us."
Finally, Dan is now being sued by his older brother and as it turns out, Maisey McMaster had not included a "provision for legal fees in case my brother sues us" line item in the new budget, which means that ultimately, Gravity may have a hard time staying in business.
Less than two weeks after the announcement, Mr. Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences, filed a lawsuit that potentially threatened the company’s very existence. With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, "We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees."
Lucas Price owns about 30 percent of their company, although he has not actively been involved in day-to-day operations for several years. There had been tensions between the two long before the new pay plan, and Lucas is demanding that Dan buy him out for an unspecified amount, plus damages.
* * *
To be sure, there are number of lessons here and indeed, the Gravity story touches on several topics we've discussed at length over the last several months.
There's no question that surviving in America is becoming more difficult by the year for an alarmingly large subset of the population and part of the problem is anemic wage growth for 83% of the workforce. In fact, just last week the Department of Labor said the employment cost index notched a meager 0.2% increase in Q2 - that's the smallest quarterly gain since record keeping began in 1982.
Despite claims that this miserable data point was anomalous, this ECI print clearly suggests that for all the publicity around the minimum wage debate, and despite (or maybe even because of) the growing pressure on employers to raise the pay floor, wage growth is virtually non existent. Thus, across-the-board pay raises seem to be suffering from the QE paradox that's now playing out in Sweden - that is, the more you do it, the less effective it is and at a certain point, it even begins to undermine itself.
Meanwhile, easy access to credit has led to an explosion of student loan debt and yet that debt has created a preponderence of degreed job seekers. In other words, college degrees are now so common as to reduce their value for prospective employers which has had the unfortunate effect of transforming many college educated, would-be professionals into waiters and bartenders.
Needless to say, paying off $35,000 in student debt is tough when you're relying on tips to make ends meet and it's made all the more difficult by the fact that rents are soaring. With lenders still stinging from the collapse of the housing bubble, underwriting standards are still relatively tight (for homes anyway) which means, to quote WSJ, households are being squeezed "between rents they can't afford and homes they can't qualify for."
Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening materially on the back of Fed policy that, while ostensibly designed to rescue Main Street via the elusive "wealth effect", serves only to further enrich the wealthy by inflating the value of the assets most likely to be concentrated in the hands of those who were already rich in the first place.
Whether Dan Price realized it or not, his move to raise the pay floor at Gravity was destined to be seen as an emphatic reaction to each of these economic realities. But as we saw last week with WalMart, addressing the rise of class segregation and the disappearance of the American Middle Class by resorting to across-the-board pay raises comes with a long list of unintended consquences and as Tony Hsieh learned when he attempted to transition Zappos to a "bossless" corporate culture, predicting how employees will respond to what seem like unequivocally worker-friendly policies is quite difficult.
So while we wish Gravity the best of luck with the new pay structure, we fear that if anything, Dan Price's experience will serve as a cautionary tale to employers who may now think twice before embarking on one man crusades to address the nation's social and economic maladies and ultimately, if the company's very existence continues to be threatened by the fallout from the wage hike, Gravity's employees may soon find that the new pay floor is, like everything else in the world, subject to the law of... well, gravity.
- 200359 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -






Someone send this dumb SOB a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
You can't fix stupid.
The Age of Man is coming to an end. Robots are the next step in the evolutionary ladder.
It still amazes me how man can still stumble over his own God-given brain...
Some are too small to stumble over
Ahh, Seattle, a socialist's wet dream playground... And here we have an abject lesson in why everyone is not equal in corporate hierarchy... You can't renumerate the plebs at the same rate as the hunter - killers... Something this "CEO" is learning the hard way... Som nam na...
Of course you can, you just start counting down as you renumerate.
- Ned
One man's price floor is another man's ceiling.
No doubt good while it lasted
Another issue with raising salaries like that is their lifestyles will soon catch up and then they'll be bitchin that they can't pay their monthly BMW note, or pay for cable, or the cell phone.
For the ones that have no financial sense all that money will now be frittered away and they'll be back in the same boat as before but with even more debt they can't pay off.
Sorta like lottery winners that spend it all in the first couple of years, but now with higher salaries they can incur more debt.
Hiring agent: The job here pay's $13.50/hr and requires you to do light general maintenance duties.
Job seeker: Well at my last job I was making $70k/yr to do the same duties.
Hiring agent: Why did you leave that job?
Job seeker: They went out of business.
the road to disaster was paved with good intentions
Twentieth Century Motor Company...
https://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/favorite-passages-from-atlas-...
Not many good business people on this site, but we already knew that.
This guy spent a very modest sum for a shit ton of free advertising, and generated a shit ton of good will among the large majority of people who read the story (exemping Rand followers, who are only happy anyway when employers are eating their employee's children and making the employees watch). If he had blown a million bucks on a superbowl ad, no one would think much of it. This guy is a marketing genius.
And, all this from the dude that would eat Ayn Rand's pussy.
the long hair.
the beard.
who does that ceo think he is, anyway?
jeez.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20
He's a hippie...very wealthy hippie...way beyond the Yuppie stage.
Let him pay his people $70K minimum. Obviously his industry is ripe for competition. New companies will come in with reasonable wages (lower) and perform the credit card service for less, taking his business. Eventually he will compete or go under. Free markets work.
Want socialism?
The milk lines in Venezuala are waiting for you.
http://www.planbeconomics.com/2015/08/food-line-for-milk-powder.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-02/ceo-hikes-minimum-wage-70k-capi...
Just thought this comment, and the upvotes it garners, deserves more love. How many more accounts you got there billyboy?
I just wanted to point out that this guy took his personal compensation package down in order to do this. He isn't spending this from any other part of the budget beyond his own salary. I fail to see how he is shirking in his CEO duties except not being a dick who makes 322:1 of his employees salaries.
I also find it interesting that the comments here are pretty much the same as the ones on HN the other day when this showed up. It's funny that two completely different echo chambers can resound with the same outrage.
Got to agree. Look, you fucking clowns, this was NOT the government doing this. It was a guy who (thought he) owns his own business. He can do what he fucking likes, and if he can't he should be able to. He cut his own check to do this. What is your fucking problem? We need more guys like this. If his being a hippy bothers you, then you are a moron and should be watching CNN, not browsing the Hedge.
As for " Fed policy that... serves only to further enrich the wealthy by inflating the value of the assets most likely to be concentrated in the hands of those who were already rich in the first place." Now there is some truth. Sort of. Gold, bitchez!! The only asset usually a prerogative of the wealthy that is affordable to non-0.01%'ers like you and me. Sometimes I think it's an IQ test where those smart enough to see the opportunity will actually have a chance of surviving the coming population cuts. Or perhaps self-select themselves for early termination as being non-MSM believers. Take your pick.
The only ones that ultimately benefit from a higher minimum wage is the governments that levy income taxes, the very same governments that caused the problem by illegally authorizing the Fed Reserve System with it's fiat debt-money and it's Planned Inflation - decrease in purchasing power of the counterfeit currency which hurts the poor, retired and marginally educated.
@Son Of Loki - well its a good thing he's a hippie b/c I just read that he had to rent out his house and he's now living in his garage sitting on plastic bins trying to figure out how to keep the $70k per employee going as he's not taking a paycheck himself its gotten that bad.
Marketing gimmick or not, he should've checked w/his business partner who does own 30% of the company as the company is now losing money so there is a case to be made the business partner should push for sale of the company, get his 30% of the selling price, whatever that may be based on current revenues and contracts for the coming year that might now be worth less. A judge might see it that way b/c the CEO didn't consult w/his partner. Doesn't matter that they haven't talked to each other in a few years. That's the CEO's fault for not holding annual mtgs and filing corp papers w/minutes. Even an LLC has to do that at least w/the accountant who's doing the annual tax returns! The accountant asks - what's going on with the partner? Oh, I don't and haven't talked to him in years. He doesn't care about the company at all. Reallly?!? What is this guy doing w/retained earnings? He should be sending 30% of them to his partner especially if they aren't talking so a case can't be made there's residual value the majority partner never paid the minority one. This guy has no business sense but wait - he's in Seattle so Microsoft will scoop him up as their next messiah.
In modern America, Jesus works for the Userers. He works for the money changers. Or he could even be considered a money changer himself.
WINNING FUCK YEAH!
'the long hair.
the beard.
who does that ceo think he is, anyway?'
..and just who do you think you are?LTER:
And a thief (of his brother/partner's third) and a soon-to-be unemployed marketing genius. On the other hand, now that he's been in the CEO club, some stupid board will hire him to apply his unique brand of genius to their company.
I'm still with the under.
- Ned
Why is he a thief? If he had spent the same amount in advertising that had resulted in little to no actual result, would he be a thief? The way I read the story, the jury is still out on whether his investment will pay off. He certainly got exponentially more bang for the buck in terms of publicity than any standard advertising I know about. Do you know how many CEO's of small companies bankrupt the company by paying themselves too much and blowing it on hookers and blow? That's theft. And the fact that the brother filed a lawsuit doesn't mean he will win, or that he should win. I get that you want him to fail because of your ideology.
I can't believe I'm up voting LTER, but there it is. Who cares what some west cost idiot does with his company? That fucking hipster mangina may be right, wrong or in between. It's his company, so fuck off if you don't like what he is doing. Ford did the same thing, albeit not so dramatically. It worked out pretty good for him. Sometimes I wonder if ZH is really filled with anti-populists rather than freedom loving people.
Tell us how much better your business is doing now that you pay all your employees $70K/ year. That is the rate at which workers are happy. Not paying at least that amount would make you a Walmart shopping Republican.
You can tell LTER has never been in a business partnership. What he did there (radically increasing expenditure without consulting the partner) is a cardinal sin. It doesn't matter if it was for advertising or employee pay.
Imagine you come home one day to find your wife has decided to buy a new house, without telling you. SURPRISE!
I'd say it is you who have never been in a business partnership. This guy is the CEO. His brother is a minority shareholder. According to the article, the lawsuit is over "longstanding differences." He's probably claiming that his brother isn't funneling enough of the dough directly to him as a beneficial owner, instead of reinvesting it in the business (ironically, the reason most businesses fail). I'd say the lawsuit is quite premature and based on this article, the CEO's marketing idea was working just fine until he got hit with a big lawsuit by his asshole brother which is eating up corporate earnings. Ironic that you would take the side of the lawyers, the Plaintiff in a lawsuit, and the guy who wants more short-term compensation as opposed to growing a business long-term on this one.
I hope you come home tomorrow to find your wife has spent all your money, then you come on here to complain. Please, mighty Thor, make it happen.
I thought you were a capitalist? The brother who is paying the employees is the CEO. The other brother is a minority shareholder. They started the business together, but the brother who is suing took a lesser role after a restructuring quite a few years ago. Meanwhile, the business has grown and the CEO has garnered massive (mostly positive except from Randtards) publicity with this $70K min wage stunt. Does that make the CEO the spendthrift wife in your mind? Seems to me that the brother suing is wanting more money sent to him for his passive investment, while the brother running the company makes headlines and is one of the biggest stories here on ZH today.
I'm sorry, Oh mighty hater of Rand, but it doesn't matter what you or I think. The fact is that the guy failed at his fiduciary duty as CEO to his shareholders (ie his brother) and as a result has lost his best talent, and is now getting sued for his actions.
I know you socialists just HATE to be called out for the consequences of your idiot causes, but that is exactly what is happening here, and no amount of furious handwaving on your part is going to have any effect on the matter. The fact is that the best performers don't like being paid according to their "need" when they produce income according to their "ability". I know this is hard for you to understand, but that is a basic fact of human nature. You can whine and cry all you want about wanting to change that, but it will never change. Only those systems which take advantage of human nature can prosper in the real world. This is why capitalism always wins, while communism always fails.
Capitalism always wins, while communism always fails? Please evaluate and discuss this statement in the light of present-day USSA. Submit essay by tomorrow morning.
Mosely, that was truly a dumb thing to say. Tone down your emotional intelligence, or something.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times we tell ya', you continue to be a fkn idiot. You wanna pay the kid who makes the coffee and fetches the mail $70K? Be my guest. Just don't act surprised when the ones who actually carry your stupid ass get pissed because they got almost no raise at all.
If this fkn genius with the outstanding marketing plan had a brain, he'd have based his generosity on his lowest paid prole, and adjusted everyone else upward from there, proportionally.
Then again, stupid is as stupid does, eh?
You could probably send him a resume and tell him you'd be happy to give him your advice. But it sounds like he has a lot of resumes to sort through, and he has problems dealing with all of the new business from his successful publicity stunt, so it may take him a while to get back to you.
You have previously said that you are a self-employed business owner, if I recall.
Never mind your childish bullshit- DO YOU PAY (or wish to pay) THE KID WHO MAKES YOUR COFFEE AND FETCHES YOUR MAIL $70K, or not.
OF COURSE he has a lot of resume's to sort through, you stupid fuck!
There's only one cure for your kind of stupid. Can you guess what it is?
I asked him that hours ago and he never replied. Also note that the Gravity CEO cut his own salary to equal that of the employees. I'm sure that LTER has done so as well. He pays himself the same as the copy boy.
I paid myself the same as the copy boy when I had my own company. That's one of the sacrifices you have to make when you don't want to take on outside funding (which usually means the tribe). It paid off, now I reap the benefits.
I also started my business without outside funding and yes, one pays oneself very little while getting things up and running. But the issue here is whether a system in which all employees in an established company receive the same compensation regardless of position or performance is viable in the long term.
"Just don't act surprised when the ones who actually carry your stupid ass get pissed because they got almost no raise at all."
Furthermore:
Try this in a public company and see how pissed they get when the value of their stock options falls to ZERO.
This guy broke the link between effort and reward.
How stupid is that?
LTER - His brother got cheated out of x percent of profit. As others here have said, the employees could have been incentivized, bonuses etc. Then his employees, Dan AND his brother would have been happy. Little less net margin over a couple years but far more top line and subsequent profits for both men.
The other point is that of tenure. What if I had worked up over a few years to $70k from $40k? I would feel like my CEO was:
a) an iditot
b) completely disrespectful of my time.
It would have little to do with envy. I do agree many CEO's loot there companies. That is a government failure to enforce the rules as we have two sets of laws for rich and poor at this time.
Your arguments along with a couple others here attempts to portray experienced (and mostly honest) business people on ZH as cheap, ruthless human beings. I can tell who doesn't really get or care that government sanctions theft, ignores the concept of justice and thinks stealing a partners margins are A-Ok. Raging liberals.
Our country is filled with them including our government AND the Republicans. They are just far less noisy about it.
He put the company in jeopardy so that he might feel better about himself. Maybe he got some advertising but he lost good talent, good paying customers, the goodwill of fellow travelers (and his brother), and now the point of the enterprise (profit) is pretty much gone.
If he fails, who's gonna pay the bills that the janitor and receptions owe?
But it felt good for a while and now he's famous. Yay.
I knew a CEO of an eCommerce company, that picked up a bunch of employees below their market salaries in 2008 crash, then the CEO became a playboy blowing company profits on women, booze and blow. Key employs left eventually, and competition kept innovating while he was in on world playboy tool.
The company shriveled up, and down to 12 people, barely surviving, in a strip mall office.
LTER your point is right on this one.
Marketing genius? Too bad he's not as smart as he thinks he is.
Proverbs 16:18.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
How you've woven religion into this discussion (much less the idea that Jesus would be against paying the workers more, and the investor brother less in the short-term at least) is beyond me. Bravo.
Jesus would likely be all for more pay, so long as it translated into more going to the "poor, hungry and sick". Oh wait...
We knew you've never read Atlas Shrugged and now we see that you've never read the Bible either. Bravo, indeed.
Matthew 25
"Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Hold on, I though to you guys Atlas Shrugged was the Bible? And you do realize that Ayn thought religion is a major weakness, and that she had absolutely no regard for those who worship anyone but themselves, right? The cognitive dissonance among most Ayn Rand fans is truly incredible.
I did not advocate Jesus' position. I simply pointed out your error in saying that Jesus wanted all employees to be paid more regardless of performance. Can't you admit that you were wrong even once instead of turning the anger you feel at your own ignorance against others?
Paying everyone equal despite performance is a central idea of Christianity. Holy crap are you seriously this dumb?
In Billy's defense, yes.
My IQ is 138. What's yours?
First, I have no idea. Never tried to measure it.
Second, I'll let the fact that you actually just told us how smart you are to speak for itself in terms of your ability to defend your position with logic and rational argument.
I told you to point out yet another factual error on your part. One with an Intelligence Quotient of 138 can not be accurately described as being "dumb."
As for rational arguments, what was your justification for incorrectly quoting Jesus? You never did explain that rationally or otherwise.
One with an IQ of 138 would know that stupidity is subjective. They would also lack the vanity required to post such self-serving shit.
There is an exclusive club called Mensa which is open only to those with an IQ high enough to score in the 98th percentile (higher than mine). So intelligence and the willingness to assert that intelligence are not mutually exclusive as you insist. That's one factual error in your column. Can you admit your error or are you simply too vain to do so?
Mensa was not created so its members could assert their intelligence, its existence in no way contradicts my assertion. You are a massive idiot, and a terrible polemicist. Quit while you're not ahead.
If providing data showing that one is not "dumb" or "a massive idiot" is not a proper response to being called "dumb" or "a massive idiot," what is? Should I call you a "poo-poo head?" Would that be more to your taste?
Once you have made such a fool of yourself belittling others for not reading their bible, then resorted to unproven braggadocio regarding your intellect rather than continuing substantive discussion about the subject you evidently know little of, then implying that stupidity is objective- I honestly don’t know how you would respond to save intellectual face.
Popcorn
I'm just an atheist who can read and who has provided documentation in a factual dispute. I haven't seen any documentation on your part which would refute it.
I don't provide bible documentation because I'm not in sunday school. I only ever questioned your intellect and I am happy to provide documentation:
http://www.zerohedge.com/search/user_comments?username=billy+the+poet
The fact that I have knowledge of a subject under discussion of which you admittedly have no knowledge does not make you an intellectual no matter how much outrage you might display.
Are there any other subjects which might be under discussion that I should avoid in order not to offend you in the future?
Always wondered how thin a thread could get. IQ is a measure of intelligence- mine once tested 126. However, intelligence in no way equates to wisdom.
The IQ test is skewed toward rote memory, IIRC. Wisdom, which I claim not, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Wisdom is not at issue. The question is how does one refute a biased ad hominem attack? I was called "dumb" so I refuted that charge with documentation as I am wont to do. If I had been called ugly I might have posted a photo showing myself to be of a least average appearance, but that would not imply that I think of myself a incredibly handsome anymore than saying that I'm of above average intelligence implies that I possess the wisdom of the ages.
I also find a kind of humor in responding to an ad hominem attack with documentation when it was the documentation of evidence that led to the initial attack. I simply enjoy engaging in rational, well documented argument while others flounder deeper and deeper in the mud of personal attacks. It's hilarious and you can always count on LTER and his pals to act as excellent straight men.
On the contrary billy boy, I have enjoyed annihilating an ego surely in need of it. Don't forget to downvote this comment you sad case you:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-02/ceo-hikes-minimum-wage-70k-capi...
Perhaps if you learned how to make rational, documented arguments about the subject at hand rather than childish slurs against certain individuals your ego wouldn't feel so annihilated. There's really no need to be such a masochist as to insist that you deserve it.
Funny... but not as funny as how you suddenly stop receiving 3 upvotes, and myself 3 downvotes, the moment I questioned you about it publicly.
Next time you log into an alt account to upvote yourself/downvote detractors, I want you to think about just how egotistical a child you really are and how empty and pathetic your life must be. Come on billy really think about it, it's pathetically woeful isn't it?
Funny... but not as funny as how you suddenly stop receiving 3 upvotes, and myself 3 downvotes, the moment I questioned you about it publicly.
Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that folks have gone to bed? It's almost two o'clock in the morning. By what logic do you conclude that those who were reading and voting a hour or more ago should still be logged in and doing so now? Have you noted that there are far fewer posts being made now in the middle of the night and that vote counts have slowed as well? Has the entire membership gone rather quiet as a part of a conspiracy to down vote you and then confuse the matter by not down voting you?
Ingrid Bergman had nothing on you. You're self Gaslighting. Fine entertainment.
"My IQ is 138. What's yours?"
Actually, i think the repartee goes: "my dick is 12" long...what's yours?"
By the way...you don't happen to do most of your purchasing from Acme™ by any chance do you?
Lastly, they have pads nowadays for groups with problems like yours...
Wile E. Coyote claimed to be a "super genius," An IQ of 138 falls below genius level let alone super genius level. Would you also be surprised if I noted that I'm 5 foot 10 in response to an claim that I am short?
>>One with an Intelligence Quotient of 138 can not be accurately described as being "dumb."<<
My only comment has to do with the above quote and nothing else as I haven't invested in the conversation as a whole.
My argument is that anyone who thinks one number can adequately sum up human "intelligence" isn't thinking intelligently. I don't want to call such people stupid, because I don't think they are. Rather, I think they've failed to apply their intelligence and simply accepted whole an obvious absurd proposition that, frankly, assuaged their ego.
I have no doubt that people with a measured high IQ are smart AT SOME THINGS, but that doesn't preclude that they are dumber than door nails at some other things not adequately measured with an IQ test.
Let's cut to the chase. I was called "dumb" because I cited Matthew 25 in order to refute LTER's assertion that Jesus said all employees should get raises regardless of their performance. Was it "dumb" for me to cite a pertinent portion of the gospel? If so, why?
Did those who called me "dumb" show intelligence by attempting to refute my documented argument with an ad hominem attack rather than to post evidence of their own? Do we really want to encourage more ad hominem attacks here on ZH? Will the comments be more interesting if they consist entirely of charges and counter charges of dumbness rather than well reasoned and documented arguments?
Worms that squirm and squirm
Dunno Billy, I've met some seriously dumb fucks with stratospheric IQ's. May have to shank one in the near future. You Billy? Strikes me you're a little bit eccentric at times, but not dumb.
I can respect that. A case could be made for my eccentricity based on available evidence.
Incidently, I'vr always thought of "eccentric" as a positive label. I had several aunts and great-aunts labelled as eccentric, they were all smart bastards and a lot of fun to be around. One of them I recall was the first woman to graduate with an MA in Australia, started an early private art gallery in Sydney, supported all the young hot shots by buying up their output. When she died she left a multi-million dollar collection containing most of the big names in Australian art from the 30's to the 60's. Left it to the public art gallery too, family saw none of it (except by getting in line with the rest of the plebs).
Yo, LTER, I'm still with the under.
And if you can't understand how the "CEO" "stole" 1/3 of the corporation's capital from its minority shareholder, then I'm absolutely sure that Wall Street or their metasticied minions have a really lucrative place for ya.
- Ned
And someone on the radio is STILL talking about this dude. - Ned
Paying everyone equal despite performance is a central idea of Christianity.
Then why did Jesus cast out the servant who did not make a profit? Are you so seriously dumb that you can't directly refute the quote I cited above?
GREAT ARGUMENT, uh, except Jesus did not cast out the one who didn't make a profit. I believe it was the rich man who demanded moar moar moar from his slaves.
Did Jesus advocate stealing in the case of the "shrewd manager" who acted on his own to wipe out the boss' notes when he thought he was going to get fired?
The story of the five talents is a parable in which the employer represents the Lord. Jesus wants each of us to develop our talents rather than waste them. He makes it quite clear that those who do under perform should not expect even the maintenance of the status quo but rather further losses.
The profits and losses are symbolic of the quest for the "kingdom of heaven" as is made clear in the several parables related in Matthew 25:
25-1 "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."
25-14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them."
In Luke 16 the master of the shrewd manager does not represent the Lord as in the parable above but rather Mammon, as is made clear in the text:
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
First Billy the Poet...
Smart men can behave stupidly at times.
A Third Deviation IQ does not provide any insurance against that.
Second an IQ score generally measures the ability to understand LOGIC and MATH.
(As a matter of fact the authors of "The Bell Curve" demonstrated this by removing all other questions out of IQ Tests to remove "cultural bias" except that of those pertaing to Math, Spatial Geometry, and Logic. Then they compared and correlated the raw scores of tests with just Math, Spatial Geometry, and Logic questions with the raw scores of the tests with the other questions included. It was remarkable that there was an extremely high sigma in the correlation of raw scores.)
Finally your lack of umderstanding of Christian principles is apparent.
What really amazes me is that nobody bothered to refute your position with the Parable of the Vineyard. (That was the very first impression I had while reading the initial article.)
To summarize that parable the vineyard works hired at the First Hour were a little angered about the fact that the vineyard owner, the Master, paid the SAME WAGE to those who were hired at the Eleventh Hour.
You ought to read the Master's response...Since they had contracted with the Master for a Penny then what was their gripe since they had been paid in full? The Eleventh Hour workers had been paid the same. Here is the text...
For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
— Matthew 20:1–16 KJV
You are not the only person posting here with a Third Deviation IQ. There are many others.
It is rather gauche that you feel that you had to make a claim as to it...as if that somehow gives you superior authority...when it does NOT. That was WEAK!!!
You do not know everything. It will behoove you to adopt some HUMILITY instead of outright, unabashed arrogance.
And as for me I have been called but I am NOT CHOSEN.
I shall allude billyboy to the existence of this post tomorrow Tom, as I'm sure he would otherwise feign having missed it.
I am amazed that I did not read it...beforehand.
Where is Seek_Truth?
Time zone miss? Bible ignant myself. Maybe he recognizes the futility in suggesting to dear billyboy that he may not know everything.
Still, popcorn.
*Edit: one okienomics did question billyboy about his bible knowledge, only answer he got was 3 downvotes. All good things come in 3 hey billyboy?
What really amazes me is that nobody bothered to refute your position with the Parable of the Vineyard.
I'm well aware of the parable of the vineyard and was also amazed that no one mentioned it. The best my detractors could muster up last night was to call me "dumb" and "a massive idiot." Glad you came along and improved the level of discussion.
But what do you make of the parable of the five talents? The unproductive servant is cast out while wailing and gnashing his teeth. He did not receive the same payment as the productive servants.
I've respected much of what you've posted on various subjects but I find it hard to believe that you hold Marxism in such high esteem that you want all the employees on Earth to receive the same rate of payment regardless of their position or their performance. Surely you understand that in the parable of the vineyard Jesus was talking about the heavenly reward of those who are saved even on their deathbeds and not actual wages paid during one's lifetime.
It is rather gauche that you feel that you had to make a claim as to it...as if that somehow gives you superior authority...when it does NOT. That was WEAK!!!
LTER refused to refute me directly (as you did with the parable of the vineyard) but rather called me "dumb." If he had said that I was short and I responded that I am 5 foot 10 would you consider that to be "weak" as well or simply a matter of fact? And just as being 5 foot 10 is not short but neither is it particularly tall an IQ of 138 is not low but isn't amazing high either. So why are people so intimidated by the fact?
This was the first thing that popped into my head also when I refuted what whatever his name said. Thanks for sharing a more in depth explanation.
Just don't forget to demand that your employer pay you only as much as the lowliest employee because Jesus said so.
I hardly think that that was the crux of her philosophical thesis. However, everyone is allowed to forward an opinion on how the world should work. If it doesn't work for you, discard it and move on. Offer up your thesis then and let's have a conversation.
LTER doesn't work that way. He seeks out rational, productive people, tells them what they believe (with a 180 degree spin against reality) and then argues against the straw man. Like all progressives his only tactic and only goal is to steal or destroy that which others have built.
Holy shit, you've uncovered my devious plan of destroying that which others have built by pointing out the utter stupidity of your sophomoric ideology on ZH!
Your documented error concerning Christian theology reflects upon your ignorance, not mine. That is what I meant when I said that you try to spin reality 180 degrees. You made the factual error and rather than admit your error you attacked me.
Would you care to address your factual error or will you continue to prove me correct in my description of your tactics?
Now we have two ignorant atheists who are debating that which they know not...Christian Theology.
Now this is humorous.
Read my post above, Billy. Then read the SCRIPTURE that defeats your position.
The parable of the five talents refutes what you suppose to be the message of the parable of the vineyard. The unproductive servant was cast out and not paid the same as those who produced. Did Jesus contradict himself or is it possible that the vineyard parable doesn't advocate Earthly socialism as those here would suggest?
He was always such a loving guy, that fella. Always impressed me with his "Love me or burn in hell for eternity." philosophy of love for his children. Or how those unbaptised children would wallow in limbo for eternity, no fault of their own? What a psychopath.
I suppose someone has changed that ruling here on earth. It's amazing how the word of god can be changed by mere mortals.
"How you've woven religion into this discussion..."
There are tons of useful aphorisms in the bible. Why let the fact that they're in a religious text get in the way of using them when appropriate?
I agree with you. The guy has his own business and decided to set a floor at 70K. It's his fucking business to do what he wants. These people getting angry at him (OMG someone is getting paid a lot to do average work - ever heard of lawyers, politicians, bankers, etc etc) can go straight and fuck off.
It certainly is the employer's right to do as he pleases with his money. However, one does not have to be "angry" in order to believe that his plan was a bad plan based on unsound philosophy. I often look at how others do things and if they fail I take that as an object lesson. Anger has absolutely nothing to do with it.
However, one does not have to be "angry" in order to believe that his plan was a bad plan based on unsound philosophy.
-
No, but if one makes this assertion before the plan they refers to has failed, one's dogmatic philosophy is obstructing the reality.
Nonsense. Life requires forethought and action. One uses rational discrimination based on experience in an attempt to avoid bad situations and maximize good situations. One does not simply wait for those situations to play themselves out before forming an opinion about them or acting upon them. If you wait until the boat has docked to buy your ticket you won't have gotten anywhere.
First, I would like to point out that your down voting of my responses to you and your upvoting of yourself is as blatant and pathetic as it is redundant. Who in their right mind would actually upvote a declaration of someone else’s IQ result? The same two accounts that keep downvoting my responses to you I’d say. Embarrassing, puerile and not the level of subtlety I would expect from anyone with an IQ above 100.
Now as for the assertion I made being nonsensical. My assertion was simply that you have constructed an alternate reality regarding the success of Gravity’s business model, I also provided a quote to prove it:
-
However, one does not have to be "angry" in order to believe that his plan was a bad plan based on unsound philosophy.
-
See this quote here where you attempt refute the claim your emotion is the root of your aversion to Gravity’s business model, it is quite telling. You speak of this plan as if it has already failed- to BELIEVE that his plan WAS a bad plan(emphasis added)- and you argue against its merits as if it has already, an alternate reality yes?
I’m not saying you are blinded by emotion, I’m saying that your belief in this instance is formed not by the
‘rational discrimination based on experience’ you believe it to be, but rather a dogmatic ideology.
Please provide evidence that I up voted myself. But of course there is no such evidence. Which begs the question why does something that you may suspect (wrongly in this case) but can not actually prove send you into such a frenzied attack? You may note that some of my posts have no up votes and some have more than one. What does that suggest to the rational mind in regard to charges that I up vote my own posts?
And why are you so convinced that you know the motives for the opinions I form? Why does the motivation which you project upon me outrage you so?
Do you have such negative reactions when someone says, I think the Mets might win the pennant or I think it might rain Tuesday or I think the market may be headed down? Are all such day-to-day speculations attributable to "dogmatic ideology" or do people simply form opinions based on experience and informed intuition as in natural?
Verbose little scamp aren't you?
The mets analogy is fallacious, the mets fan is speculating on a possible outcome. You are denouncing Gravity's wage experiment as a failed one, a factual error if you will.
I did provide evidence for your embarrassing up/downvoting billy, try and keep up now.
-
My IQ is 138. What's yours?
-
My evidence again, this self-aggrandizing post of yours received three upvotes, from who? The same three accounts who keep downvoting me whenever I refute your idiocy?
You've been caught kid, no salient being here would believe anyone but your vain self would ever applaud a post so pretentious. If you're asking for conclusive evidence, you are digging a deeper hole. I don't have the server logs, you know this so asking for them is an attempt at misdirection, another thing you stink at.
As for the 'frenzied attack', boohoo billy boy. Although I admit eviscerating you both intellectually and polemically, I feel my comportment was reserved throughout, especially when calling you out on your obnoxious up/downvoting. In any case, someone as abrasive as yourself should develop a thicker skin, then maybe you won't have to resort to the 'im smarta dan u' line of argument and risk provoking another abrasive person whenever your knowledge on a given subject is questioned.
You claim (without evidence) that I'm so vain that I've created multiple accounts just to down vote you but in reality you suffer from extreme paranoid delusions evidenced by your belief that people have nothing better to do than create multiple accounts just to down vote you.
You cry out, "Who in their right mind would do this!" and the irony is that no one is doing it to you and you are the one who is not in his right mind.
Please note the the up and down votes are changing as time passes and will have changed again by morning. What massive conspiracy will you accuse me of at that time?
No, I provided the evidence billyboy, remember:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-02/ceo-hikes-minimum-wage-70k-capi...
That quote receiving 3 upvotes (because in your head some abrasive internet tough guy named billy boasting about his IQ is worth applause right?heh), and anyone who dares question your infallibility receiving 3 downvotes is evidence enough that you are a sad case of the most immense kind.
The only reason I keep replying to you is coz I like a worm that squirms and squirms. Keep squirming billyboy, talk tomorrow.
You do realize that the votes are meaningless, don't you? They have nothing to do with your value as a human being. At the end of each month when the comments are archived the votes disappear into the ether. It simply isn't worth obsessing over.
"This guy is a marketing genius. " -LetThemEatRand
Maybe Tim Cook @ Apple should try this: peg ALL the wages at $70K for every single employee down to the janitors at Foxconn.
I wonder what all the Public and Private Union Pension Fund Investors would have to say about a divestiture of 30% of ALL accumulated profits and the same on an indefinite forward basis...
'Living Wage', Solidarity, and all that...
Let us discuss such a scenario.
Yea, he is a marketing genius alright. But he still tucked up. He should have set the minimum wage at $100,000.
HA!
Today, one man's money is debt.
Money as debt.
Folks: It's the money, stupids.
The biggest problem was doing this in front of the media. The bulk of the problems, lawsuit, acrimony with other business owners, clients, etc, come from wanting to be a hero in the media.
The second biggest problem was doing this in front of the employees. If the hotshot employees didn't know the new hires made just as much, they wouldn't have quit. Besides, there is no pay hierarchy? New hires don't make the 70k for six months or some other probationary period. Three to five year employees move up substantially. Whatever, you can't publicly say your long term employees and the kid that started yesterday make the same pay
What ever happened to employers doing the best they can to take care of their employees? This smells like the guy was just trying to get some publicity. Even the stupidest employer knows you shouldn't talk employee pay publicly.
It sounds like he did this to 'score a win' an ideological argument with his Co-owner/Brother.
IF his brother Luke owns 30% of the company, and Dan EXPROPRIATED and divested $2.2M = to 100% of last year's profits, then Dan just robbed Luke of $660K in past earnings and an unknowable amount of this year and forward profits..
"Hey, FUCK YOU: I just gave your $660K to the file clerks I hired in April. Suck it, Bro!"
you're smart
<------ Free Marketeers
<------ Tyler fanboys
Shameful how most hedge readers eat up the alternate reality Murdoch’s WSJ, corporate america and yes even the 'subversive' ZH has shoveled them.
This sharticle fails to offer a real criticism of this entrepreneur's wage hike experiment. Wheeling out some ditzy mole to whinge about the good wicket her fellow workers are on says it all. Without a substantive reason to criticize the idea, the partially educated author is resigned to documenting the biased story of one jealous and extremely selfish worker, who despite receiving $70k as a bean counter at a small payments firm, quits not because she is getting too little, but because other are moving above minimum wage. And this twit doesn’t believe she is being selfish? Anyone who has ever worked in a team knows exactly how pathetic this girl, and the use of her story in this article is. Puerile, interwork jealousy is all this is, it says nothing about the wage hike experiment.
As for the lawsuit, look how quickly these subversive hedgers cheer on the tribe’s court system when it suits their narrative, not to mention cheering on a creditor who would derail the experiment, along with the company his brother built and the jobs of all the workers there, citing ‘longstanding differences’. So an opportunistic financier ransoms a profit making, egalitarian entrepreneur and guess who ye capitalists of zh barrack for, for the courts and banks, coz Tyler said so.
If the author’s attack on this man’s free market entrepreneurism was not enough (he is free to pay whatever he likes, not just the gov mandated wage, right hedgers?), for an unknown reason he decides to publish the whining of entrepreneurs unable to match Dan’s wage hike and remain competitive. That’s not to say the restaurateur even competes in the same industry as Dan, that would be relevant- I just find it contradictory that the author seeks to criticize Dan for bucking free market principles by paying employees more ‘for the sake of it’, then highlights the free market advantage Dan receives from the wage hike as some sort of unfair advantage.
Anyone else?
Well said.
In addition he has "thousands of resumes" attracted by the wage increase which should allow him to replace the key employees quickly. Maybe these well paid newcomers will find inefficiencies in the firm's operations and boost productivity and client retention. Hell, they might win over so many new clients that their competition has to match the pay raise to stay in business.
What if this was Apple and they decided to bring their iPhone manufacturing to the U.S.S.A? Would the American Sheeple blink at a $5 rise in the price of an iPhone? Trump would be appearing with Apple's CEO and even the iWatch would sell (well maybe I went too far there :)
What's even more bizarre is that many of the same ZH'rs slamming this guy also love Trump, and one of Trump's big issues is offshoring of jobs to cheap labor countries. And many of the same posters claim anger at the way the bankers and oligarchs have created a debt slave society. Here's a guy who doesn't offshore and who decides to pay his employees enough that they can live self-sufficiently (keeping in mind that $70K in Seattle is like $40K or less many places) without debt if they decide to.
Hi LTER, the TRUMPeting on zh of late is disconcerting no doubt. As someone who first stumbled upon zh shortly after the 2012 election, I want to know from yourself if zerohedge took on a more mainstream and statist ideology prior to that election, as I believe they are doing now. Any insight welcome, email if you're worried about account ban: terwilliger@safe-mail.net
The original ZH no longer exists. But what lives on still has a lot of merit. I do get tired of the constant imminent doom, and the comment section has become a lot less entertaining over the years. Still better than most sites. A lot of good posters here have been banned for no good reason, and I think most of the Tylers are just in it for the money. But every now and then I think we still see some real, substantive journalism here that makes it worth visiting. Like all internet sites, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And like all good internet sites, it is mostly just a form of entertainment.
Like all internet sites, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
No, all Internet sites should be patronized and funded equally just as all employees should be paid eqaully. There is no wheat and there is no chaff in the fair world promised by progressives. Besides "separating the wheat from the chaff" is a Biblical allusion and that's just out of bounds! LTER told me so.
Thanks for the input billy, your most substantive yet.
For those who want to know just how egotistical this sad case billy is, here he is telling everyone how smart he is before logging in to his alt accounts to upvote himself:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-02/ceo-hikes-minimum-wage-70k-capi...
Or maybe three separate, salient humans each applauded billyboy and his pretentious and demonstrably dishonest boasting. You decide!
In addition he has "thousands of resumes" attracted by the wage increase which should allow him to replace the key employees quickly.
-
And we haven't even mentioned the single women.
This from a newbie, y'all can have an opinion, but no shame on these here parts.
Assface
- Ned
Ha!
Though not a newbie, I do stand corrected.
Where do you people get all this energy from, and why do you even care?
I can barely summon the effort to read this stuff, let alone post entire diatribes.
Fucking Internet! I swear, one day I'm just going to pull the plug and go back to watching TV.
Luke doesn't do anything! He's suing because a bunch of average people have a more comfortable existence at the cost of his dream of buying another yacht. Luke is a dick. Suing means he doesn't care about the company as all that money is going to go up in lawyer fees which apparently paying lawyers that money instead of people at the company is okay.
"Luke doesn't do anything! He's suing because a bunch of average people have a more comfortable existence at the cost of his dream of buying another yacht. Luke is a dick. Suing means he doesn't care about the company as all that money is going to go up in lawyer fees which apparently paying lawyers that money instead of people at the company is okay. "
You seem to know him pretty well.
Or, are you just using your imagination to project a crude caricature and don't know him at all?
His assessment is dead on based on the several articles I've read since clicking on this ZH clickbait. Do a little research and tell us if you still think he's wrong.
This story hit other news and news aggregation sites almost a week ago.
I did research on this last week.
My conclusion is:
1. Dan is not being honest as to why he did this.
2. Dan is not being honest about how much money he makes or has set aside within the company or outside the company.
3. Dan is being sued by his own brother for misappropiation having purportedly paid himself much more than $70K a year previously ( some reports put the amount at $1M a year for several years) while neither informing his partner/brother of the actual income/assets of the company or paying him any regular dispensation.
4. Dan is trying to divest the company of remaining funds so as to force his partner(s) including his own brother to bail on the cheap.
Try this LTER: Dan is supposedly renting out rooms in his house because he doesn't have money for legal fees...
WHO are his roomies ??? -and what are they paying to stay there ??? -and since when ???
Guys with beards are sometimes called BEARS. Understand??
Maisey might have gotten pissed after having gotten played and seeing others played...
Do you really believe that Dan the CEO of a company with 120 employees is actually too destitude to hire a fucking lawyer and is still dishing out that $2.2M in sequestered profit from last calendar year and more going forward?
...Use some fucking sense, man!
From the story I didn't read it this way. Maybe so as I read the article but didn't do additional research. If so, then I apologize to Luke for jumping to that conclusion.
Dupe
I am not a lib but I think the guy meant well but he is stupid. He and his brother and others built a business but it is going to fail by doing stupid stuff like this. Pay the entry level clerk people well but a totally flat payroll is not going to work.
I applaud him to some extent but he and his brother should have found some happy medium.
@Toady -- Total fail. You just outed yourself as a socialist.
The job of a corporation IS NOT to be a nanny to their employees. It is to make money for the shareholders. When you start blending being a charity and a profit making company, you deserve to be sued by your shareholders and mocked by people on ZH.
I guess you love obama and the rest of his evil ilk, who think it's okay to rob from hard working people to give it to someone you deem more deserving. What a fuck tard.
Businesses fail all of the time. Only 2% or some ridiculously low amount even make it past 5 years, let alone 10 years. To use his failure as some sort of bellwether to demonize living wages is comical at best.
This young lady got a valuable lesson on why it doesn't pay to be an employee. You bust ass and waste a lot of your own time building up someone else's pipedream, only to get peanuts and a big *up yours* in return. This is why I am adamantly opposed to job creation and I believe everyone should either be an entrepreneur or an independent contractor.
A "fairer" (lol, that word again, fair, yeah that word should be left back in Kindergarten) proposal would be to resign and start your own business. Then you can hire H1B workers for peanuts to implement your definition of "fair" as only H1Bs are willing to work for the wages and salary increases you believe to be "fairer".
Ever since my mentors woke me up to the "employee mindset" I just can't help but laugh at the daddy boss archetype. The sad part I used to think exactly like this doing dead end retail jobs back in the day.
Jim Rohn started off at a dead end job at Sears and his mentor told him, "Work harder on your SELF than you do on your job!" When you follow that one quote, the dead end jobs become laughable, the hamster wheel of paycheck to every other paycheck stops, and new opportunites open up that you didn't notice before.
Nailed it doctor...figured it out in my mid 20's...now in the mid 40's and I haven't spent a single day since MAKING SOMEONE ELSE RICH...Fuck them! I worked my ass off in my 20's...at raise time, I'm informed that the company "didn't have that good of a year" and my raise was nilch along with no Christmas bonus...a month later the CEO rolls up in a new BMW and later that year started work on his custom built 7 figure house...I was out the door with a big FUCK YOU with no regrets. They eventually lost the accounts I built and tended with one of them being thier biggest money maker...that was icing on the cake.
TAKE CARE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES...THEY WILL MAKE OR BRAKE YOU...YOU DECIDE EXECS!
I worked for a home builder back in the early 90's. At the time, Orange County was still reeling from the recession that started in 1990. Just before Christmas, the executives all got a massive 6 figure year end bonus. Right after the new year, the VP of finance drove a brand new Porsche Carrera into the parking lot and the CEO just about blew a gasket...told him ever to drive that car to the office again. Bad optics.
Reminds me of the movie Goodfellas where right after they pulled off the Luftansa job the mental midgets were out buying fur coats and new cars. The character played by DeNiro was livid and all the participants in the robbery ended getting up capped.
Point of accuracy: some got stuck, some got hooked, some got brained, some got iced, and some got garroted. Not all got capped. And, some just got ratted out. Now back to the linguistic tribe-lacrosse that is ZH.
Ross Perot (Sr.) had a HUGE sign in the employee cafeteria at Perot Systems that said...
"WITHOUT YOU I AM NOTHING." -- Ross Perot
Leader.
"everyone should either be an entrepreneur or an independent contractor."
Two problems with this philosophy:
* Many people aren't smart enough to be their own boss, but can be productive if told what to do.
* Not every value-add can be broken into pieces small enough to be handled by a single person. Cottage industry died out for a reason.
"Many people aren't smart enough to be their own boss, but can be productive if told what to do."
Correction, Most people are too "lazy" to be be their own boss. They simply preferr to let some one else run the show for them. Smarts doesn't really isn't necessary. i've seen uneducated mom&pop start businesses end up turning them into successful business (dry cleaners, Deli's, Contractors, cleaning services, etc). All that is really need is to provide a quality service at a reasonable cost.
The only thing I have to add, is that you have to do some homework. You need to provide a product or service that has some demand. You have to learn or have the skills necessary to offer services or products. However business services with low skill are available (ie commerial building cleaning service - vacuum carpeting, cleaning toilets, etc is one example). Don't expect to get rich overnight. It takes years to build up clients and generate large revenues. Some business will never make you rich, but can keep you employeed for life.
One of the truly fatal flaws in Ayn Rand's philosophy (and there are many), is her disdain of employees and her view of all employees as leeches. Though I am self-employed now, I was an employee for many, many years before that. Most businesses that make a lot of money require employees, and good employees can help a business thrive. At my last job before I struck off on my own, I made my boss high six figures of profit during more than a few years, and always earned him far more than I was paid including all overhead, benefits, etc. I left because my piece of the pie wasn't big enough. Had he paid me a little more, I'd still be there, and I wouldn't be a lesser person for it.
Funny you should say that, because much of Atlas Shrugged is seen through the eyes of Eddie Willers, a faithful employee of only slightly above average ability.
Yeah - everyone should be their own boss! So I guess you built your own car, house, farmed your own food, made your own toilet paper, TV, computer, stove, posted your comment on your own internet hat you hooked up to other people's Internet, drove your car on roads that you made yourself, parked your car in a lot you paved and went to work for yourself in an office building you built yourself.
Not trying to be a dick, but seriously people love to get up here and pat themselves on the back for their own ingenuity and independence - as if somehow by owning their own business they are above the fray of the rest of the "sheeple" here. The reality is that not every industry or profession lends itself to being done by one person so not everyone can be their own boss. Not everyone wants to either. And there's nothing wrong with that.
He said "be your own boss" which is different from "never exchanges goods or services with other human beings".
"Not trying to be a dick"
And you failed most spectacularly. Kudos.
You bring up a point so I'll clarify.
One wouldn't build all of those themselves obviously. They would hire independent contractors or other entrepreneurs to complete such tasks. LLCs would hire other LLCs to complete projects. With Obamacare passing, employees directly under one's payroll instantly became obsolete. It's a dead model now. Now entrepreneurs farm all out all tasks to independent contractors instead of employees directly under them.
With rapid exponential advancements in automation, these business arrangements will be inevitable.
As for people being "too dumb" to be their own boss, that's what EBT and welfare programs are for. If an entrepreneur wants to be charitable, then can contribute to less fortunate. The funny thing about business types is that they will gladly open up their checkbook for a kid dying of cancer, but a loyal employee who can't make ends meet gets the shaft. That lies at the feet of the IRS because charitable donations are right offs, whereas giving an employee a helping hand is a "bonus" and it gets heavily punished by the tax code.
By the way, I'm not "advocating" this system. I'm just looking at current trends and seeing how they would play out since the TARDIS is broken and I can't see your future, lol. The days of corporations having large numbers of employees are numbered. I'm sure Microsoft, Walmart, Exxon, etc will still have large payrolls because they will lobby to be exempt, but the rest of the business world, the average joe will only have 4 choices....
1. Be an entrepreneur
2. Be an independent contractor
3. Be on Welfare
4. Work for the government
You folks didnt build that.
Next thing you know, Seattle will be giving muslims Sharia compliant no-interest home loans. Oh, wait...
I guess the lefties forgot about that church and state stuff
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0723/Seattle-mayor-proposes...
remunerate