Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Showing posts with label Gravity Payments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gravity Payments. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

After Company Raises Minimum Salary To $70,000, Revenue And Profits Double

In April, Dan Price, CEO of the credit card payment processor Gravity Payments, announced that he will eventually raise minimum pay for all employees to at least $70,000 a year.

The move sparked not just a firestorm of media attention, but also a lawsuit from Price’s brother and co-founder Lucas, claiming that the pay raise violated his rights as a minority shareholder.

But six months later, the financial results are starting to come in: Price told Inc. Magazine that revenue is now growing at double the rate before the raises began and profits have also doubled since then.

Friday, August 21, 2015

People Seem To Have Turned On CEO Offering $70,000 Minimum Salary

Readers of The New York Times appear to have given up on Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price's idea of setting his company's minimum salary at $70,000.
The newspaper on Monday published a five-paragraph call-out to readers, asking them to weigh in on whether they would follow the lead of the now financially troubled entrepreneur, who in April slashed his own $1 million salary down to $70,000 and gave most of his lowest-paid workers raises.
The responses, overall, were cynical.