"
The much celebrated Seattle CEO, Dan Price, who set his companies minimum salary at $70,000.00 is reportedly
fallen in hard times."
In a video segment on The New York Times which accompanies an in-depth story on Price, the executive — oddly appearing in his garage seated on a bucket — says things are rough right now.
“I am working as hard as I’ve ever worked to try to make it work,” says Price. “I am renting out my house right now to try to make ends meet myself. I haven’t made this little amount of money since I was in my early 20s.” Price has an estimated net worth of $3 million.
The 31-year-old Price, who cut his salary and bonus of more than $1 million to $70,000 in April, is facing heavy legal costs after his brother and Gravity Payments co-founder, Lucas, sued him in King County Superior Court.
“Among other wrongdoing, he has improperly used his majority control of the company to pay himself excessive compensation and to deprive Lucas of the benefits of ownership in Gravity Payments,” the suit says.
Meanwhile, in South America... "
Venezuela troops occupy Polar, Nestle food distribution warehouses"
Venezuelan troops occupied a Caracas warehouse complex used by local food giant Empresas Polar and Nestle to distribute food and beverages, workers and company officials said on Thursday.
The move follows months of accusations by President Nicolas Maduro that Polar, the country's largest private employer, is working to sabotage the economy. The company denies this.
Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez expropriated several warehouses from Polar, in some cases arguing that the space should be used to build houses for the poor.
6 comments:
Lefties can add, but subtraction eludes them.
I don't know if it's true, but I heard the other day that a survey asked people what they would prefer: to be paid $100K and be the lowest paid employee at a company, or be paid $90K and be the highest paid. A majority chose the $10K lower figure just for the status of being the highest paid.
That is just stupid, even beyond the lower money. If you are the highest paid, you have less opportunity, and a job that paid $100K at the bottom would be an awesome place to work, don't you think?
Every time I give someone a raise, I piss off 10 other people. There is nothing wrong asking, but I never asked for a raise in my life. My highest paid people also never ask for a raise. I don't know exactly what that means, but it must mean something.
Boy oh boy, did I write something stupid on the internet yesterday. And it was right here on Lem's too. In the post about poor, poor Cecil's brother Jericho, when it was becoming obvious that Jericho might be alive, I put up a smart alecky comment about Jericho typing up Mark Twain quotes on Twitter - that would be the quote about his death being greatly exaggerated if you didn't get it, but I know you did.
And later I felt so stupid because everybody knows that the Big Cats with their Big Paws can't type on a touchscreen or a keyboard. Dummy.
Obviously Jericho would have to work in hardcopy, like Hillary, and set up his PR handouts on a ... on a... No! I can't do it. It will sully Lem's blog. I can't.
Well OK... on a lionotype machine.
I feel so dirty now.
That's a weird set of choices, Bagoh. I can see how people would want status, too, but I'm not all that interested in status. There's also the issue of having more responsibility and while I don't mind a whole lot of responsibility, I'm just as happy to let other people have it instead. There's a lot of stress involved.
And I suppose that's the problem with the "everyone gets $70K" fellow. If it's a starting point and lots of room to move up? Fabulous. If the company is broke and can't afford to pay you $100 if you bust your buns, but only pays you the same $70K as the lowest paid, lowest motivated employee? $70K might still be a good wage, but resentment is going to build up anyway. If you're like me and not interested in status and just as happy not to be the one who gets to make the big mistakes, why work hard at all? Other than self-respect in which case... resentment.
I can't imagine how this could have been a surprise to anyone who'd bothered to think about it.
Guess what happens when you try to equalize everything. Everything becomes worthless. The lefts obsessive compulsive disorder with equalization leaves them completely remiss in the idea that things lose their value when everything becomes the same. Or, it's one of their master plans. In either case, it's evil and this fool foisted his stupidity on himself along with everyone else under his 'watchful' eye.
I wonder if Bags postulate works in other matters.
Would you want to be 7 feet tall on a team of 7 footers, or would you rather be 6'-6" on a team of 6-0" footers?
Would you want to be attractive in a society where everyone is equally attractive, or would you want to have above average looks in a society where everyone has average looks?
Would you want to be a genius at a university of equal geniuses, or would you like to have an above average IQ at a university of average IQ students?
Post a Comment