6 ms·

Man, with the way the sharks have been in the water around this guy, you'd think he was running Theranos or something. So what if he was initially overpaid, and

Man, with the way the sharks have been in the water around this guy, you'd think he was running Theranos or something. So what if he was initially overpaid, and so what if the lawsuit predated the decision? The domestic violence allegations are another matter, but still, if he's guilty of that does that mean that his employees have to give half their salaries back to him just to appease the Ayn Rand acolytes?

whatok 11y ago
He's parading around as an altruistic person when the evidence seems to suggest he's not. Many people argued that giving arbitrary raises is a bad way to run a business and probably unsustainable. If the raises were given for reasons besides he claimed, it gives much more credence to those arguments.
- smt88 11y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. How does his motivation for giving the raises have an effect on whether this is a good way to run a business or whether it's sustainable?
  - whatok 11y ago
    Because businesses are usually run with the business in mind; not the CEO's personal lawsuits.
    - smt88 11y ago
      I agree that a CEO's decision based on personal issues is bad for a company. For Gravity specifically, is there evidence that it extends beyond this one issue? And, in the context of this one issue at Gravity, it seems to have been a good move (at least what's been made public). Pretty much every long-standing, famous CEO has done something for a personal reason (Jobs' personal vendetta against Samsung/Android for "ripping off" iOS is an example). That doesn't mean most of their decisions are personal, or that they can't run a company incredibly well.
      - whatok 11y ago
        Jobs' personal vendetta can easily be interpreted as public theatrics for business reasons. Making a business decision because you are personally getting sued is completely different. Let me frame it this way. Let's say I was working there and thought I was getting underpaid. I started interviewing, found a job paying 65k, and was about to take it. There's some grand announcement about how everyone will get 70k and I decide, great, I'll stay. Had I been provided with what looks to be the real reason behind the raise, I may have elected to jump ship for less money.
- timbuckley 11y ago
  It matters very little if he is on the whole "a good person" (I make no claim one way or the other). What is interesting to most including myself is how his 70k minimum salary works for the company. That act alone, whatever the reason, is likely a "good" thing in that he is sacrificing his own income to help others less fortunate for himself. If there are ulterior motives, or if he has had a lifetime of bad deeds until now I'm not terribly interested.
  - whatok 11y ago
    Can't say for certain without seeing the financials but having the real reason for pay increases raises red flags for me. I view it as a short-term gamble that could potentially lead to future layoffs/bankruptcy. In a worst case scenario, would it still be okay to you if the pay increases were granted because of personal circumstance and later led to people losing their jobs?
deelowe 11y ago
> just to appease the Ayn Rand acolytes? huh? You had me up until this point.
- smt88 11y ago
  S/he means people who believe that society and individuals are better off serving themselves without any concern for the well-being of others. If this experiment, of giving up a bunch of profit (and his own pay), were to succeed and make the company more profitable, it would undermine the idea that selfishness is the best way to serve yourself. See also: enlightened self-interest[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
  - deelowe 11y ago
    I'm familiar with libertarianism and Rand's books. The OP's ad homonym is extremely out of place in this thread. That was my point.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  Possibly more confusing, but have you played BioShock? It's kind of an Objectivism Pitfalls for Dummies. Ayn Rand founded/advocated a strong, determined branch of Libertarianism called Objectivism. In an over-generalizing nutshell, it's a philosophy, often economic, of individual freedoms over community needs (a strong negative over-reaction to bad socialism).
  - Plough_Jogger 11y ago
    Though this isn't the proper forum for this discussion, Ayn Rand wouldn't have objected to the CEO choosing to pay his employees an above-market wage.
    - WorldMaker 11y ago
      Good point, and one that is lost in a lot of modern political discourse. I once had some very cool discussions with a (very) early fan of Objectivism, when it was more a religion than a economic philosophy, and his perspective on what the modern Libertarian Thinktanks have done to co-opt Objectivism was fascinating. Unfortunately for him, although the economics adherents have lost a lot of the nuance of the original Rand vision in addition to the stronger religious views, they certainly haven't fallen that far from the tree and have kept the religious sort of fervent devotion to their version of its ideals.
smt88 11y ago
He might have had selfish motivations, and he might be a bad guy. But neither of those things changes the fact that he did an experiment with giving employees equal salaries, and that experiment had positive results on the company. I think sharks are circling because people have a zeal for debunking the idea that someone is selfless. If you Google it, you can even find people who criticize Mother Theresa for having secret, selfish ulterior motives. I personally believe people who help others always get something out of it (even if it's just private satisfaction), and that's OK. A good act is a good act, regardless of the internal thoughts that triggered it.
- tptacek 11y ago
  The pay raise made it easy for Gravity to recruit, but the retention benefits are unclear (some employees left due to the raise). It does not appear to have improved customer retention. It's unclear whether the raise was a net positive for the company. The subtext of the story is that the raise was an unqualified win for one person, though: Dan Price.
  - whatok 11y ago
    You could actually make a decent comparison between Gravity and companies appeasing Wall Street by juicing quarterly earnings or buying back stock. If Gravity is spending an inordinate amount on employee pay and it's not accompanied by corresponding growth... well we all know what happens then.
  - isleyaardvark 11y ago
    >(some employees left due to the raise) 2 employees out of 120.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      That's how many left because of the raise. We don't know what their overall employee turnover is.
- stevesearer 11y ago
merpnderp 11y ago
Ayn Rand would have been pleased that a CEO decided what was a fair deal between the company and its employees, based on whatever reason they decided was important to the success of the company.

whatok 11y ago

He's parading around as an altruistic person when the evidence seems to suggest he's not. Many people argued that giving arbitrary raises is a bad way to run a business and probably unsustainable. If the raises were given for reasons besides he claimed, it gives much more credence to those arguments.

smt88 11y ago
I'm not sure I understand. How does his motivation for giving the raises have an effect on whether this is a good way to run a business or whether it's sustainable?
- whatok 11y ago
  Because businesses are usually run with the business in mind; not the CEO's personal lawsuits.
  - smt88 11y ago
    I agree that a CEO's decision based on personal issues is bad for a company. For Gravity specifically, is there evidence that it extends beyond this one issue? And, in the context of this one issue at Gravity, it seems to have been a good move (at least what's been made public). Pretty much every long-standing, famous CEO has done something for a personal reason (Jobs' personal vendetta against Samsung/Android for "ripping off" iOS is an example). That doesn't mean most of their decisions are personal, or that they can't run a company incredibly well.
    - whatok 11y ago
      Jobs' personal vendetta can easily be interpreted as public theatrics for business reasons. Making a business decision because you are personally getting sued is completely different. Let me frame it this way. Let's say I was working there and thought I was getting underpaid. I started interviewing, found a job paying 65k, and was about to take it. There's some grand announcement about how everyone will get 70k and I decide, great, I'll stay. Had I been provided with what looks to be the real reason behind the raise, I may have elected to jump ship for less money.
timbuckley 11y ago
It matters very little if he is on the whole "a good person" (I make no claim one way or the other). What is interesting to most including myself is how his 70k minimum salary works for the company. That act alone, whatever the reason, is likely a "good" thing in that he is sacrificing his own income to help others less fortunate for himself. If there are ulterior motives, or if he has had a lifetime of bad deeds until now I'm not terribly interested.
- whatok 11y ago
  Can't say for certain without seeing the financials but having the real reason for pay increases raises red flags for me. I view it as a short-term gamble that could potentially lead to future layoffs/bankruptcy. In a worst case scenario, would it still be okay to you if the pay increases were granted because of personal circumstance and later led to people losing their jobs?

deelowe 11y ago

> just to appease the Ayn Rand acolytes? huh? You had me up until this point.

smt88 11y ago
S/he means people who believe that society and individuals are better off serving themselves without any concern for the well-being of others. If this experiment, of giving up a bunch of profit (and his own pay), were to succeed and make the company more profitable, it would undermine the idea that selfishness is the best way to serve yourself. See also: enlightened self-interest[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
- deelowe 11y ago
  I'm familiar with libertarianism and Rand's books. The OP's ad homonym is extremely out of place in this thread. That was my point.
WorldMaker 11y ago
Possibly more confusing, but have you played BioShock? It's kind of an Objectivism Pitfalls for Dummies. Ayn Rand founded/advocated a strong, determined branch of Libertarianism called Objectivism. In an over-generalizing nutshell, it's a philosophy, often economic, of individual freedoms over community needs (a strong negative over-reaction to bad socialism).
- Plough_Jogger 11y ago
  Though this isn't the proper forum for this discussion, Ayn Rand wouldn't have objected to the CEO choosing to pay his employees an above-market wage.
  - WorldMaker 11y ago
    Good point, and one that is lost in a lot of modern political discourse. I once had some very cool discussions with a (very) early fan of Objectivism, when it was more a religion than a economic philosophy, and his perspective on what the modern Libertarian Thinktanks have done to co-opt Objectivism was fascinating. Unfortunately for him, although the economics adherents have lost a lot of the nuance of the original Rand vision in addition to the stronger religious views, they certainly haven't fallen that far from the tree and have kept the religious sort of fervent devotion to their version of its ideals.

smt88 11y ago

He might have had selfish motivations, and he might be a bad guy. But neither of those things changes the fact that he did an experiment with giving employees equal salaries, and that experiment had positive results on the company. I think sharks are circling because people have a zeal for debunking the idea that someone is selfless. If you Google it, you can even find people who criticize Mother Theresa for having secret, selfish ulterior motives. I personally believe people who help others always get something out of it (even if it's just private satisfaction), and that's OK. A good act is a good act, regardless of the internal thoughts that triggered it.

tptacek 11y ago
The pay raise made it easy for Gravity to recruit, but the retention benefits are unclear (some employees left due to the raise). It does not appear to have improved customer retention. It's unclear whether the raise was a net positive for the company. The subtext of the story is that the raise was an unqualified win for one person, though: Dan Price.
- whatok 11y ago
  You could actually make a decent comparison between Gravity and companies appeasing Wall Street by juicing quarterly earnings or buying back stock. If Gravity is spending an inordinate amount on employee pay and it's not accompanied by corresponding growth... well we all know what happens then.
- isleyaardvark 11y ago
  >(some employees left due to the raise) 2 employees out of 120.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's how many left because of the raise. We don't know what their overall employee turnover is.
stevesearer 11y ago

merpnderp 11y ago

Ayn Rand would have been pleased that a CEO decided what was a fair deal between the company and its employees, based on whatever reason they decided was important to the success of the company.