Remember the company that instituted a $70,000 minimum wage? Profits have doubled.

[beero1000]

Here's What Really Happened at That Company That Set a $70,000 Minimum Wage

Six months after Price's announcement, Gravity has defied doubters. Revenue is growing at double the previous rate. Profits have also doubled. Gravity did lose a few customers: Some objected to what seemed like a political statement that put pressure on them to raise their own wages; others feared price hikes or service cutbacks. But media reports suggesting that panicked customers were fleeing have proved false. In fact, Gravity's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent in the second quarter. Only two employees quit -- a nonevent.

The 20 percent raises Price implemented in 2012 were supposed to be a one-time deal. Then something strange happened: Profits rose just as much as the previous year, fueled by a surprising productivity jump -- of 30 to 40 percent. He figured it was a fluke, but he piled on 20 percent raises again the following year. Again, profits rose by a like amount. Baffled, he did the same in 2014 and profits continued to rise, though not quite as much as before, because Gravity had to do more hiring.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

 

[ksen]

Obviously we need to wait to see what happens over the next 3 or 4 years to see if this is sustainable.

But if an employee or two leaves then it's obviously lights out for Gravity with no waiting needed to see how it plays out.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Shouldn't the workers be upset that profits went up and they didn't get that profit in their salary?

We'll see how it goes over time, their was a lawsuit, but that may have gone away. It was a smart marketing gimmick.

 

[ksen]

Shouldn't the workers be upset that profits went up and they didn't get that profit in their salary?

Who's to say they won't if it proves sustainable?

We'll see how it goes over time, their was a lawsuit, but that may have gone away. It was a smart marketing gimmick.

What was a smart marketing gimmick?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Who's to say they won't if it proves sustainable?

We'll see how it goes over time, their was a lawsuit, but that may have gone away. It was a smart marketing gimmick.

What was a smart marketing gimmick?

The raising wages and getting the press from it was the gimmick that worked.

 

[ksen]

Why do you say it was a gimmick?

Sounds pretty jaded.

I've read nothing that indicates Price did this as a marketing or any other kind of "gimmick."

 

[beero1000]

Why do you say it was a gimmick?

Sounds pretty jaded.

I've read nothing that indicates Price did this as a marketing or any other kind of "gimmick."

Not to mention that he'd started implementing large raises a couple of years before the press attention...

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

Unless this one experiment last forever, like all capitalist endeavors, it proves that a tiny few at the top should be paid hundreds of times what others are paid.

We have all these top-down dictatorships.

And amazingly all the dictators are worth hundreds of times what the peasants are worth.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes.

Unless this one experiment last forever, like all capitalist endeavors, it proves that a tiny few at the top should be paid hundreds of times what others are paid.

We have all these top-down dictatorships.

And amazingly all the dictators are worth hundreds of times what the peasants are worth.

Isn't this one company just a company of dictators then? Why should the handful of people working for this company be paid better than the millions at Walmart?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yes.

Unless this one experiment last forever, like all capitalist endeavors, it proves that a tiny few at the top should be paid hundreds of times what others are paid.

We have all these top-down dictatorships.

And amazingly all the dictators are worth hundreds of times what the peasants are worth.

I hate to say it, but top down works.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes.

Unless this one experiment last forever, like all capitalist endeavors, it proves that a tiny few at the top should be paid hundreds of times what others are paid.

We have all these top-down dictatorships.

And amazingly all the dictators are worth hundreds of times what the peasants are worth.

I hate to say it, but top down works.

Everything works. The question is how does it work and for whom? Top down can work when the top is a capable leader and the successive implementors on the lower rungs are competent. Top down does not work when the top is incompetent or the middle managment sucks.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

Unless this one experiment last forever, like all capitalist endeavors, it proves that a tiny few at the top should be paid hundreds of times what others are paid.

We have all these top-down dictatorships.

And amazingly all the dictators are worth hundreds of times what the peasants are worth.

I hate to say it, but top down works.

And in 1776 a lot of people said:

"I hate to say it, but monarchy works."

 

[Harry Bosch]

I hate to say it, but top down works.

Everything works. The question is how does it work and for whom? Top down can work when the top is a capable leader and the successive implementors on the lower rungs are competent. Top down does not work when the top is incompetent or the middle managment sucks.

I don't disagree with you that there are tons of incompetent people. But the issue is that groups (of any size) need a leader. They need someone at the top to make decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

I hate to say it, but top down works.

And in 1776 a lot of people said:

"I hate to say it, but monarchy works."

I doubt that. Even in 1776, there were many groups that didn't have an "emperor". But all successful "groups" need a leader. I can't think of any successful PTA, family, business, or government that lacks someone at the top who isn't empowered to make decisions.

 

[untermensche]

Everything works. The question is how does it work and for whom? Top down can work when the top is a capable leader and the successive implementors on the lower rungs are competent. Top down does not work when the top is incompetent or the middle managment sucks.

I don't disagree with you that there are tons of incompetent people. But the issue is that groups (of any size) need a leader. They need someone at the top to make decisions.

Nobody ever said that leadership shouldn't be encouraged. Leaders are good until they are dictators.

What people object to is top-down dictatorship.

It is as immoral in the everyday working world as it is in government.

 

[untermensche]

And in 1776 a lot of people said:

"I hate to say it, but monarchy works."

I doubt that. Even in 1776, there were many groups that didn't have an "emperor". But all successful "groups" need a leader. I can't think of any successful PTA, family, business, or government that lacks someone at the top who isn't empowered to make decisions.

You confuse a leader, who is part of a group and leads the group in a good direction, with a dictator that tells the group which direction they are moving.

Usually a direction that best suits the dictator.

 

[Axulus]

I don't disagree with you that there are tons of incompetent people. But the issue is that groups (of any size) need a leader. They need someone at the top to make decisions.

Nobody ever said that leadership shouldn't be encouraged. Leaders are good until they are dictators.

What people object to is top-down dictatorship.

It is as immoral in the everyday working world as it is in government.

No it is not at all comparable. The key difference is I voluntarily joined one group and can leave it at any time. When it is government doing it, I neither consented to join the group nor can I leave the group without packing my bags and moving somewhere else (which may not even be possible in some government dictatorships and it might be the case that no other groups/countries will let me join them).

 

[untermensche]

Nobody ever said that leadership shouldn't be encouraged. Leaders are good until they are dictators.

What people object to is top-down dictatorship.

It is as immoral in the everyday working world as it is in government.

No it is not at all comparable. The key difference is I voluntarily joined one group and can leave it at any time. When it is government doing it, I neither consented to join the group nor can I leave the group without packing my bags and moving somewhere else (which may not even be possible in some government dictatorships).

You may be one of the few in American capitalism that can just quit any time you want and suffer nothing because of it.

But for most it would mean hardship and possibly serious hardship.

People are not as "free" as you pretend.

 

[Axulus]

No it is not at all comparable. The key difference is I voluntarily joined one group and can leave it at any time. When it is government doing it, I neither consented to join the group nor can I leave the group without packing my bags and moving somewhere else (which may not even be possible in some government dictatorships).

You may be one of the few in American capitalism that can just quit any time you want and suffer nothing because of it.

But for most it would mean hardship and possibly serious hardship.

People are not as "free" as you pretend.

I said I can quit one group and join another. Capitalism allows for freedom of groups to form as they please with their own rules and membership requirements. You are free to join a communist commune or start one yourself, for example, or be the founder of a town on unincorporated land where the requirement is that all businesses must be co-ops as you envision them with whatever taxation rules you and the other founders deem best.

There are even some places in the US where you can obtain free land and begin creating your utopia with other like-minded people:

http://www.outsideonline.com/1924886/cheapest-land-country

 

[Harry Bosch]

I doubt that. Even in 1776, there were many groups that didn't have an "emperor". But all successful "groups" need a leader. I can't think of any successful PTA, family, business, or government that lacks someone at the top who isn't empowered to make decisions.

You confuse a leader, who is part of a group and leads the group in a good direction, with a dictator that tells the group which direction they are moving.

Usually a direction that best suits the dictator.

Most effective leaders require an incentive to make them rise. If there is no incentive (higher pay or ownership shares) why would anyone want the increase in work that is required of a leader??

 

[untermensche]

You confuse a leader, who is part of a group and leads the group in a good direction, with a dictator that tells the group which direction they are moving.

Usually a direction that best suits the dictator.

Most effective leaders require an incentive to make them rise. If there is no incentive (higher pay or ownership shares) why would anyone want the increase in work that is required of a leader??

That's not true at all.

Leaders lead because it is their nature. To allow them to do it is all the incentive they need.

It is only the dictator that demands the lions share.