I remember the naysayers of the time said that the existing $70,000 employees, and even some of those who were paid less than $70,000, would feel jealous that t

I remember the naysayers of the time said that the existing $70,000 employees, and even some of those who were paid less than $70,000, would feel jealous that the lowest paid employee now was making the same as them. These people would presumably cause a fuss and then leave, and Gravity would lose their good employees and the institutional knowledge. One journalist managed to find someone to anonymously say that. They said customers would know that the employees were "overpaid" and switch to another processor, although why this would work without those processors also being cheaper I never understood. In this sense, the experiment is a success. At this point, it seems there will need to be a sudden change in the market to put them out of business, such as a very efficient provider with better customer service. Nonetheless, most of what we pay in payments processing goes to parties like card issuers for their rewards programs and to the networks for their oligopoly rents. This means that the cost of the processor is relatively small. If they are making the kind of revenue that allowed this change in the first place, they will probably be able to keep making it until there is a real change in our processing system. That change would probably be regulation.