CEO Lowers His Salary to $70,000, Raises Employees’ Salaries to $70,000

[ñángara]

http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2015/04/danprice.jpg Dan Price, founder and CEO of Gravity Payments (http://gravitypayments.com/), just announced that he would lower his million-dollar salary to $70,000 in order to pay all of his employees at least $70,000.

Quote:
“They were walking me through the math of making 40 grand a year,” he said, then describing a surprise rent increase or nagging credit card debt. “I hear that every single week,” he added. “That just eats at me inside.”

The NYT reports that the average salary at Gravity Payments, a credit-card processing company, is currently $48,000. The increase to $70,000 will take place over the next three years, and it will include everyone in Gravity Payments’ 120-person staff who is not currently earning over $70K, or approximately 70 employees total.


Why $70,000? Because Price read a PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full) study that correlated $70,000 with happiness. It’s one of those studies that suggests once we earn over a certain salary, more money does not equal more happiness, and Price is ready to test that out—both with his employees, and with himself.



What will it be like to take a ~$930,000 pay cut? Price will probably be able to handle it just fine. The NYT reports that 30-year-old Price lists his “main extravagances” as snowboarding and going to bars, and he drives a 12-year-old Audi that he bartered for.


source: http://thebillfold.com/2015/04/ceo-l...ries-to-70000/ (http://thebillfold.com/2015/04/ceo-lowers-his-salary-to-70000-raises-employees-salaries-to-70000/)

[Creative Destruction]

ok?

[ñángara]

ok?
Well, we're also asking for an equal payment for all... :rolleyes:

[Creative Destruction]

no, we're not. at least, not in this sense.

[Redistribute the Rep]

He still exploits labor. The workers are paid less than the full value of their labor.

And for all we know he just sits on his ass and gets the 70 grand for doing nothing.

[Antiochus]

This isn't the point. Socialism isn't about "equal pay". "Equal pay" is just a byproduct, nothing more. I doubt the CEO "does nothing", regardless he still sits in a position of privileged power over his employees. He makes the decisions of what to produce, who to fire, whose salary to raise and so forth.

I mean, at the very best, this shows that he is a nice guy and has a heart. At worst its just a publicity stunt. People should not be fooled by this.

[Rafiq]

It's not even just that he's still an asshole for exploiting labor and so on. That is as given. What makes this even more atrocious is that this is literally the opposite of what it claims to be, I mean, the company attempts to create a certain image to compete with others - "Oh, we're not like those big corporations" and so forth. What is different about this, than a coffee business starting up that makes itself the antithesis to Starbucks? In case people weren't aware, Starbucks owed much of its success to precisely painting itself as this - not like those greedy and inconsiderate corporations who care only for profit and so on.

It's the ultimate irony of postmodern capitalism: Authenticity, and faux anti-capitalism is in high demand, making yourself seem like the opposite of what you are is economically attractive to people. In effect, this is reinforcing what is claimed to being opposed in an even worse way.

[MarxSchmarx]

I could have sworn there was a passage in the manifesto about precisely this sort of thing.

[Armchair Partisan]

Great! In that case, I'm sure he won't mind the collectivization of the means of production either.:) And if he does, then this is just a pretentious PR move, anyway.

[ñángara]

I could have sworn there was a passage in the manifesto about precisely this sort of thing.
It's a kind of "protoMarxism": utopian (or even "naÏve") socialism. Germans call it frühsozialismus = "premature or early" socialism :lol:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Premature" socialism in one company, apparently. Socialism isn't "equal pay", socialism is the abolition of pay.

[ñángara]

"Premature" socialism in one company...
Owens tried his socialism in one commune: "New Harmony". Charles Fourier invented the concept of phalanstère (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanst%C3%A8re). CEO Price might be a "naive socialist" :)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And neither Owen nor Fourier thought that wage labour would exist in their utopian communities. Of course, that's nonsense, wage labour can't be abolished in one community - but it does place them miles above this sort of "equal pay" petit-bourgeois reformism. The aforementioned gentleman is a member of the bourgeoisie who has found a new way to promote his company. Good for him. In any case, he probably gets more in dividends than he gets as the CEO, so "lowering" his salary doesn't mean anything.

[Tim Cornelis]

And for all we know he just sits on his ass and gets the 70 grand for doing nothing.

It's a CEO, not an owner. CEOs usually work 60 hours per week.

[Lord Testicles]

CEOs usually work 60 hours per week.

Source?

[consuming negativity]

communists around the world could storm government buildings and hang reactionaries and you all would still find some way to paint it as absolutely terrible

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's a CEO, not an owner.
He's also the company's co-owner.

[RedWorker]

communists around the world could storm government buildings and hang reactionaries and you all would still find some way to paint it as absolutely terrible

Unless required for social revolution, people are being killed and capitalism would not be weakened. Why would we find that good? Taking over buildings would be good though.

[Tim Cornelis]

Source?

Toegepaste Organisatiekunde (Applied Organisation Studies I guess?), Fifth edition, Peter Thuis.

Translated "work weeks of over sixty hours are often not an exception" p. 87. about top-level managers.


He's also the company's co-owner.

Still, many socialists have this weird idea that top-level managers don't work hard. It stems from the idea that capitalists don't work, but as Engels already pointed out in 1887(?), all social functions of the bourgeoisie are now being performed by salaried employees (top-level management, CFOs, CEOs), but these are still very necessary and such managers work very hard. The bourgeoisie is superfluous, as Engels says, but the salaried employees aren't. An owner doesn't have to work, but a manger does. And if a manager is also an owner, then that person still has to work.

[Lord Testicles]

Toegepaste Organisatiekunde (Applied Organisation Studies I guess?), Fifth edition, Peter Thuis.

Translated "work weeks of over sixty hours are often not an exception" p. 87. about top-level managers.

Does he establish what this "work" entails? I'm asking because there is a difference between "a work week of 60 hours" and "working a 60 hour week."

[consuming negativity]

Unless required for social revolution, people are being killed and capitalism would not be weakened. Why would we find that good? Taking over buildings would be good though.

LMFAO

yeah i have no idea how global communist revolution would be a good thing if not even the professed communists are in favor of it

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

communists around the world could storm government buildings and hang reactionaries and you all would still find some way to paint it as absolutely terrible

This is just some yuppie CEO with an extremely punchable face (seriously the guy looks like Russel Brand) advertising his company.

I mean it's nice that the workers got a raise but I'm not going to praise the guy as an "unconscious socialist" just for that.

[Invader Zim]

It would be an interesting experiment to see if this company becomes more productive and the dividend to shareholders increases accordingly. Others have brought up Robert Owen, one of the interesting results of New Lanark was that the factory became increasingly productive when run on proto-socialist principles.

Ultimately, under capitalism, businesses exist to make money - however, I've never been convinced by the claims that Machiavellian and Fordist business practises actually produce optimum productivity and profit.

[Tim Cornelis]

Does he establish what this "work" entails? I'm asking because there is a difference between "a work week of 60 hours" and "working a 60 hour week."

Translated: "An average topmanager looks at 36 post items a day, has five phone conversations, and eight meetings. His free time is also mostly spent on activities related to his work. Think of reading professional journals, eating with and maintaining contact with business partners ... ". And then what do they do, 'ten roles', "figurehead"; "leader"; "connections"; "monitoring"; spreading information; "spokesperson"; "entrepreneur"; "resolver"; "distributor of resources"; "negotiator". These tasks are necessary in healthy businesses, although I suppose they don't need all be concentrated in the same function.

I suspect that because their work is mostly 'administrative' and not productive you don't consider it "work" proper, but administrative functions and tasks are still necessary for reproducing business activity and capital accumulation.

[Lord Testicles]

I suspect that because their work is mostly 'administrative' and not productive you don't consider it "work" proper, but administrative functions and tasks are still necessary for reproducing business activity and capital accumulation.

Not at all. Just my (admittedly limited) experience of management is of people who get paid more and do fuck all work, like litereally playing on a vita for eight hours, and people I know have had similar if not worse experiences with their management. So forgive me if I take the claim that the guy at the top is "working" longer than most with a fucking barrel of salt.

[cyu]

No matter how enlightened a single slave owner is, the question is who is the agent of change.

If slaves are taught to dream of an enlightened slave owner, if the faithful are taught to wait for a savior, if followers are taught to wait for the decisions of great leaders, then they've been indoctrinated to surrender their own ability to create change.

That is the status quo protecting itself.

[Bala Perdida]

I'm inclined not to care if a CEO lowers their salary. Their struggle is over anyways. Not much of a sacrifice at that point.

[Prof. Oblivion]

CEO's have equity in the company. Their salary is what they are living on while they work to appreciate the value of their equity. His salary is the same as the rest of his employees but he's still getting substantial ROI based on his equity.

[Comrade Jacob]

"Socialism" in one company lol

[Diirez]

I haven't looked into this enough but he was probably making a lot a lot of money before lowering his salary. It's all good that he lowered his salary to bring up his employees but he could afford to do that. He probably has a lot of money in the bank account just waiting. So he's definitely not hurting from this.

[Troika]

Sure, as a bandaid. Not like this, though. I'm sure he's a nice guy, as far as capitalists go, but this changes little. It's just more of that rebranded capitalism with a nice face that ends up making people think capitalism can be equitable. It can't, at least not in any meaningful way. I honestly see this kind of thing as more of a problem than a solution.

[Ocean Seal]

I think you guys are missing an opportunity here. Imagine, if we managed to do this with all companies is something worth telling people :) Workers do like this kind of CEO, don't fight it, embrace the logical conclusion of it. Imagine what kind of world we could have if we forced the CEO's to redistribute wealth.

[Antiochus]

I think you guys are missing an opportunity here. Imagine, if we managed to do this with all companies is something worth telling people :) Workers do like this kind of CEO, don't fight it, embrace the logical conclusion of it. Imagine what kind of world we could have if we forced the CEO's to redistribute wealth.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTE7HTXAPV_Xvo2XUNztt2v2_0LlPyq4 wFN1cuz-uBhduc3icb-Ww

[Vogel]

Still, many socialists have this weird idea that top-level managers don't work hard. It stems from the idea that capitalists don't work, but as Engels already pointed out in 1887(?), all social functions of the bourgeoisie are now being performed by salaried employees (top-level management, CFOs, CEOs), but these are still very necessary and such managers work very hard. The bourgeoisie is superfluous, as Engels says, but the salaried employees aren't. An owner doesn't have to work, but a manger does. And if a manager is also an owner, then that person still has to work.

Very different kinds of work. Workers make the profit, make the wealth, and Owners manage the wealth. They both require effort, and intelligence and energy, of course, but the manager's work is exploiting and maintaining the system of exploitation by managing the profit and the workers (Ie. How long a bathroom break can be, the pay to the worker, the investment of the profit, the number of hours of work).