Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 1st Aug 2015 11:12 UTC
In the News

Three months ago, Mr. Price, 31, announced he was setting a new minimum salary of $70,000 at his Seattle credit card processing firm, Gravity Payments, and slashing his own million-dollar pay package to do it. He wasn't thinking about the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor, he said. He was just thinking of the 120 people who worked for him and, let's be honest, a bit of free publicity. The idea struck him when a friend shared her worries about paying both her rent and student loans on a $40,000 salary. He realized a lot of his own employees earned that or less.

Yet almost overnight, a decision by one small-business man in the northwestern corner of the country became a swashbuckling blow against income inequality.

Whether you support his actions or not, ask yourself this question: what does it say about our society that a young man slashing his own salary to increase that of his employees draws more ire than a CEO raising his own salary to 70 times that of an average employee?

Most mystifying of all, though, are the employees leaving because their coworkers got a pay raise to $70000, while they themselves already earned $70000. I don't understand this mindset. You still have your salary. You still get your $70000, except now your fellow men and women on the work floor also get it. Is your self-worth really derived from earning more than the people around you? Is your sense of self really dictated by how much more you earn than Jim from accounting or Alice from engineering?

Maybe I'm just too Dutch and too little American to understand this mindset, but I firmly believe this world would be a massively better place if more CEOs cut their own salaries to raise that of their employees.

Thread beginning with comment 615309
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Matthew 20:1-16
by Langalf on Mon 3rd Aug 2015 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Matthew 20:1-16"
Member since:

How about the parable of the talents?

Using the bible as an authority to make a point is insane.

Funny, my first thought when I read the article was exactly this Biblical parable of the workers. Citing it is not about authority, but literary precedent. Granted, Jesus was making an "insane" comparison between God's grace and a work-a-day situation his listeners could relate to. That being said, verses 13-15 speak very directly to Mr. Price's action.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Matthew 20:1-16
by cfgr on Mon 3rd Aug 2015 15:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Matthew 20:1-16"
cfgr Member since:

Insane in the sense that one might think a biblical story is a valid argument to sway the debate. It's no different that "Person A once said so, therefore it's true". I should have worded that a bit differently.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Matthew 20:1-16
by Kondor337 on Tue 4th Aug 2015 17:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Matthew 20:1-16"
Kondor337 Member since:

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: When I read the article, I immediately thought of the parable, just like Langalf. And I was very surprised that noone had mentioned it yet. I did not want to imply that it's necessarily right. But it's certainly interesting that the bible had to say something about this topic.

Reply Parent Score: 1