This CEO gave his lowest-paid employees huge raises and it made some people angry

[Agschmid]

[center][/center]

Three months ago, a Seattle businessman had an epiphany. Dan Price was the CEO and co-owner of a Gravity Payments, and he concluded that everyone in the company — including him — would be happier if he took a big pay cut and used the money to give his lowest-paid employees big raises. So he instituted a new policy where within three years, every employee in the company would make at least $70,000 per year. For some employees, that meant tens of thousands of dollars in raises.

You might think this was a win-win situation for everyone. A bunch of employees got raises. Price thought he'd get more satisfaction from helping his employees than from making more money himself. No one else's salary went down.

But as the New York Times reports, the plan made a lot of people upset. Most upset were employees who were already making salaries near the new $70,000 minimum. They felt that giving formerly much lower-paid employees the same salary as them deprived them of their status as highly-paid employees. Two employees even quit in protest after the raises were announced.

Also upset were some of Price's peers in the business community. They felt the $70,000 salary minimum was unrealistic, and they worried that they'd now face pressures for higher wages from their own employees.

Read what happened next.

[Thinkingabout]

1. See sometimes you just cant make all happy.

[Agschmid]

2. Wage compression, even my employees are having issues as we raise wages.

[Fawke Em]

4. Wage compression or the need for some humans

to think they're better than others?

[Agschmid]

6. It's likely a bit of both, but it's interesting to see.

[Fawke Em]

8. I just can't imagine.

And I'm sure those who were making more to begin with are still making more.

[Springslips]

42. The only legit gripe. . .

Would be if you worked longer and harder than the min employees and suddenly they were making the same as you for less work, shorter hours. Unfortunately, too often it the case the mim employees work harder.

[Fawke Em]

3. Idiots.

Pride goeth before a fall.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Always got to have someone to look down on...

I love the fact that one of the people who quit was a 26 year old who was ticked she'd spent 5 years with the company and now other folks might make what she did. When I as working in IT, I basically only got raises when the boss hired someone new on, because no one else was willing to work as cheaply as I was. So when he got desperate enough to hire someone else on, I got a pay raise to match my salary to the new hire's salary.

[flobee1]

29. Boo freakin hoo

Those folks need to worry less about what others make and focus on themselves. I have worked at the same place for 6 years and make 53 cents more than starting salary. I would jump for joy ti have a job that paid 70k/year. And, if a co-worker of mine recieved a raise to get to that level, i would be happy for them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Exactly.

If you're making 70k a year, your happiness should be in how well you do your job, and how much you can do with that much money in your leisure time.

[Hoyt]

7. Good ole American greed.

[Ilsa]

9. Pay is an emotional issue.

And I can understand the frustration of people who left the company because they had spent years helping to build it and made sacrifices to get ahead. They are envious of the rewarding of those who had not made those sacrifices.

Perhaps if the owner had offered additional compensation in the form of stock or bonuses, those in the mid-management and upper-level management would not have felt advantage had been taken of them.

[niyad]

49. and how do you know that the ones on the low end of the scale

have not put in the same time, or made similar sacrifices?

[Ilsa]

62. I don't. But that was an assumption made by

One of the upset middle managers. I was just reflecting their attitude, whether it had merit or not.

I think they are ridiculous to actually whine about this situation after they've had time to digest it.

[Alfalfa]

53. +1

[SheilaT]

10. Interesting.

I wonder if the employees who left in protest were able to find jobs that paid as well.

More owners should be like this guy.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. I could see the salary structure working against them in negotiating with a new employer.

"Mr X, I see you made $70,000 at your previous position and are seeking $75,000. But isn't it true that all personnel at your previous company made $70,000 at a minimum? That seems like it may be an artificial starting point."

[Alfalfa]

61. +1

[hollysmom]

12. I worked at a company tha didn't pay all that mucht

but we got raises every 3 months for the first few years after I worked there a year, they hired new employees, but at what we earned after a year. So we, who all had to get trained would now earn what new hires earned. They didn't do it out od sweetness, we were jsut not earning enough,. They also told those new employees not to tell anyone what they made,. of course that did not last, Yes, we were pissed off, but this had nothing to do with minimum pay in the company,they just wanted to raise new hires and screwed us, like we wer all coning to get rich on 5100 a year. Iould have made almost twice as much as a secretary. Yeah I admit to being pissed.

[Agschmid]

14. What's annying to me is sometimes you have to leave and come back to make more $$$.

[hollysmom]

23. Ha I have friends that did that,.

I only did it for contract work, repeat clients.

[X_Digger]

13. Was he just looking to lower the inequality between him & the peons?

If I'd worked there for years, busting ass to get merit raises, having some lackluster schmuck breeze past me would sting.

[jtuck004]

15. I know.That sucks. They could eat every day. Or send their kids to college. Here you were

enjoying patting yourself on the back, measuring your worth by their deprivation, and the evil CEO goes and gets all co-op.

It's so hard to only think about one's self when these friggin' socialist types start running amuck, isn't it?

[X_Digger]

22. Busting my ass, while Jimmy-finger-up-his-nose over there surfs porn all day..

And suddenly he's making the same as me? Why bother doing anything other than the minimum. I worked hard to get there, and bro-dude in the next cube who constantly talks about 'reps', 'sets', and his 'lats' instead of working makes as much as me?

Yeah, no.

If you can't be compensated for your contributions then why do more than the absolute minimum.

The CEO could have given everyone a raise with the same amount of money, but been much more fair. Unless you're one of the lazy slobs who phone it in every day.. then that would suck.

[jtuck004]

24. You are so busy yet have time to stick your higher-paid nose into Jimmy's biz?

They pay you to do that or something that you are slacking off on. Good, 'cause Jimmy's cousin, Sally-finger-in-her-ear is qualified and looking for a job like yours - because in hers they have been paying people like you more money for the same work that she has been doing for years.

So if you want to complain, darlin', you gonna have to stand in line.

[X_Digger]

37. Lol, you haven't a clue about life in a modern fishbowl office, have you?

Or even worse, a 'bullpen' set-up.

You can't help but overhear what everyone else is doing / talking about. It's supposed to foster good examples and encourage self-policing. It really doesn't.

And hey, I can chew gum and walk at the same time, too. I can bust ass and still pay attention to the shit going on around me.

Can't you?

[jtuck004]

44. But you are showing how selfish you are. All this time you have been getting paid more than women

for doing the same work, you haven't said jack shit about how you are making out better than they are. Feel free to jump into the women's group here and tell them how that doesn't happen. lol.

But when it gets to you, and equalizing things a bit, oh man, here's a problem. Some people would see that as being hypocritical, two-faced.

I know that fishbowl very well, yet you know nothing about my past. Otoh, we have your self-important writings to learn about yours.

I'm gonna find other things to do. You enjoy yourself.

[X_Digger]

47. Keep your fingers out of my mouth. My words come out just fine without help.

(Besides, I don't know where you've scratched.)

Why not limit yourself to things I've actually said, not things that you wish I'd said, so that you can score points, eh?

I've been working harder than Jimmy-finger-up-his-nose. Who said anything about the same work? *looks around*

Nice deflection, though. Keanu's got nothing on you.

[kcr]

70. If you've been working so hard, then you shouldn't have had enough energy

to be worrying about what anyone else is doing. Sorry.

[X_Digger]

76. Second verse, same as the first.

Try working in a bullpen and NOT knowing who's screwing whom, who's got baby-daddy issues, who's a chronic amazon.com shoe shopper, who shares waaaay inappropriate selfies..

You'd have to be a brain-dead zombie to not know what's going on around you.

[kcr]

81. Pure projection. Some people don't care about everyone else's business

And think they know everyone else's business just because they're nosy and listen in, and then judge because they've got nothing better to do.

[X_Digger]

83. I see you've never actually worked a bullpen.

It's an interesting experience- in the same way that getting the helicopter ride from being bitten by an exotic poisonous snake and air lifted to the hospital is interesting.

It takes effort to NOT hear what everyone is doing. THAT's effort I don't have to spare, if I'm kicking ass and taking names, doing my job.

Mileage may vary. If you can turn your ears off and placidly ignore someone yammering about their goddamned ingrown toenail or their mother-in-law's shitty cooking, then more power to you.

[kcr]

85. I'm not surprised you'd jump right to a conclusion

And just assume I'd never done something. Is that what you do when you're listening in on your co-workers?

[X_Digger]

86. The idiot on the cell phone in line with you in the grocery store talking about his follicles..

do you not hear that, either?

*shakes my head*

[kcr]

87. You don't hear me advocating for the grocery store to reduce his groceries

do you? I'm not blabbing about how much harder I work for my groceries so I should get more.

[X_Digger]

89. I'm just wondering how you can ignore the blather around you, if, as you say, you've worked bullpens

It takes no effort to have some schmuck rattle off his cholesterol numbers in the next cube while you're trying to concentrate. Really, it doesn't.

If I have worked harder than you, shouldn't I get more than you? If you've sold X widgets, and I've sold 2X widgets, are you saying we should make the same? If I have ten accounts that I'm managing and you three, we should be paid the same?

If so, that's bullshit. If I bust my ass and perform better, I expect to be paid better. If I've worked there longer, have a better education, and/or a proven track record, I damned well better be paid commensurate to those facts.

I have no problem with someone doing the same level of work I am being paid the same. But some fuckwit who can't be bothered to come in on time, spends 1/3 of every hour either smoking, talking around the water cooler, hitting on the receptionist, or in the bathroom? Yeah, no.

[Bonx]

27. I do think he can pay his employees as he sees fit.

But I'd quit too if someone less educated, with less time at the company, performing a less skilled job, with less stress, and working less hours made the same money as me.

[Positrons]

32. Some folks seem to think that makes you a terrible person...

Last edited Mon Aug 3, 2015, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

[kcr]

71. People who have a bias against lower paid workers may not be the worst in the world

But it is a flaw. And it's pretty ridiculous to quit a job for that reason. It's just cutting off ones nose to spite their face.

[niyad]

50. so all the ones on the lower end of the scale are lackluster

schmucks? wow. . . .just. . .wow. . .

[X_Digger]

60. You're the second person to pull words out of my mouth that I didn't say. Stop that.

Perhaps the people at the bottom are new, inexperienced, not motivated, not performing, or just plain.. lackluster schmucks.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, it could be a combination.

But nice try, I'd give it a 4/10 for effort.

[niyad]

68. and I give 0/10 for trying to pretend that you did not say what is clearly there in print for

all to see, in all your responses in this thread.

[X_Digger]

74. Yes, those with reading comprehension can see exactly what I wrote, without edits.

Others.. apparently not.

[niyad]

75. keep trying.

[X_Digger]

77. I don't have to. You're the one making an intimation. Please continue, governor. n/t

[Skittles]

94. I understand what you are saying, X_Digger

absolutely I do

[freshwest]

16. Reminds me of a couple of things:

First, ACA Medicaid expansion.

Those who had means to buy expensive private insurance, and used the ACA to reduce their rates were happy. Those who didn't get a big break, or couldn't afford plans, were ticked off. They weren't going to be helped by Medicaid expansion and did not talk about that.

For those who did qualify, some of whom had never had benefits or insurance, and were getting behind healthwise, it was a life saver. Not being able to afford insurance anymore, even though I once had full insurance and a job that paid about fifty grand in the eighties, at times I wish that I now qualified for it. No way I'm gonna get it.

Do I resent those who get it? No, because they never had the years of higher income I had. I help people (for free) that qualify when I'm able to get about.

I think this is the reason we saw the baggers running nuts over the ACA. Remember this?



They figured their coverage was sacrosanct, those Other people, not so much. Mememe!

Second, this still holds true from Matthew 20, The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

No matter what the workers who had been there longer thought, possibly built the business up and felt they should get more, they did not contract for more.

Apparently there is no union at his place, no one negotiating pay grades. They are his employees. They are not owners or if there is one, likely not on the board of directors. If they think someone else will pay them above $70K, they can go for it.

Not saying I agree with this kind of arbitrary action the man did. But this is the environment that many live in, and a lot of those people wouldn't join a union to negotiate a fair wage scale if their lives depended on it. Some I know regard themselves almost as entrepreneurs of self-employed or have been taiught that way.

Perhaps they are right. But their complaining may or may not yield them anything. Just my 2¢.

YMMV.

[LynneSin]

17. I read this and I knew there would be issues but I knew he meant well.

first $70k is a great salary but some people could work decades in a company until they get that kind of pay. So for those who had worked had for years to get to $70k, how do you think they would feel knowing those who had been there less years would be paid the same.

I think if he was to adjust the salary of those who weren't making that much money then he should have also given nice raises to those who were making $70k, maybe give everyone over $70k a 10k raise too.

[Agschmid]

18. When we raise the minimum as a country it's going to be interesting to see how we...

address wage compression.

I'm happy to see wages go up, but this will become a bigger issue.

[LynneSin]

38. If we go to $15/hr that's $31,2000 a year which is is a nice bump from $15,080 (7.25)

$33.65/hr is what $70k a year looks like. That is a huuuuuge leap.

And as a country I'm not sure we'd get to $15/hr straight away. Might go in bumps to get businesses adjusted.

[melm00se]

43. yup

my buddy's daughter point this out in a facebook post:

I went to college so that I could get a fulfilling career. And now, a person who takes your order at McDonald's will be paid almost as much as I will as a teacher with a college degree.

[HughBeaumont]

67. And that's America's problem right there.

We're too busy saying "Why doesn't that person's life suck more than mine does? I need to know I'm better than someone!" instead of asking "Why is everyone, degreed or non-degreed, being paid so horribly??"

[frylock]

88. So what's stopping her from going to McDonald's for all that easy money?

[valerief]

19. Feelings hurt vs. giving more money to meet the costs of food/rent/meds?

Gee, it's so tough to decide who to help. I mean, it might be worth letting someone go hungry so as not to hurt another's feelings. Right? Right. In Bizarro World.

[4dsc]

20. cry me a river

Good riddance to those who left.

[hifiguy]

55. This.

Fuck the whiny little snots with a three-pronged hay hook.

[threethirteen]

21. I'm curious to know how long the low wage earners had been working for the company. nt

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 04:04 AM - Edit history (1)

[SheilaT]

25. Another point about wages and pay scales.

Many companies forbid employees to tell each other how much they are making. Huge mistake. I recall reading many years ago (as in at least 40 years ago) that employees in companies where the pay scales were open to all, were actually more satisfied than those whose companies kept it all secret.

For ten years I was an airline employee. Our pay scales were open to all, so we all knew how much each other made, allowing for differences due to overtime and shift differential. I can tell you there was no resentment about wages. To repeat, we all knew what each other made.

[a la izquierda]

33. Interesting.

I'm a university professor for a state university. All of our salaries are open information. THere's a lot of resentment, because you have finance and law professors making well (WELL) over six figures while people like me, in the humanities, make an average of about $50,000 and are barely able to make ends meet in our very expensive college town.

[SheilaT]

39. In the airlines, everyone made pretty much the same,

allowing for increases with time on the job. And overtime. We tended to have lots of overtime. This was at the airport.

Also, when I was there every year the pay scales went up across the board. You maxed out at the ten year point.

There were differences between airlines, and some paid more than others, although the less-well paid ones would try to play catch-up, and they offered better travel benefits, which for me was the single most important reason to have that job.

[virginia mountainman]

26. You think their is howling now about that, wait till the folks that make $15 to $20 an hour...

Feel if $15 or so becomes the new minimum wage...

They will be the ones to see there costs go up, without any compensation.

[SoCalDem]

28. The CEO could have done it differently if he had not wanted media attention

All he needed to do was to have private interviews with each employee and tell them in confidence what he planned to do and why..and to ask them to not broadcast their raises. The only people who needed to know was the CFO and the payroll department.

Most companies that are not unionized do not broadcast what each employee makes, and most employees are not sharing their salaries.

[gollygee]

30. Why are people mean spirited like this

If someone else makes $70,000, your $70,000 doesn't start to have less value.

[Go Vols]

69. exactly

[a la izquierda]

34. I have a PhD and won't see $70000...

I hope people remember that when they complain about tuition costs. Good for these folks making $70000. Your child's history, English, and foreign language professors don't make anywhere near that on average and many are on federal and state assistance. I live in an exceptionally expensive city in a very poor state, so I'm barely scraping by.

[Agschmid]

41. Yup.

We completely under pay the people teaching future generations.

[TM99]

35. This guy is acting emotionally and not rationally.

I am sorry someone has to say it.

There is nothing wrong with him saying "I am now paying our lowest wage earners $70,000." That sounds great, but it is optics only, and short sighted in the end.

He is also saying other things that are not great, like "I am now paying $70,000 for something that everywhere else is worth $40,000," "I am going to arbitrarily without warning make dramatic changes to the financial compensation plan of all employees," and "Whatever we are selling, I have decided that a media stunt is better." Any employee smart enough to see these as well will be leaving because the company itself is in trouble.

His biggest mistake is trying to set a wage floor. There is a very good reason why the federal minimum wage is done in small increments over a period of time and not in a single large pay scale offset. Make the changes at a slower pace and small enough to get lost in the margin between the wage floor and median income and it is mostly invisible. It just becomes part of the cost of living, and everyone gets their fair share in time. But do it all at once like this guy did and it is no longer invisible. People do notice. And they get upset.

Why? Well, yesterday the education, experience, and responsibilities I have in my job are worth $80,000. Now, the fresh college graduate with no experience and less education is making the same as me. My salary is instantly devalued. If this happened on a grand scale, this devaluation would be accompanied by a real rise in prices everywhere. My $80,000 salary would now buy me less, much less in very real terms.

OK, so back to this company. The longest term employees are now going to leave. That leaves junior level employees without the same level of experience in charge of the entire operation. There is now a leadership and executive management vacuum. That is not good for any company.

I think this CEO could have done it much differently had he thought about the consequences of his actions beyond the narcissistic appeal of the brief media buzz. He could have calculated a gentle downward sliding scale for a fixed percentage increase and then given it to everyone. The remainder could then have been setup in a profit sharing scheme for all employees. Doing it this way he could have created the same positive effect for his employees without alienating the higher earners. It would also have sounded more rationale to customers that are now rightly concerned with his current actions. He also would have had a better chance of getting something like this approved by the entire board. As it stands, he is now going to be sued by his brother which threatens only the employees. He may lose his company, sure, but he is still worth millions. They are not.

There is real income inequality in this country. This type of silly stunt will make it harder to make the real changes necessary to fix some of it. Hell, even Sanders recognizes that the minimum wage of $15.00 an hour must be done incrementally between now and 2020. I am just not impressed by this man's actions at all.

[elehhhhna]

36. one 26 year old w 5 year there

Who made just under 70 is quoted. She got the raise too btw. A butthurt generation whatever. As a headhunter this doesn't surprise me. Lol.

[geek tragedy]

40. He should gave given everyone a raise.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. "they worried that they'd now face pressures for higher wages from their own employees"

Poor dears! My heart just bleeds for them.

[Bettie]

46. Interesting

I would not have thought that on a supposedly liberal site that the assumption by so many is that the lower wage workers were automatically all too lazy or too uneducated to receive higher compensation.

The assumption seems to be "I am worth X because I am a hard worker and more talented than the person who makes Y."

I'd expect that from my Republican relatives, not from here.

Me, I'm just happy that more people are making a good wage and able to improve their lives.

If your "status" in your job comes from being paid more than Wally over there, then you've got some real problems. Just do your job, let Wally do his and everyone profits in the end.

[niyad]

51. sadly, that attitude is no longer surprising

[Bettie]

58. People have become small

and mean of spirit. Even on this side of the political divide. Sad.

[Travis_0004]

52. The fact is some people have taken steps to earn more money.

I have a masters degree and I am a CPA. I have a lot of responsibility at my job. I make decisions every day that I can be held criminally liable for. A supervuse several accountants and report to the CFO.

I would not be happy if an entry level accountant with a 2 year degree and no experience made the same as me.

In fact if they wanted to pay the positions the same, Ill apply for that job and have a lot less job. I would also be the best damn entry level accountant the company ever had.

So I can understand why people get upset about wage compreasion

[kcr]

72. Why not?

Why do you care what another person makes? There are people who make far more money than you do who haven't lifted a finger their entire lives. Millions of them. And you are making assumptions about that person's education, abilities and time and work put in. You don't know.

It makes no sense for one working class to keep another working class down, effectively keeping the entire working class down, thus enriching even more that very class that barely has to work at all.

[Travis_0004]

73. Where is the motivatuon to try harder?

Im not going to bust my ass for the same pay as ab entry level employee. I would be ok if the pay was the same, I would just switch to the entry level position.

If they offered me a promotion without a raise, I would refuse, as would most people I assume, so eventually they would have to offer more money to people in higher positions if they want talented employees.

[kcr]

79. What is it any business of yours?

How do you know what is motivating anyone else? And why do you think you get to decide how others are rewarded for their motivation? Seriously? What if someone is so naturally gifted that they don't even need to motivate themselves? It just comes naturally? What if they enjoy it so much that they need no motivation? Should they not get compensated? In other words, so what?

It seems to me that people like you should not get to blow up the middle class just to prop up your sense of entitlement.

[mythology]

65. That education costs money and time

It's a matter of basically saying that the people who took out those student loans and took the time to get a degree wasted their time. It says the people who have already worked those hours wasted their time.

Yes going to college and learning is a reward in and of itself, but it also helps pay bills. Not every job is worth an arbitrary $70,000 a year. Just because we are on a liberal website doesn't actually make us all communists who think everybody should be financially rewarded in exactly the same amount.

I think it's safe to say most people here believe in a livable wage. $70,000 in most places is well past a livable wage. It's significantly over the median income. It's not a matter of being jealous of somebody else's financial windfall. It's valuing your own time and effort and money. It's saying that those mean something.

And if we go by your theory that just do your job, let Wally do his and everyone profits in the end, why not just raise everybody's salary to $100,000 or $500,000? At some point, that isn't financially viable, the company goes out of business and then nobody profits. Is $70,000 that point for this company? Probably not, but I don't know their books. Also, what other financially unconventional moves is he making if he's doing this?

It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

[Bettie]

66. As assumption that people who make less than 70K a year

are uneducated is another fallacy.

Plenty of people who have degrees are making low wages for a variety of reasons.

I have a degree and I don't feel that it makes me better than someone who doesn't. I have never expected others to make less because of my having a degree.

The man who owns the company is trying to make everyone's lives better. He went about it in a way that made sense to him. No one is demanding that the entire country do that, this is one company where the guy in charge decided to be a human being instead of a Koch brother type.

Seems that there is a faction here who likes that low wage workers can barely make ends meet...I guess it is a strong need to look down on someone. I'm guessing that even an increase in the min wage would be anathema to them, keep those peasants in the dirt where they belong!

[Marr]

48. That's the US class war in a nutshell.

You can always count on two groups to attack the poor-- the very, very wealthy, and the people who are just one rung higher than the poor on the economic ladder.

[DirkGently]

54. Fascinating look into human stupidity.

Look at the bizarre illogic, even in the comments here.

1. He's hurting people who make more than $70k, by not giving them a bump.

The article implies he DID give higher-salaried employees a bump, in that an unhappy employee felt they didn't get "enough" of a bump.

And by the way, so what? Do you suddenly make less if someone else makes more? This is the core illogic here.

2. He shouldn't have made it public.

Why? He wanted to show it could be done, and apparently it could be done. Why wouldn't a company want to advertise raises? It's a sign of financial strength, which is supposed to be a good thing.

Unless, the fear is that the "lie agreed upon" would be revealed, which is that you can pay people more than the average, and the damn world will not explode. Well apparently you can.

Sorry?

3. Now crappy employees will be motivated to stay crappy, and good employees will be motivated to become crappy, because there is less pay differential between them.

Well, no. Low pay doesn't motivate people to work harder, just as high pay doesn't motivate people to work less. That is simply ridiculous.

The actual "logic" going on here is a bit of bad human psychological wiring that's been documented before. People gauge their success not simply by how well they're doing, but by how much "better" they're doing than other people. Asked if they would prefer to live in a world where they made $50,000, and everyone made $25,000, or $100,000 where everyone made $100,000, people often pick the $50,000.

In other words, some people prioritize having more than others over the absolute value of whatever they have themselves.

Stupid.

That's a drive not for fairness, but for POWER. And no, you don't deserve more power because you have a degree, or you think you work harder, or are smarter, or whatever. No one is affirmatively entitled to have "more than" others, if you're already getting what you've earned or deserve.

We are sometimes some dumb little monkeys, obsessed with having more bananas than our neighbors, when we could do a lot better for ourselves worrying about our own little bunch of bananas, and not craning our necks to the next tree over and worrying about what all the other monkeys have.

[Hoyt]

56. +1. This guy does something positive and gets crud for it. Makes no sense.

Hope he doesn't say they the hell with it, and put everyone back where they were.

[Populist_Prole]

57. Excellent observations

We should be united or uniting against the plutocrats, not balkanized and sniping at each other.

An observation of my own, regarding this dynamic and the thread here on DU; is how what I feel is the gist of it all was given only cursory mention in the OP article and by only one other poster so far:

That is that this represents a fearsome trend to the plutocrats: Upward pressure on wages overall. For a group that had a gravy train of downward wage pressure since Reagan till now, this is an ominous movement that should be nipped in the bud. Not only for the sake of their ever fattening bottom lines, but as an issue of control, and even class.

[Bettie]

59. Excellent

Very well said! +1

[erpowers]

64. That Is Crazy

I am not trying to say you are lying, but if what you say about salary is true that is crazy. I would hope if I were given that choice I would choose to make $100,000. It seems to me that everyone making $100,000 would be better for myself and for the economy.

[DirkGently]

92. One of the studies ...

Behold, the Pettiness of Man:

A study by researchers at the University of Warwick and Cardiff University has found that money only makes people happier if it improves their social rank. The researchers found that simply being highly paid wasn't enough -- to be happy, people must perceive themselves as being more highly paid than their friends and work colleagues.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322092057.htm

(Emphasis mine)

I don't even think this is the one I was thinking about.

So there are probably more like this.

[Starry Messenger]

80. I believe you now, but wouldn't have before this thread.

I can't honestly imagine celebrating knowing that there were lots of people getting less than me at my workplace for the same or similar levels of work. Makes me worry about the future of getting any more socialized programs in the US. I guess we'll have to be careful with some fee-fees.

[tenderfoot]

82. This.

[HughBeaumont]

95. But . . . always remember . . . .

. . . it's "Teh LIB'RULS" who play DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNN . . . . "The Politics of Envy".

[Fla_Democrat]

63. Ahh, it never gets old.

[KT2000]

78. Resentment

appears to be a prominent emotion now. That is the tool of the republicans to gin up anger. It is now permeating our culture. Equality is fading as a value.

[noiretextatique]

84. instead of keeping up with the joneses

some prefer that the joneses do not keep up with them. good on the ceo.

[livingonearth]

90. The problem appears to have been more emotional than economic.

That's rather interesting. It's too bad everyone couldn't have at least gotten along long enough to see if it could have worked financially for the company, as an experiment if nothing else.

[goldent]

91. It will be interesting to see how this pay system works long term

It won't be for everyone. Some people can't stand to see others spend a lot of time socializing and otherwise not working. They might say "the hell with it, I will just do the same" but they just won't be able to do it - their drive and competitiveness won't allow them. So I think the 26 year old made the right decision in leaving - with her personality she could never be happy there.

[erpowers]

93. ABC World News Tonight Totally Misrepresented This Story

I was tipped off to this story by watching an episode of ABC World News Tonight. It was one of the last stories of their show. The anchor made it look like this guys life was falling apart. He pointed out that Price's company had lost some of it clients, but did not point out that it seems Price's company gained more clients than it lost. In my opinion the anchor made it seem like Price's company was on the verge of collapse. He also pointed out/claimed that Mr. Price had to move out of his house and I believe move in with his parents. According to the New York Times article Mr. Price is doing fine financially.

I guess I should not be, but I am just shocked out how inaccurately World News Tonight reported this story. It seems it could be said that the anchor reported the exact opposite of what actually happened to Mr. Price and his company. It is so sad that a number of people most likely just took what the World News Tonight anchor said without trying to find out what happened to the company by reading the original article. There are probably a few people celebrating this guy's demise, without knowing the story of his downfall was false.