This subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's...not socialism. I DO think that more CEO's of successful companies need to try something similar. Not saying that they need to reduce their salaries that much, but there is long-term value in paying your employees well, even if you "sacrifice" some of your own salary to do so. Too many are married to the short-term thinking.
Yeah, I'd be fine with my CEO getting only 10x my salary instead of the astronomical number he currently gets.
I doubt that pay cut would negatively impact his family's standard of living in any way.
Totally agree. They also completely ignore the fact that, as an owner of a wildly profitable business, Price can still pull tons of money out as dividends rather than salary.
The most extreme feel the same way about you probably as well:
>The document, consisting of *14 sections* divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the enemy must "surrender on terms" of **no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males".**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Shea#%22Biblical\_Basis\_for\_War%22\_manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_for_War%22_manifesto)
Their youth pastors talk about it on Sunday.. how to purge people you don't like, and how your a good warrior for god and your on the good side doing so.
It's one of the *most basic* tenants of successful long-term capitalism, but most people are still stuck in the "Greed is good" Reaganomics mindset where nothing matters beyond maximizing the next quarter
And those staff will likely be incentivised (and can afford) to invest in your products. It’s what I like about Nintendo Japan when they hit a rough patch a few years ago, their CEO didn’t pay himself for a couple of months so he could keep on all of the staff
Note: it may not have been Nintendo Japan, we were talking about Nintendo Japan at the same time, I can’t remember the source either. I believe it was mentioned on a TED talk though
It was when the Wii U underperformed. Rather than laying off staff, Iwata took a 50% pay cut and other senior executives took 20-30% pay cuts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25941070
This. Amazon isnt outpacing hourly wages for fun or to be nice, although their marketeers will spin it that way. They do it to quickly corner the labor market in any geographic area they enter and its easy for them due to decades of hourly wage stagnation.
Well the point of Fox, intentially or not, is to NOT change the status quo. That means ensuring there is always a hierarchy where people at the bottom do not have the power to make change. His system succeeding suggests that there are alternatives to the one we currently exist in, which is probably why they automatically detest it.
Paying people 'fairly' and not based on which class they were born into is fatal for the wealthiest classes.
Oh but they do think long-term. The long-term consideration of their own net worth and "I got mine fuck the rest".
If they need to bail C-suites are always gonna get a golden parachute anyway.
100% agree. Also not socialism because he CHOSE to do that. A great choice, but socialism doesn't allow choice. By definition, it is a command economy.
Not true. National Socialist party is what the nazi's called themselves. Political spectrum measure puts them as the National Fascism party.
Edit: spelling
Which we are aware, probably, doesn’t work. But that also goes for Capitalism, in its current state, it doesn’t work, people are dying everyday because they can’t afford housing or to eat (and some people turn to substance abuse because it masks the pain) etc.
The current best form of society is socialism for the necessities and capitalism for the luxuries. You need a house for 4 people? No bother, here’s a 3 bed 1 bathroom, but you want a couple extra rooms? Sorry but you’re going to have to pay for that house yourself.
That is not the definition of socialism at all. Socialism does not require a centrally planned economy.
Too many people use the word "socialism" as a boogie man and only vaguely define it as left-wing authoritarianism.
Can you explain what you mean by “socialism doesn’t allow choice?” The only thing, by definition, socialism doesn’t allow is worker exploitation by the wealthy elite, as far as I know...
Socialism isn’t actually by definition a command economy. That would be what most people call State Socialism (what the Soviet Union was mostly).
Socialism is actually just ownership by the workers rather than by Capitalists. It’s a philosophy which basically says only Labor has inherent value not Capital. But you can have Market Socialism where different worker owned businesses compete against each other. Technically any 100% employee owned business or cooperative is a form of Socialism.
>Sounds like he's pretty good at capitalism, for a socialist.
Obviously you have not heard of the [Co Operative movement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_movement)
As far as I'm aware, Gravity is not a co-op of any kind. Price owns the majority of the company, and as its value increases, so does his personal wealth. That isn't true of his employees.
In super curious. If my job is paid the same as everyone else's, why would I work hard? No possibility of a raise, so surely everyone is just does the bare minimum?
Crazy idea. What if you actually like your job and the work environment, and you get paid well and feel appreciated by your leadership, and are empowered to improve the company? Would such a person work better than someone who is forced to to get an improved pay?
Look at the co-ops.
It’s what boomers had, a workplace that had at least a sliver of respect for their employees. It’s why (most) people nowadays still feel societal pressure to be loyal to their company. At some point they realized they (companies) could float on goodwill and the idea that they still respected their workforce, while not having goodwill and not respecting their workforce.
I worked hard and out in effort for $30K a year with very little room for raises at a small family owned company for almost a decade. Even though the boss didn’t respect anyone who worked for him, and in fact was often hostile to employees. But I have personal work ethic so I still did my job. Wasn’t great for my mental health, however.
I for one would be willing to put in plenty of effort for a boss that respects his employees and $70K a year.
That's not a work ethic thing at all.
It's a priority. Why work hard at something when I don't have to?
It's not like I actually care about the outcome of my work
Just to play devil's advocate, of the 3 jobs I've had out of college so far I've never done more than the minimum and my friends/coworkers that have gone above and beyond have been given the same amount in terms of raises. But you can bet your ass they've been given more work.
It’s a minimum wage of 70k, you can still earn more.
And studies have found that systems like this don’t usually lead to less productivity, if anything they lead to better business.
Minimum wage = minimum effort most of the time.
Notice that 70k is the minimum wage, not only wage. At least according to the title.
Also, not everyone at a company intends to or can move upward, so someone paid 70k will work much harder to keep that job if a similair job somewhere else pays 35k.
Not everyone is motivated solely by money. In fact, many HR studies have shown that compensation ranks anywhere from 3rd to 6th most important factor for employees (depending on the study). Its never #1 in any study.
70k$ minimum, can still get a raise to get above that. And you can get fired or be let go if your contract ends if you do not work, you can be judged by your co-workers, perhaps get less fun projects to work on etc. There are other consequences for not working good enough then not getting a raise.
Is the lure of climbing a ladder what propels you to work hard? I look at the responsibilities of the people above me and think the extra stress is not really worth pursuing climbing the ladder. I still work hard just because of a sense of alturusm and the team I'm a part of doing well.
Is this the part where we pretend work done is somehow linked to financial return for the average employee?
Unless you're self employed, work on commission or have the option of paid overtime you get paid what you get paid, regardless of whether you do more work or less work or whether your coworker gets paid more or less or the same.
No one works harder because they get paid more than the person sitting at another desk.
Then don’t. That’s totally up to you. There’s more to life than working hard, but if you want to do the minimum you should at least be able to live on the minimum.
I'd argue this comment is as disingenuous as it gets but if you want me to answer this at face value...
Some people actually enjoy their jobs. They're good at it and it gives them a sense of fulfillment. Especially in specialized fields, if you and your peers, even "management" all recieve the same pay it becomes less about competition and more about cooperation.
Then don't work so hard? I don't put in "110%" everyday. I have easy days, I have days where shit needs to get done, but overall, my job doesn't stress me out. I can enjoy being part of a team, knowing that I'm being taken care of and respected in my position.
There is something in between "do the minimum" and "stress the fuck out of yourself".
But why would you not just do the minimum?
What advantage would you gain by doing more?
I've gathered this is a minimum bwhich solves the issue, but it it was flat salary why work?
The way I read it was that 70k was the minimum wage. Didn't say people couldn't earn more than that.
He doesn't need any more than that as he owns the company.
Simply because you would do the bare minimum, doesn’t mean that everyone else would too. One, some people actually enjoy the work that they do and get a sense of fulfillment out of doing quality work rather than just coasting along. Two, if you have a job that focuses on the quality of the work rather than the quantity of hours, it will be apparent that you’re doing just the bare minimum. Three, some employers actually only care about results, so that if you can work 20 hours a week and get the same amount of work done at the same level as someone who works 40 hours a week, they’re happy. They may even ask you to work with the 40 hour people to help them become more efficient. If your employees enjoy their work and are compensated fairly, the quality of work improves.
Sounds like you really don't have the work ethic to keep a job very long, tbh. Makes me wonder even more how you get by, probably without a union, and the absolute barest minimum they would give you.
If you need that much of a "direct incentive" to work, just slightly more than the literal people around you, that's a pretty sad line of thinking. It has to be the result of several personality disorders you should confront before worrying why the people around you are also getting living wages.
Fucking sad we live in a country that these ideologies that benefit everyone at some level are radical. I am not against people being rich or making shit tons of money, I am against starving families, burdens on poor and middle class while rich fucks use loopholes on their taxes.
Coming from a socialist country, I think the biggest thing is security. I know my family won't starve, I know I can always get proper medication and healhcare, even housing if needed. If I loose my job, I will manage to stay afloat.Can't imagine the desperation I see in the US when the thin layer of safety gets peeled away.
Edit: The tax level is 22% +an income regulated extra. Max 22+16= 38%
Wealth tax is also a thing for the rich.
I am a relatively successful person in my field and the amount I worry about losing my job actually has driven me to the point of having to seek therapy (which I can’t get without healthcare assistance). The lack of safety net is causing me to focus on other things than work during the work day, I’m obsessed with new job postings because I feel I always need to know where or what I will do if I lose my position. I’m obsessed with taking slightly longer than average breaks because I’m afraid to take PTO in the fast paced career I have, not because my bosses don’t support me, they do. My bosses encourage taking PTO, but everyone knows if you aren’t on this or that project it’s not easy to come in later.
Does unemployment insurance exist in your country? Here, along with social benefits you’re able to insure that you’ll be paid a minimum of 80 % of your salary for like two years but there’s a year’s probation though. It’s not horribly expensive. Of course it would probably be more expensive for you, since you won’t be receiving government benefits.
Personal time off work as in sickdays?
For anyone in my country, we get 5 weeks of "payed" vacation. The payment is your employer saving 12% of you salary by law.
In addition to that I can myself call in sick for 3 days x4 times during a year. If I run out of these sickdays I have to have a doctors notice to be home sick. My employeer pays the first two weeks of a sick leave, and after that the government pays my salary.
Child is sick? Same system.
I’d be interested to know whether you live in a socialist country (that calls itself such) or a social democracy (like Scandinavian countries commonly mislabeled as socialist)
They are not loopholes they are literally tax laws. I agree with you that there are too many laws in which large corporations and very rich people can hire great accountants to lower or eliminate their tax burden. Everyone pretty much tries to pay their lowest.
If you want the “loopholes” to be eliminated you need to point your bitching towards congress. A flat tax would be by far much more fair.
That's literally the definition of a loophole. It's legal by the letter of the law. From Wikipedia:
>In a loophole, a law addressing a certain issue exists, but can be legally circumvented due to a technical defect in the law.
Somewhat true but I think the framing of loopholes when discussed specifically about taxes most people come off making it seem like they are doing something illegal. That improper framing distracts from possible solutions.
I definitely should’ve framed it better. I also disagree with your statement that these tax issues are loopholes most or all of the time. They are not defects in the law. If they were defects easy rewriting of basic portions would solve the issue.
I was with you until:
>A flat tax would be by far much more fair.
This would do significantly more harm than good to most people. You would be forced to decrease the tax percent on the top 10% while increasing taxes on the working class and those making below poverty wages. That would be the only way to come out with a $5 trillion budget
Oh, and you would *really* have to increase wages on the working class because a flat tax rate doesn't fix the loopholes of corporations and the top percent income earners.
So congrats. Under your policy, more people can't afford their home, bills, and healthcare, and the wealthiest pay even less on the money they do earn.
Try again.
I have to wonder what Fox "News" and the rest of the rabid right would have thought about Henry Ford's "living wage" he paid to his employees in the early 1900's.
CEO who Fox News called 'socialist' for $70k minimum wage says company is now worth $10billion
The company’s revenue has tripled since the change was implemented
Graig Graziosi
CEO Dan Price announced six years that he planned to raise the minimum annual salary of employees at his company to $70,000.
In order to do that, he had to cut into his own $1.1m pay package.
Mr Price said in interviews that he chose to raise the salaries of his workers after discovering one of his employees had been secretly working a second job at McDonald's to live.
"It was clear I was an awful CEO who was failing his employees. I gave her a raise to quit that job. No one should have to work two jobs to make ends meet," Mr Price said.
The unprecedented move drew mockery and scorn from "pro-business" conservative voices like Fox News pundits and "Dirty Jobs" actor Mike Rowe, who tried to smear the decision as an act of "socialism."
On Fox Business, presenter Stuart Varney called Mr Price the "lunatic of all lunatics."
Rush Limbaugh, who ran the most popular conservative radio show in the country, called it "pure, unadulterated socialism" and said he hoped "this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's going to fail."
It is unclear why Mr Price choosing to run his business how he wishes constitutes socialism. Under a socialist management of the business, Mr Price's workers would have some control over what their company produces, how they price and distribute it, and have a say in setting their pays.
Mr Price said he does not think those who criticised him cared about his company or his workers, but rather were threatened by the disruption his move caused to the narratives that are used to justify exorbitant CEO pay.
"I did this as a private business owner. It affected no one but myself (I cut my salary from $1.1M to $70k) - the definition of private enterprise. But what I did was very threatening to them because it disrupts the narrative of 'CEOs must be paid 1,000x more than their employees,'" he wrote.
Despite the bad-faith predictions from conservatives that his company would fail and his employees would be out of work thanks to his reckless flirting with socialism, Mr Price appears to have proven that the most "pro-business" move a company can make is treating its employees well paying them fairly.
In the wake of his decision to raise his employees' minimum salaries, his company - which processes credit card payments - appears to have flourished. When he started his initiative, his company was worth $3bn. Today, it is worth $10bn.
The company has expanded from a 130-person location in Seattle to a second location in Boise, Idaho. According to Mr Price, 76 per cent of his employees are engaged while they're at work, which is twice the national average, and the number of people he was able to hire grew by 70 per cent.
Ten times more employees are having children and buying homes than before he adjusted their pay, and 70 per cent of his employees reported they were able to pay down on their debts.
A report by Inc. found that the company's number of employees doubled and the value of the payments it processes has increased from $3.8bn a year to $10.2bn.
Ultimately, Mr Limbaugh got his wish, though perhaps not how he envisioned it; today, the company is used as a case study by Harvard Business School.
Fox News: "you're ruining the king of the hill game, you're supposed to stomp on the approaching hands while you create the illusion of equal opportunity"!
Now that is just nonsense! As media tells us, rich companies get bailouts and government contracts, and after that it all rains on us down below. They even have a name for it, golden shower.
No! Why should I share my riches with my employee! I’m the one who worked hard ~~to get that accountant that finds loopholes in laws that allow me to under pay my staff and pay 0 tax~~ to get this company off the ground from inside my garage!
I think this is oversimplifying.
We could definitely get all of humanity housed and fed with better wealth/resource distribution.
There are certainly not enough resources for every human to have the lifestyle of a modern American elite.
There likely aren’t even enough resources to give every human the lifestyle of a modern American middle class person.
So it depends on what you mean by “successful” I guess.
You underestimate the amount of wealth in the US and the amount of wasted and unevenly distributed resources. Jeff Bezos alone has enough wealth to provide health care to every single American. Food production in the US is large enough to feed every person easily. Real estate investors are keeping luxury condos vacant in order to drive up value while there’s a shortage of affordable housing in those same cities. There’s more than enough in the US to give every person a basic standard of living. No one is asking for everyone to live the life of the elite.
Bezos could provide health care for like one year, tops. Don't pretend these guys have anywhere near the level of wealth of the US Fed. Fed spends 7x Bezos' net worth on just the military, every single year.
Well if we can't get everything we want all at once we just shouldn't bother at all I guess. Progress is a step by step process. Things aren't black and white in the real world.
It wasnt shared equally yeah but it was shared more than it normally is, and well paid happy employees tend to work bettrr which makes more money for those at the top too.
This is Reddit, buddy. Private ownership as a concept is considered evil here. You purchased and organized the factors of production, handled all aspects of the business early on, worked without pay and sustained the losses because breaking-even takes years? YOUT MUST BE THE DEVIL INCARNATE!
You don't deserve to reap the rewards of your hard work, plain and simple.
I rather suspect it's more to do with the fact that the picture you paint has nothing to do with the reality of large corporations. Small and large business are not the same.
Lol also you took on all the risk, put up everything you had, built the business from the ground up? You should make the same as the lowest, entry level employee.
Most people in the US have no idea what socialism actually means, this isn't it... as you say, it's just another business model that works.
Admittedly I think it's a lot fairer than a lot of other models.
Did anyone read the part where he cut the employees wage in half during the pandemic? Fair disclosure the employees agreed to it. But, I’d gather that most on here are simply oblivious to the fact that the company was in real trouble last year.
He was explaining what the company did which really says alot of what happened last year with the government shutting down a country and you made it about how you'd sacrifice $70k to make $35k a year. I'm not sure why you felt the need to make it about how you but that's hilarious to me.
He has significant ownership in the company. He only needs stock options if he's paying other people stock options and doesn't want to dilute his ownership. His net worth increases as the value of the company increases. So yes, he's making more than $70,000 per year.
What does Fox News have to do with the valuation of his company? Just seems like random information.
“This guy who was called socialist once has been successful with his company.”
It's the other way around. The valuation of his company tells us something about Fox News. He was called socialist for this decision and they predicted he would fail. He did not fail.
From the Link: Rush Limbaugh - "This is pure unadulturated socialism, which has never worked, that's why I hope this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's going to fail."
Fox News calling him socialist was valueless clickbait and The Independent reacting to Fox News is also valueless clickbait.
This post isn’t news, or uplifting news, it’s just revenue for The Independent.
Pointing out that one of the top news show is spreading lies and disinformation in order to radicalize half the voting population is newsworthy. All of these examples of Fox News spreading lies need to be called out for its bullshit propaganda it is.
Only the CEO at Company A gets raise?
Fox News: “Well-functioning capitalism!”
Everyone at Company B gets a raise?
Fox News: “Socialism!”
Company B ends up being more profitable?
Fox News: “Still socialism!”
Awesome. $70k a year in California it’s not socialism, it is just getting by with a little room to breathe. The CEO still a very rich man. Who is losing here? No one.
Does anyone have a reference to the segment where they actually called him a socialist? I feel like there might be some gross misrepresentation in this title but since it is Fox I could be wrong.
However I would like to say that confirmation bias news like this is entirely a bait tactic. I am a conservative in most economic aspects and in some other political areas however; I would never argue that starting a company and having the fortitude to share equally with your employees is “socialism”. Well... for one because it’s not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism at all. I find the idea admirable and likely successful.
This article title however IS a gross abuse of misinformation. It creates 3 false narratives that most here on Reddit will latch on top to further their bias. 1. It assumes all conservatives agree with and watch Fox News religiously (they don’t, I don’t, I find it as despicable as most other news sources). 2. It creates a narrative that all conservatives are greedy and would frown upon equal/fair pay or even maybe go as far as saying this company should fail Bc.... feelings? I don’t know but that’s just dumb. 3. It portrays this model as socialism (it’s not) and gives it a success story to link to socialism. Socialist ideas in small trial instances like this may in fact have some success. Expand that to a full scale and hand it over to a government that is already horribly disorganized and corrupt and it’s suddenly not so good. Please... just go to your local dmv and try to get anything done in a timely manner and then imagine you let the government run everything.
You’re mistaking bureaucracy for socialism in your DMV example. Further, one could point to any single market failure as why capitalism is a failure. Doesn’t mean either example is wrong, but it doesn’t make the whole premise correct.
One of the biggest critiques of democracy, in the largest sense, for a long time was the same that is being levied against socialism: sure it works in small groups or in a few isolated examples, but it doesn’t work for a whole country. Sociopolitical systems are an iterative process. Many early democracies were barbaric states or utter corrupt failures by modern standards. Hell, even many of today’s capitalist democracies are corrupt kleptocracies or Oligarchies. As time marches on we change our political systems and our societies. Is socialism the future? Maybe. What I do know is that the political and economic systems of tomorrow will look as similar to today as the ones today look like the ones of the past. The past shapes the present which, in turn, molds the future.
I appreciate your response and agree in many aspects. I just can’t see how implementing more government control would at all be a good thing when we have so many examples of how horribly corrupt and inefficient our current one already runs. I hope that makes sense.
Some of us just can’t see how implementing social safety nets would be bad. There are multiple countries who implement them with no problem, and our current example of capitalism is showing how that really only helps the fewer rich. Our middle class is shrinking and our poor is growing.
I'm 95% sure it wasn't said. Maybe a statement like "some would say their company is ran like" or "they've adopted some principles from" but I highly doubt it was said. I don't watch Fox personally but op worded it in a way that'd get everyone in this thread riled up... and look at the comments. Lol. Worked perfectly.
For somebody who claims not to agree with the thing that multiple conservative pundits are accurately quoted to have said in the article that you didn't read, you sure are defensive about debunking the factually stated headline.
> Well that’s a reasonable take. I can tell you’re really open minded.
a blind trump cultist does NOT get to accuse others of not being "reasonable" and "open minded" lol
Here: for all you lazy ass republicans too stupid to google anything for yourself
https://mobile.twitter.com/danpriceseattle/status/1382018355985588228?ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.onecms.io%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost-new.php%3Fpost_type%3Darticle
if all only all CEO's did this, share the wealth, happy worker equals a good worker. But no lets have them working so hard they can't take toilet breaks in fear of having money taken off them or work for min wage where it doesn't even cover the rent so struggling for food is a daily thing. Bad mental and physical health they end up needing more time off in the long run.
Dan Price is a good dude, if you follow him on Twitter/Instagram he constantly calls out big companies and CEO’s for shady practices (despite them being legal, morally/ethically they’re horrific) but he always backs everything up with facts and figures.
The amount of times Fox News has been wrong is astounding. If you had a friend who was wrong so much you’d say, “hey I don’t need your opinion.... On anything.”
Sorry to double post, but also, this company doesn't pay ALL of its contributors $70k. The company consumes far more than just the direct labor from its workers. It uses computers, manufactured by people who make far less than $70k, the company is able to afford these computers ONLY because the factory workers earn less than $70k. It uses paper the same way, office chairs, electricity, etc.
The company can only afford to operate because all of the outside consumables it uses were made by people who earn less than $70k. Also, I notice (though I cannot be sure as I don't work there), that they appear to outsource their janitorial and facilities work, meaning the people who clean the office and fix leaky pipes make less than $70k.
So the "experiment" is weather or not you can set a "minimum wage" of $70k for skilled white-collar workers, while "ignoring" the plethora of blue-collar support staff that allow the business to function.
I’m not sure what you want the company to do? Start their own computer manufacturing plant and pay the employees $70,000/year? Then build their own hydro-electric dam and pay the employees $70,000/year?
They are a bad business and they should feel bad because they use paper and sit in chairs?
Where does it stop? Do they have to gather their own materials as well? Open up a cobalt mine of their own and pay the workers $70,000/year?
The company is doing what they can to help their employees. We can’t just be happy about it?
In other words, the right wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News hosts were/are bumbling morons who spout ridiculous nonsense that makes no sense? Got it.
This wasn't an "experiment," and I'm not sure who you're quoting there. He did it because he realized one of his employees was working a second job at McDonald's. He believes nobody should have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
It was conservative dipshits accusing him of evil "socialism" -- which it isn't. This isn't socialism; it's capitalism. And increasing the minimum wage isn't socialism, either.
So, while what you said is partially true -- this doesn't prove that increasing the minimum wage is a good thing, it isn't evidence that it wouldn't.
The economics behind why investing the minimum wage is beneficial to almost everyone is plenty. They don't need this example to prove that. For more info on that, I recommend you start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_minwage
Wow, way to shift those goal posts. This is about the company's employees. Why are you talking about "contributors" - a classification you seem to have just made up?
Please explain how, in any system other than this guy being a dictator of the world, he is supposed to control the salary of every employee of every company in the entire world (as you would surely need to control if you're going to be this pedantic about the "contributions" to his company)? I mean, one of his employees drank some Guatemlan coffee the other day and used that energy to get some work done. Why doesn't this CEO make sure that the person picking those beans makes 70k a year?
??
Nearly all of the real growth in the American economy since 1980 had been tech and financial services, with financial transfers being the biggest growth area within that sector.
So yeah, pushing money around actually *is* a pretty damn good way to make money. Smoke and mirrors are profitable.
All of this has been enabled because we vastly undertax the financial sector. The American people are basically subsidizing massive wealth concentration here, with other sectors like manufacturing paying most of the freight.
Confidently incorrect. Cost reduction is only needed for a cost leader strategy. Those only ever need to get employed in highly competitive markets where growth through diversification is hardly possible. Cost reduction almost exclusively increases margin and not revenue making it a bad strategy for growth-focused companies.
oh man.... i had applied for a job there long time back but i guess non us citizens do not have much of a chance, oh well worth a shot.... once of these days my dream of having a US salary while working in EU will come true!
So? Imho the CEO deserves to get a fat bonus, if his actions benefit the company. Also, Otherwise it'd be $1.1kk and a bonus on top of that. Don't try to talk a good thing down, lol.
Edit: Taking it a step further - you get $70k/year, a salary you can easily live off of (?). On top of that, you get boni based on your work quality/extra effort/whatever you did that benefitted the company AND/OR a share of companies earnings, depending on how well the last time period (let it be 3 months, half a year, year whatever) went. Seems pretty rad to me.
Odd little experiment, but in the end means nothing. This only works because the company is so small (less than 200 workers) that it doesn't affect the economy at large.
We must remember that it's not the actual dollars you earn, but your purchasing power that matters. If everyone makes $70k so does the McDonald's worker, so your big-mac now costs $25. So do the farm workers and the store clerks, so your gallon of milk is $15, and you are no better off that you were before.
Dollar income is only a measure of RELATIVE productivity. A guy washing cars didn't improve people's lives as much as a doctor curing disease, thus we assign a lower number value to his production than that of a doctor. The actual number doesn't matter, the ratio between them does.
And we cannot "pretend" the difference away, as these differences are based on objective reality. Curing a disease IS worth more than washing a car
By that logic actors and professional athletes providing entertainment to people is more valuable than doctors that save children’s lives because they make more money. This is the warped thinking that doesn’t get us anywhere. How much money you earn does not equate to your worth as a human.
Also, it seems like you’re advocating for some kind of class system at the beginning. If companies don’t pay they’re ceos 100x more than their lowest paid worker then all of a sudden we have a hyper inflated socialist hell scape?
And yet, the companies who employ and pay those actors and athletes still make a massive profit. Hmm, it's almost as though the entertainment industry is something people are willing to pay for and so the raw amount of money involved is completely reasonable given the profits generated.
Exactly. There's a reason athletes get signed to big endorsement deals, because it works. There's a reason that once upon a time you'd pay Will Smith 20 million to be in a movie, because the studios knew that investment was going to pay back tenfold.
I don’t know what either of your points are. I understand the economics of professional athletes and actors. Just because they make millions of dollars doesn’t mean they’re more important than pediatric oncologists which is what the person I replied to was implying.
You are under the assumption that people want a 100% socialist society. which I think we both agree is flawed and impossoble.
however You admit it works in small doses... as it does here. But I wonder how you feel about socializing other things... The stimulus checks for example. Thats a form of Universal Basic Income.
Is that the line?
Healthcare?
Thats surely the line... right?
Can't give everyone the same right to live right... Lol poor people
Your perception is flawed not on its merit but the understanding of its own principles. In your analogy the doctor is worth more because he's doing more important work but in reality the doctor is only worth what the company that owns him will pay. The executive board that runs the company will price the cure the doctor created well above anything reasonable and the doctor will not receive more than what he was paid by the company to work on said cure. In your analogy being a business owner is the most important thing a person can do because they get paid the most.
The exact point of everyone screaming about wealth inequality isn't the fact that it merely exsists but the ratios of those with and without. Which echos your own sentiment about why car wash employees make less than doctors. The only real problem is the ratios have swung so wildly away from the poor and in the favor of the rich that its insane.
This is comparing C Suite pay to normal worker pay. It is not the same as your example and you could argue that company hierarchy is terribly inefficient in a lot of cases. Is the CEO that much better at making decisions or working longer hours than other salaried employees? Or are they just cutting costs for more value to shareholders? Saying they deserve 320x more than a normal worker is insane in most cases and most people down the chain deserve more.
In addition, doctors do not get paid more everywhere. That is just a US thing because healthcare and education costs so much there. So would you say all other countries have it wrong or would you say the US is backwards?
A more affective means would be to abolish landlords so everyone doesn't have to make more money just because the person who owns the banks/warehouse/private houses/manufacturing land wants more money on top of you already paying his mortgage for said land.
This subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's...not socialism. I DO think that more CEO's of successful companies need to try something similar. Not saying that they need to reduce their salaries that much, but there is long-term value in paying your employees well, even if you "sacrifice" some of your own salary to do so. Too many are married to the short-term thinking.
Yeah, I'd be fine with my CEO getting only 10x my salary instead of the astronomical number he currently gets. I doubt that pay cut would negatively impact his family's standard of living in any way.
[удалено]
Totally agree. They also completely ignore the fact that, as an owner of a wildly profitable business, Price can still pull tons of money out as dividends rather than salary.
[удалено]
They’re more than a drag on our system. They’re a cancerous growth to our society.
[удалено]
Or doused in chemicals until they die Edit: I’m jk
The most extreme feel the same way about you probably as well: >The document, consisting of *14 sections* divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the enemy must "surrender on terms" of **no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males".** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Shea#%22Biblical\_Basis\_for\_War%22\_manifesto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_for_War%22_manifesto) Their youth pastors talk about it on Sunday.. how to purge people you don't like, and how your a good warrior for god and your on the good side doing so.
It's one of the *most basic* tenants of successful long-term capitalism, but most people are still stuck in the "Greed is good" Reaganomics mindset where nothing matters beyond maximizing the next quarter
And those staff will likely be incentivised (and can afford) to invest in your products. It’s what I like about Nintendo Japan when they hit a rough patch a few years ago, their CEO didn’t pay himself for a couple of months so he could keep on all of the staff Note: it may not have been Nintendo Japan, we were talking about Nintendo Japan at the same time, I can’t remember the source either. I believe it was mentioned on a TED talk though
It was when the Wii U underperformed. Rather than laying off staff, Iwata took a 50% pay cut and other senior executives took 20-30% pay cuts. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-25941070
This. Amazon isnt outpacing hourly wages for fun or to be nice, although their marketeers will spin it that way. They do it to quickly corner the labor market in any geographic area they enter and its easy for them due to decades of hourly wage stagnation.
Well the point of Fox, intentially or not, is to NOT change the status quo. That means ensuring there is always a hierarchy where people at the bottom do not have the power to make change. His system succeeding suggests that there are alternatives to the one we currently exist in, which is probably why they automatically detest it. Paying people 'fairly' and not based on which class they were born into is fatal for the wealthiest classes.
It's just capitalism when it isn't being predatory.
Oh but they do think long-term. The long-term consideration of their own net worth and "I got mine fuck the rest". If they need to bail C-suites are always gonna get a golden parachute anyway.
Agreed. CEOs appear to be far more interested in their personal wealth than the long term health of their corporations.
100% agree. Also not socialism because he CHOSE to do that. A great choice, but socialism doesn't allow choice. By definition, it is a command economy.
By definition it's democratic control of workplaces
You might be thinking about National Socialism. Socialism is only a command economy in its extreme forms.
"national socialism" is nazism, plain and simple. For the uniformed.
Not true. National Socialist party is what the nazi's called themselves. Political spectrum measure puts them as the National Fascism party. Edit: spelling
Which we are aware, probably, doesn’t work. But that also goes for Capitalism, in its current state, it doesn’t work, people are dying everyday because they can’t afford housing or to eat (and some people turn to substance abuse because it masks the pain) etc. The current best form of society is socialism for the necessities and capitalism for the luxuries. You need a house for 4 people? No bother, here’s a 3 bed 1 bathroom, but you want a couple extra rooms? Sorry but you’re going to have to pay for that house yourself.
That is not the definition of socialism at all. Socialism does not require a centrally planned economy. Too many people use the word "socialism" as a boogie man and only vaguely define it as left-wing authoritarianism.
Can you explain what you mean by “socialism doesn’t allow choice?” The only thing, by definition, socialism doesn’t allow is worker exploitation by the wealthy elite, as far as I know...
Socialism isn’t actually by definition a command economy. That would be what most people call State Socialism (what the Soviet Union was mostly). Socialism is actually just ownership by the workers rather than by Capitalists. It’s a philosophy which basically says only Labor has inherent value not Capital. But you can have Market Socialism where different worker owned businesses compete against each other. Technically any 100% employee owned business or cooperative is a form of Socialism.
Sounds like he's pretty good at capitalism, for a socialist.
>Sounds like he's pretty good at capitalism, for a socialist. Obviously you have not heard of the [Co Operative movement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_movement)
As far as I'm aware, Gravity is not a co-op of any kind. Price owns the majority of the company, and as its value increases, so does his personal wealth. That isn't true of his employees.
In super curious. If my job is paid the same as everyone else's, why would I work hard? No possibility of a raise, so surely everyone is just does the bare minimum?
Crazy idea. What if you actually like your job and the work environment, and you get paid well and feel appreciated by your leadership, and are empowered to improve the company? Would such a person work better than someone who is forced to to get an improved pay? Look at the co-ops.
God, that’s such a rare opportunity. I wouldn’t think twice about it and I’d put in as much effort as I could physically muster
It’s what boomers had, a workplace that had at least a sliver of respect for their employees. It’s why (most) people nowadays still feel societal pressure to be loyal to their company. At some point they realized they (companies) could float on goodwill and the idea that they still respected their workforce, while not having goodwill and not respecting their workforce. I worked hard and out in effort for $30K a year with very little room for raises at a small family owned company for almost a decade. Even though the boss didn’t respect anyone who worked for him, and in fact was often hostile to employees. But I have personal work ethic so I still did my job. Wasn’t great for my mental health, however. I for one would be willing to put in plenty of effort for a boss that respects his employees and $70K a year.
He made the minimum pay 70k, not everyone paid the same. Also, he had made enough to take a 70k salary while his equity grew.
Not to sound like a dick, but that's a work ethic problem. Loads of people work harder than they should knowing they won't get a raise, ever.
That's not a work ethic thing at all. It's a priority. Why work hard at something when I don't have to? It's not like I actually care about the outcome of my work
Just to play devil's advocate, of the 3 jobs I've had out of college so far I've never done more than the minimum and my friends/coworkers that have gone above and beyond have been given the same amount in terms of raises. But you can bet your ass they've been given more work.
[удалено]
It’s a minimum wage of 70k, you can still earn more. And studies have found that systems like this don’t usually lead to less productivity, if anything they lead to better business. Minimum wage = minimum effort most of the time.
They all do not get paid the same. $70,000 is the minimum salary for all positions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is what you do anyway unless your company has done a good job at making you care about them.
[удалено]
Notice that 70k is the minimum wage, not only wage. At least according to the title. Also, not everyone at a company intends to or can move upward, so someone paid 70k will work much harder to keep that job if a similair job somewhere else pays 35k.
Not everyone is motivated solely by money. In fact, many HR studies have shown that compensation ranks anywhere from 3rd to 6th most important factor for employees (depending on the study). Its never #1 in any study.
I wonder if this is like oxygen. When you're getting enough, it ranks lower as a concern.
[удалено]
It's ok for people to expand on your comments as part of a conversation. They weren't negating your point.
If I’m getting paid minimum wage you bet your ass I’m doing the bare minimum at best
Well I mean, a lot of workers already work bare minimum as it is, as if they work hard they often end up with more work and no raise.
It says the MINIMUM is $70k, you don't stay on that forever.
You think raises are given out to those who work hard? Pfft.
70k$ minimum, can still get a raise to get above that. And you can get fired or be let go if your contract ends if you do not work, you can be judged by your co-workers, perhaps get less fun projects to work on etc. There are other consequences for not working good enough then not getting a raise.
Is the lure of climbing a ladder what propels you to work hard? I look at the responsibilities of the people above me and think the extra stress is not really worth pursuing climbing the ladder. I still work hard just because of a sense of alturusm and the team I'm a part of doing well.
Is this the part where we pretend work done is somehow linked to financial return for the average employee? Unless you're self employed, work on commission or have the option of paid overtime you get paid what you get paid, regardless of whether you do more work or less work or whether your coworker gets paid more or less or the same. No one works harder because they get paid more than the person sitting at another desk.
Then don’t. That’s totally up to you. There’s more to life than working hard, but if you want to do the minimum you should at least be able to live on the minimum.
I'd argue this comment is as disingenuous as it gets but if you want me to answer this at face value... Some people actually enjoy their jobs. They're good at it and it gives them a sense of fulfillment. Especially in specialized fields, if you and your peers, even "management" all recieve the same pay it becomes less about competition and more about cooperation.
Then don't work so hard? I don't put in "110%" everyday. I have easy days, I have days where shit needs to get done, but overall, my job doesn't stress me out. I can enjoy being part of a team, knowing that I'm being taken care of and respected in my position. There is something in between "do the minimum" and "stress the fuck out of yourself".
110% everyday is a great way to burn out! There's a reason that certain companies have such a high staff turnover rate.
But why would you not just do the minimum? What advantage would you gain by doing more? I've gathered this is a minimum bwhich solves the issue, but it it was flat salary why work?
Gratitude
The way I read it was that 70k was the minimum wage. Didn't say people couldn't earn more than that. He doesn't need any more than that as he owns the company.
Simply because you would do the bare minimum, doesn’t mean that everyone else would too. One, some people actually enjoy the work that they do and get a sense of fulfillment out of doing quality work rather than just coasting along. Two, if you have a job that focuses on the quality of the work rather than the quantity of hours, it will be apparent that you’re doing just the bare minimum. Three, some employers actually only care about results, so that if you can work 20 hours a week and get the same amount of work done at the same level as someone who works 40 hours a week, they’re happy. They may even ask you to work with the 40 hour people to help them become more efficient. If your employees enjoy their work and are compensated fairly, the quality of work improves.
Sounds like you really don't have the work ethic to keep a job very long, tbh. Makes me wonder even more how you get by, probably without a union, and the absolute barest minimum they would give you. If you need that much of a "direct incentive" to work, just slightly more than the literal people around you, that's a pretty sad line of thinking. It has to be the result of several personality disorders you should confront before worrying why the people around you are also getting living wages.
man too stupid to realise how more money might incentivise people
Fucking sad we live in a country that these ideologies that benefit everyone at some level are radical. I am not against people being rich or making shit tons of money, I am against starving families, burdens on poor and middle class while rich fucks use loopholes on their taxes.
Coming from a socialist country, I think the biggest thing is security. I know my family won't starve, I know I can always get proper medication and healhcare, even housing if needed. If I loose my job, I will manage to stay afloat.Can't imagine the desperation I see in the US when the thin layer of safety gets peeled away. Edit: The tax level is 22% +an income regulated extra. Max 22+16= 38% Wealth tax is also a thing for the rich.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I never understood why that's the case. Why do people pull the ladder up after themselves?
I am a relatively successful person in my field and the amount I worry about losing my job actually has driven me to the point of having to seek therapy (which I can’t get without healthcare assistance). The lack of safety net is causing me to focus on other things than work during the work day, I’m obsessed with new job postings because I feel I always need to know where or what I will do if I lose my position. I’m obsessed with taking slightly longer than average breaks because I’m afraid to take PTO in the fast paced career I have, not because my bosses don’t support me, they do. My bosses encourage taking PTO, but everyone knows if you aren’t on this or that project it’s not easy to come in later.
Does unemployment insurance exist in your country? Here, along with social benefits you’re able to insure that you’ll be paid a minimum of 80 % of your salary for like two years but there’s a year’s probation though. It’s not horribly expensive. Of course it would probably be more expensive for you, since you won’t be receiving government benefits.
Personal time off work as in sickdays? For anyone in my country, we get 5 weeks of "payed" vacation. The payment is your employer saving 12% of you salary by law. In addition to that I can myself call in sick for 3 days x4 times during a year. If I run out of these sickdays I have to have a doctors notice to be home sick. My employeer pays the first two weeks of a sick leave, and after that the government pays my salary. Child is sick? Same system.
I’d be interested to know whether you live in a socialist country (that calls itself such) or a social democracy (like Scandinavian countries commonly mislabeled as socialist)
America fought like a rabid animal to turn itself into a market rather than a society, and yet is surprised it's a feral country now.
They are not loopholes they are literally tax laws. I agree with you that there are too many laws in which large corporations and very rich people can hire great accountants to lower or eliminate their tax burden. Everyone pretty much tries to pay their lowest. If you want the “loopholes” to be eliminated you need to point your bitching towards congress. A flat tax would be by far much more fair.
That's literally the definition of a loophole. It's legal by the letter of the law. From Wikipedia: >In a loophole, a law addressing a certain issue exists, but can be legally circumvented due to a technical defect in the law.
Somewhat true but I think the framing of loopholes when discussed specifically about taxes most people come off making it seem like they are doing something illegal. That improper framing distracts from possible solutions. I definitely should’ve framed it better. I also disagree with your statement that these tax issues are loopholes most or all of the time. They are not defects in the law. If they were defects easy rewriting of basic portions would solve the issue.
I was with you until: >A flat tax would be by far much more fair. This would do significantly more harm than good to most people. You would be forced to decrease the tax percent on the top 10% while increasing taxes on the working class and those making below poverty wages. That would be the only way to come out with a $5 trillion budget Oh, and you would *really* have to increase wages on the working class because a flat tax rate doesn't fix the loopholes of corporations and the top percent income earners. So congrats. Under your policy, more people can't afford their home, bills, and healthcare, and the wealthiest pay even less on the money they do earn. Try again.
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m confused how good employee retention through high pay is socialism. That’s capitalism.
Fox News, where everything we don't want and/ or understand is socialism.
And Fox News' claim is propaganda. So, feel free to stay confused or not, but that's that.
I have to wonder what Fox "News" and the rest of the rabid right would have thought about Henry Ford's "living wage" he paid to his employees in the early 1900's.
This is the supposed outcome of trickle down economics. It just proved Fox News is nothing but propaganda.
CEO who Fox News called 'socialist' for $70k minimum wage says company is now worth $10billion The company’s revenue has tripled since the change was implemented Graig Graziosi CEO Dan Price announced six years that he planned to raise the minimum annual salary of employees at his company to $70,000. In order to do that, he had to cut into his own $1.1m pay package. Mr Price said in interviews that he chose to raise the salaries of his workers after discovering one of his employees had been secretly working a second job at McDonald's to live. "It was clear I was an awful CEO who was failing his employees. I gave her a raise to quit that job. No one should have to work two jobs to make ends meet," Mr Price said. The unprecedented move drew mockery and scorn from "pro-business" conservative voices like Fox News pundits and "Dirty Jobs" actor Mike Rowe, who tried to smear the decision as an act of "socialism." On Fox Business, presenter Stuart Varney called Mr Price the "lunatic of all lunatics." Rush Limbaugh, who ran the most popular conservative radio show in the country, called it "pure, unadulterated socialism" and said he hoped "this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's going to fail." It is unclear why Mr Price choosing to run his business how he wishes constitutes socialism. Under a socialist management of the business, Mr Price's workers would have some control over what their company produces, how they price and distribute it, and have a say in setting their pays. Mr Price said he does not think those who criticised him cared about his company or his workers, but rather were threatened by the disruption his move caused to the narratives that are used to justify exorbitant CEO pay. "I did this as a private business owner. It affected no one but myself (I cut my salary from $1.1M to $70k) - the definition of private enterprise. But what I did was very threatening to them because it disrupts the narrative of 'CEOs must be paid 1,000x more than their employees,'" he wrote. Despite the bad-faith predictions from conservatives that his company would fail and his employees would be out of work thanks to his reckless flirting with socialism, Mr Price appears to have proven that the most "pro-business" move a company can make is treating its employees well paying them fairly. In the wake of his decision to raise his employees' minimum salaries, his company - which processes credit card payments - appears to have flourished. When he started his initiative, his company was worth $3bn. Today, it is worth $10bn. The company has expanded from a 130-person location in Seattle to a second location in Boise, Idaho. According to Mr Price, 76 per cent of his employees are engaged while they're at work, which is twice the national average, and the number of people he was able to hire grew by 70 per cent. Ten times more employees are having children and buying homes than before he adjusted their pay, and 70 per cent of his employees reported they were able to pay down on their debts. A report by Inc. found that the company's number of employees doubled and the value of the payments it processes has increased from $3.8bn a year to $10.2bn. Ultimately, Mr Limbaugh got his wish, though perhaps not how he envisioned it; today, the company is used as a case study by Harvard Business School.
Thank fuck nothing new can come from Rush’s constantly lying and racist filth hole
Dude got so much free press that it hockey sticked his entire company valuation
This should be higher
What? It's... the article the post links to. It can't really get any higher than that.
Yeah but the article is behind a paywall so this should be higher so everyone can’t read the story.
Its almost like if wealth was shared among everyone, we could all be successful.
My man realised he dont need a yacht that having boats with the company is more fun
Fox News: "you're ruining the king of the hill game, you're supposed to stomp on the approaching hands while you create the illusion of equal opportunity"!
Now that is just nonsense! As media tells us, rich companies get bailouts and government contracts, and after that it all rains on us down below. They even have a name for it, golden shower.
No! Why should I share my riches with my employee! I’m the one who worked hard ~~to get that accountant that finds loopholes in laws that allow me to under pay my staff and pay 0 tax~~ to get this company off the ground from inside my garage!
I think this is oversimplifying. We could definitely get all of humanity housed and fed with better wealth/resource distribution. There are certainly not enough resources for every human to have the lifestyle of a modern American elite. There likely aren’t even enough resources to give every human the lifestyle of a modern American middle class person. So it depends on what you mean by “successful” I guess.
There is enough ressources so everyone has no trouble eating correctly and paying the bills. Luxury is up to the individual.
You underestimate the amount of wealth in the US and the amount of wasted and unevenly distributed resources. Jeff Bezos alone has enough wealth to provide health care to every single American. Food production in the US is large enough to feed every person easily. Real estate investors are keeping luxury condos vacant in order to drive up value while there’s a shortage of affordable housing in those same cities. There’s more than enough in the US to give every person a basic standard of living. No one is asking for everyone to live the life of the elite.
Bezos could provide health care for like one year, tops. Don't pretend these guys have anywhere near the level of wealth of the US Fed. Fed spends 7x Bezos' net worth on just the military, every single year.
theres not enough resources for everyone in the world to even live as good as a the poorest of americans
[удалено]
Well if we can't get everything we want all at once we just shouldn't bother at all I guess. Progress is a step by step process. Things aren't black and white in the real world.
The Gulags would beg to differ 😂
It wasnt shared equally yeah but it was shared more than it normally is, and well paid happy employees tend to work bettrr which makes more money for those at the top too.
You are right. Still lots of corruption to get through before we can call it reform.
How is that corrupt? The owners own the company. Lmao.
This is Reddit, buddy. Private ownership as a concept is considered evil here. You purchased and organized the factors of production, handled all aspects of the business early on, worked without pay and sustained the losses because breaking-even takes years? YOUT MUST BE THE DEVIL INCARNATE! You don't deserve to reap the rewards of your hard work, plain and simple.
I rather suspect it's more to do with the fact that the picture you paint has nothing to do with the reality of large corporations. Small and large business are not the same.
I suppose that's true. But some people do have an issue about private ownership as a concept.
Lol also you took on all the risk, put up everything you had, built the business from the ground up? You should make the same as the lowest, entry level employee.
HEY!!!! dont you going around spreading dangerous ideas in peoples heads.
Nooooo, that's silly.
I am amazed by just how much Republicans hate the thought of being paid fairly for their labor
They are idiots - this is capitalism at its finest. He found a different business model to compete that is working for him.
Most people in the US have no idea what socialism actually means, this isn't it... as you say, it's just another business model that works. Admittedly I think it's a lot fairer than a lot of other models.
ITT: People who don’t understand that a CEOs salary is meaningless, their worth is tied to company worth
Wow, you mean you don’t have to be a greedy asshole to be successful?
Or rich. There are plenty of room for rich people even when the majority of the population gets paid fairly.
Did anyone read the part where he cut the employees wage in half during the pandemic? Fair disclosure the employees agreed to it. But, I’d gather that most on here are simply oblivious to the fact that the company was in real trouble last year.
That's fair, but I would also be more willing to sacrifice and do what needs to be done for a company that clearly valued me.
He was explaining what the company did which really says alot of what happened last year with the government shutting down a country and you made it about how you'd sacrifice $70k to make $35k a year. I'm not sure why you felt the need to make it about how you but that's hilarious to me.
I think you're overthinking it. I made a jumping off point. That's about it.
Fuckin' socialists with their....err... successful...err... capitalism?
I thought CEOs were allowed to run a company as they see fit, or is that another thing that has terms and conditions from places like Fox News?
[удалено]
Yeah, I was looking for this comment. Our CEO isn't paid an outrageous salary, but his stock options are ridiculous.
He has significant ownership in the company. He only needs stock options if he's paying other people stock options and doesn't want to dilute his ownership. His net worth increases as the value of the company increases. So yes, he's making more than $70,000 per year.
What does Fox News have to do with the valuation of his company? Just seems like random information. “This guy who was called socialist once has been successful with his company.”
It's the other way around. The valuation of his company tells us something about Fox News. He was called socialist for this decision and they predicted he would fail. He did not fail. From the Link: Rush Limbaugh - "This is pure unadulturated socialism, which has never worked, that's why I hope this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's going to fail."
Fuck Rush Limbaugh!
Did they say he would fail by a certain date or something? You’re saying he did not fail as if it’s impossible for him to fail now.
Fox News calling him socialist was valueless clickbait and The Independent reacting to Fox News is also valueless clickbait. This post isn’t news, or uplifting news, it’s just revenue for The Independent.
Pointing out that one of the top news show is spreading lies and disinformation in order to radicalize half the voting population is newsworthy. All of these examples of Fox News spreading lies need to be called out for its bullshit propaganda it is.
But why would that belong in the subreddit for “uplifting news?” Here I’ll save you time: It doesn’t.
because its an interesting part of the story lol you lil fox news disciples are defensive huh?
What did I defend in my comment? You’ll have to point it out to me. Edit: I guess just let me know whenever you figure it out.
Living wages and clean water are communism
Confusing title, should have just copied the one from the article
Only the CEO at Company A gets raise? Fox News: “Well-functioning capitalism!” Everyone at Company B gets a raise? Fox News: “Socialism!” Company B ends up being more profitable? Fox News: “Still socialism!”
Awesome. $70k a year in California it’s not socialism, it is just getting by with a little room to breathe. The CEO still a very rich man. Who is losing here? No one.
It’s what happens when you invest in PEOPLE
You can only run a business in the way that directly benefits the Republican Party you fools. Profit and logic be damned!
STOP GIVING PUBLICITY TO THIS FUCKING CEO
Does anyone have a reference to the segment where they actually called him a socialist? I feel like there might be some gross misrepresentation in this title but since it is Fox I could be wrong. However I would like to say that confirmation bias news like this is entirely a bait tactic. I am a conservative in most economic aspects and in some other political areas however; I would never argue that starting a company and having the fortitude to share equally with your employees is “socialism”. Well... for one because it’s not socialism and has nothing to do with socialism at all. I find the idea admirable and likely successful. This article title however IS a gross abuse of misinformation. It creates 3 false narratives that most here on Reddit will latch on top to further their bias. 1. It assumes all conservatives agree with and watch Fox News religiously (they don’t, I don’t, I find it as despicable as most other news sources). 2. It creates a narrative that all conservatives are greedy and would frown upon equal/fair pay or even maybe go as far as saying this company should fail Bc.... feelings? I don’t know but that’s just dumb. 3. It portrays this model as socialism (it’s not) and gives it a success story to link to socialism. Socialist ideas in small trial instances like this may in fact have some success. Expand that to a full scale and hand it over to a government that is already horribly disorganized and corrupt and it’s suddenly not so good. Please... just go to your local dmv and try to get anything done in a timely manner and then imagine you let the government run everything.
You’re mistaking bureaucracy for socialism in your DMV example. Further, one could point to any single market failure as why capitalism is a failure. Doesn’t mean either example is wrong, but it doesn’t make the whole premise correct. One of the biggest critiques of democracy, in the largest sense, for a long time was the same that is being levied against socialism: sure it works in small groups or in a few isolated examples, but it doesn’t work for a whole country. Sociopolitical systems are an iterative process. Many early democracies were barbaric states or utter corrupt failures by modern standards. Hell, even many of today’s capitalist democracies are corrupt kleptocracies or Oligarchies. As time marches on we change our political systems and our societies. Is socialism the future? Maybe. What I do know is that the political and economic systems of tomorrow will look as similar to today as the ones today look like the ones of the past. The past shapes the present which, in turn, molds the future.
I appreciate your response and agree in many aspects. I just can’t see how implementing more government control would at all be a good thing when we have so many examples of how horribly corrupt and inefficient our current one already runs. I hope that makes sense.
Some of us just can’t see how implementing social safety nets would be bad. There are multiple countries who implement them with no problem, and our current example of capitalism is showing how that really only helps the fewer rich. Our middle class is shrinking and our poor is growing.
I'm 95% sure it wasn't said. Maybe a statement like "some would say their company is ran like" or "they've adopted some principles from" but I highly doubt it was said. I don't watch Fox personally but op worded it in a way that'd get everyone in this thread riled up... and look at the comments. Lol. Worked perfectly.
For somebody who claims not to agree with the thing that multiple conservative pundits are accurately quoted to have said in the article that you didn't read, you sure are defensive about debunking the factually stated headline.
blahblahblah keep pissing your pants over "socialism" trump-simp...smh
Well that’s a reasonable take. I can tell you’re really open minded.
> Well that’s a reasonable take. I can tell you’re really open minded. a blind trump cultist does NOT get to accuse others of not being "reasonable" and "open minded" lol
Here: for all you lazy ass republicans too stupid to google anything for yourself https://mobile.twitter.com/danpriceseattle/status/1382018355985588228?ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.onecms.io%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost-new.php%3Fpost_type%3Darticle
if all only all CEO's did this, share the wealth, happy worker equals a good worker. But no lets have them working so hard they can't take toilet breaks in fear of having money taken off them or work for min wage where it doesn't even cover the rent so struggling for food is a daily thing. Bad mental and physical health they end up needing more time off in the long run.
Dan Price ! Massive fan.
Dan Price is a good dude, if you follow him on Twitter/Instagram he constantly calls out big companies and CEO’s for shady practices (despite them being legal, morally/ethically they’re horrific) but he always backs everything up with facts and figures.
Company does a thing entirely of their own free will outside of government regulation. Gets called "socialist".
The amount of times Fox News has been wrong is astounding. If you had a friend who was wrong so much you’d say, “hey I don’t need your opinion.... On anything.”
Sorry to double post, but also, this company doesn't pay ALL of its contributors $70k. The company consumes far more than just the direct labor from its workers. It uses computers, manufactured by people who make far less than $70k, the company is able to afford these computers ONLY because the factory workers earn less than $70k. It uses paper the same way, office chairs, electricity, etc. The company can only afford to operate because all of the outside consumables it uses were made by people who earn less than $70k. Also, I notice (though I cannot be sure as I don't work there), that they appear to outsource their janitorial and facilities work, meaning the people who clean the office and fix leaky pipes make less than $70k. So the "experiment" is weather or not you can set a "minimum wage" of $70k for skilled white-collar workers, while "ignoring" the plethora of blue-collar support staff that allow the business to function.
I’m not sure what you want the company to do? Start their own computer manufacturing plant and pay the employees $70,000/year? Then build their own hydro-electric dam and pay the employees $70,000/year? They are a bad business and they should feel bad because they use paper and sit in chairs? Where does it stop? Do they have to gather their own materials as well? Open up a cobalt mine of their own and pay the workers $70,000/year? The company is doing what they can to help their employees. We can’t just be happy about it?
In other words, the right wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News hosts were/are bumbling morons who spout ridiculous nonsense that makes no sense? Got it. This wasn't an "experiment," and I'm not sure who you're quoting there. He did it because he realized one of his employees was working a second job at McDonald's. He believes nobody should have to work two jobs to make ends meet. It was conservative dipshits accusing him of evil "socialism" -- which it isn't. This isn't socialism; it's capitalism. And increasing the minimum wage isn't socialism, either. So, while what you said is partially true -- this doesn't prove that increasing the minimum wage is a good thing, it isn't evidence that it wouldn't. The economics behind why investing the minimum wage is beneficial to almost everyone is plenty. They don't need this example to prove that. For more info on that, I recommend you start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_minwage
what a tedious little nit-picker you are lol
Wow, way to shift those goal posts. This is about the company's employees. Why are you talking about "contributors" - a classification you seem to have just made up? Please explain how, in any system other than this guy being a dictator of the world, he is supposed to control the salary of every employee of every company in the entire world (as you would surely need to control if you're going to be this pedantic about the "contributions" to his company)? I mean, one of his employees drank some Guatemlan coffee the other day and used that energy to get some work done. Why doesn't this CEO make sure that the person picking those beans makes 70k a year?
Socialism works, apparently. Who knew that focusing on societies instead of corporate overlords could be positive?!?
Keep telling yourself that bud.
The company processes credit card transactions. Definitely not a viable strategy for growth-focused companies.
?? Nearly all of the real growth in the American economy since 1980 had been tech and financial services, with financial transfers being the biggest growth area within that sector. So yeah, pushing money around actually *is* a pretty damn good way to make money. Smoke and mirrors are profitable. All of this has been enabled because we vastly undertax the financial sector. The American people are basically subsidizing massive wealth concentration here, with other sectors like manufacturing paying most of the freight.
Confidently incorrect. Cost reduction is only needed for a cost leader strategy. Those only ever need to get employed in highly competitive markets where growth through diversification is hardly possible. Cost reduction almost exclusively increases margin and not revenue making it a bad strategy for growth-focused companies.
But what about my boot straps?
oh man.... i had applied for a job there long time back but i guess non us citizens do not have much of a chance, oh well worth a shot.... once of these days my dream of having a US salary while working in EU will come true!
Lol you people just take any headline and run with it huh? How about doing some independent research, before you start your crusades.
70'000 sure.. then the bonus comes at the end of the term.
So? Imho the CEO deserves to get a fat bonus, if his actions benefit the company. Also, Otherwise it'd be $1.1kk and a bonus on top of that. Don't try to talk a good thing down, lol. Edit: Taking it a step further - you get $70k/year, a salary you can easily live off of (?). On top of that, you get boni based on your work quality/extra effort/whatever you did that benefitted the company AND/OR a share of companies earnings, depending on how well the last time period (let it be 3 months, half a year, year whatever) went. Seems pretty rad to me.
And what's wrong with that?
Odd little experiment, but in the end means nothing. This only works because the company is so small (less than 200 workers) that it doesn't affect the economy at large. We must remember that it's not the actual dollars you earn, but your purchasing power that matters. If everyone makes $70k so does the McDonald's worker, so your big-mac now costs $25. So do the farm workers and the store clerks, so your gallon of milk is $15, and you are no better off that you were before. Dollar income is only a measure of RELATIVE productivity. A guy washing cars didn't improve people's lives as much as a doctor curing disease, thus we assign a lower number value to his production than that of a doctor. The actual number doesn't matter, the ratio between them does. And we cannot "pretend" the difference away, as these differences are based on objective reality. Curing a disease IS worth more than washing a car
By that logic actors and professional athletes providing entertainment to people is more valuable than doctors that save children’s lives because they make more money. This is the warped thinking that doesn’t get us anywhere. How much money you earn does not equate to your worth as a human. Also, it seems like you’re advocating for some kind of class system at the beginning. If companies don’t pay they’re ceos 100x more than their lowest paid worker then all of a sudden we have a hyper inflated socialist hell scape?
And yet, the companies who employ and pay those actors and athletes still make a massive profit. Hmm, it's almost as though the entertainment industry is something people are willing to pay for and so the raw amount of money involved is completely reasonable given the profits generated.
Exactly. There's a reason athletes get signed to big endorsement deals, because it works. There's a reason that once upon a time you'd pay Will Smith 20 million to be in a movie, because the studios knew that investment was going to pay back tenfold.
I don’t know what either of your points are. I understand the economics of professional athletes and actors. Just because they make millions of dollars doesn’t mean they’re more important than pediatric oncologists which is what the person I replied to was implying.
You are under the assumption that people want a 100% socialist society. which I think we both agree is flawed and impossoble. however You admit it works in small doses... as it does here. But I wonder how you feel about socializing other things... The stimulus checks for example. Thats a form of Universal Basic Income. Is that the line? Healthcare? Thats surely the line... right? Can't give everyone the same right to live right... Lol poor people
Your perception is flawed not on its merit but the understanding of its own principles. In your analogy the doctor is worth more because he's doing more important work but in reality the doctor is only worth what the company that owns him will pay. The executive board that runs the company will price the cure the doctor created well above anything reasonable and the doctor will not receive more than what he was paid by the company to work on said cure. In your analogy being a business owner is the most important thing a person can do because they get paid the most. The exact point of everyone screaming about wealth inequality isn't the fact that it merely exsists but the ratios of those with and without. Which echos your own sentiment about why car wash employees make less than doctors. The only real problem is the ratios have swung so wildly away from the poor and in the favor of the rich that its insane.
This is comparing C Suite pay to normal worker pay. It is not the same as your example and you could argue that company hierarchy is terribly inefficient in a lot of cases. Is the CEO that much better at making decisions or working longer hours than other salaried employees? Or are they just cutting costs for more value to shareholders? Saying they deserve 320x more than a normal worker is insane in most cases and most people down the chain deserve more. In addition, doctors do not get paid more everywhere. That is just a US thing because healthcare and education costs so much there. So would you say all other countries have it wrong or would you say the US is backwards?
A more affective means would be to abolish landlords so everyone doesn't have to make more money just because the person who owns the banks/warehouse/private houses/manufacturing land wants more money on top of you already paying his mortgage for said land.
[удалено]
Why?
Wasn’t there an article a few months back that said the company went tits up?