4 ms·

No shares in company, but 550 employees received a $240M gift from their owner

53 points by gfortaine 10mo ago

lysace 10mo ago
Better article: https://www.wsj.com/business/fibrebond-eaton-bonus-walker-30844d62 https://www.wsj.com/business/fibrebond-eaton-bonus-walker-30... https://archive.ph/NpY8i https://archive.ph/NpY8i
LewisVerstappen 10mo ago
Will be interesting to see how many of them have money left after 5 years
- eleventen 10mo ago
  This seems really cynical. Did you mean it that way?
  - collingreen 10mo ago
    This is a common trope around "poor people are poor because they aren't capable of being rich". If the rich can make the poor believe wealth inequality is natural and fair then lots of things go more smoothly.
    - lesuorac 10mo ago
      Eh, touch some grass buddy. You're interpretting a lot of negativity from the poster despite having no evidence to support it. > [1] A famous study in 2010 from the Review of Economics and Statistics revealed that, out of 35,000 lottery winners who obtained between $50,000 and $150,000 in winnings, 1,900 of them had filed for bankruptcy within 5 years. > A 2015 paper in The American Economic Review also presented that 15% of NFL players filed for bankruptcy after 12 years of retirement. It's really common for people with sudden windfalls to lose it all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_wealth_syndrome#Effects_on_relationships_and_finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_wealth_syndrome#Effects...
      - eleventen 10mo ago
        I’m not sure a study of chronic gamblers generalizes to long-term working class employees of this facility. I have no idea what lessons can be learned from the NFL case, but I suspect none at all.
      - BoiledCabbage 10mo ago
        > It's really common for people with sudden windfalls to lose it all. 5% of people isn't "really common". Estimate of 1% of US adults declare bankruptcy within a 5 year period (based on ending in July 2025 and right now is a very low period). 2010 a peak it was likely closer to 3% of adults. It is rightfully calling it a false trope of "Only rich people deserve money. We should prevent others from getting it".
      - ashtonshears 10mo ago
        I speculate the correlation to lottery activity and poor financial habits is the principal factor
    - katzgrau 10mo ago
      You’re correct that belief is a powerful driver of prosperity/poverty - and that believing that you’re headed for either can lead to you to different modes of decision making. I’ve experienced and witnessed both. An unexpected windfall will amplify the psychology of the recipients. For people who have lived without, the mindset is frequently “live today like it’s your last” or “enjoy it while it lasts” and blow it or self destruct. Some will be obviously be more mature about it though.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - LewisVerstappen 10mo ago
    No, but it would be great if large sums of money came with financial literacy courses to save a lot of pain and suffering later down the road. The number of people who live paycheck to paycheck and make $500k a year is insane.
    - mrastro 10mo ago
      Source? I doubt many making north of 300k per year are living paycheck to paycheck. It's hard to not save money (like at least 10%) at that income imo.
- coldtea 10mo ago
  Does it matter? It's their money, and they have needs and wants. The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.
pcurve 10mo ago
To be paid out over five years. A great retention bonus too for the new owner.
- VladVladikoff 10mo ago
  So $87k/year per employee? Sorry I can’t actually read the OP it keeps crashing my browser.
- missedthecue 10mo ago
  Does this create an accrued liability on the balance sheet?
  - mgh95 10mo ago
    I am not an accountant, but I have written accounting software, and if I'm understanding it correctly yes.
userbinator 10mo ago
It's $240M total for all >550, to make the title less clickbaity.
- huhkerrf 10mo ago
  Just because you misunderstood the title doesn't make it clickbait. It seemed pretty obvious that it was a total amount.
rib3ye 10mo ago
The ultimate "trust me bro". > Potential buyers and others warned against the idea. > ... [the] Walkers froze salaries for several years amid the difficulties. > [the CEO] wanted to do something good. He also worried about going to a local grocery store and feeling ashamed he hadn’t shared his windfall.
andrekandre 10mo ago
> Instead of individual performance bonuses, the company introduced group incentives tied to safety and operational targets. this is how it should be imo; focus on quality overall and other things fall into place
- jongjong 10mo ago
  This is how it should be if we had a scarce money supply (e.g. gold-backed). If it was truly people handing out their own hard-earned money, then it would be great and we would know they TRULY deserved it. With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive. Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets. If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster. It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy. There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately. When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
  - lesuorac 10mo ago
    If you don't think there was wealth inequity under the gold standard then I recommend opening a history book ... This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart? That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...

53 points by gfortaine 10mo ago

lysace 10mo ago

Better article: https://www.wsj.com/business/fibrebond-eaton-bonus-walker-30844d62 https://www.wsj.com/business/fibrebond-eaton-bonus-walker-30... https://archive.ph/NpY8i https://archive.ph/NpY8i

LewisVerstappen 10mo ago

Will be interesting to see how many of them have money left after 5 years

eleventen 10mo ago
This seems really cynical. Did you mean it that way?
- collingreen 10mo ago
  This is a common trope around "poor people are poor because they aren't capable of being rich". If the rich can make the poor believe wealth inequality is natural and fair then lots of things go more smoothly.
  - lesuorac 10mo ago
    Eh, touch some grass buddy. You're interpretting a lot of negativity from the poster despite having no evidence to support it. > [1] A famous study in 2010 from the Review of Economics and Statistics revealed that, out of 35,000 lottery winners who obtained between $50,000 and $150,000 in winnings, 1,900 of them had filed for bankruptcy within 5 years. > A 2015 paper in The American Economic Review also presented that 15% of NFL players filed for bankruptcy after 12 years of retirement. It's really common for people with sudden windfalls to lose it all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_wealth_syndrome#Effects_on_relationships_and_finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_wealth_syndrome#Effects...
    - eleventen 10mo ago
      I’m not sure a study of chronic gamblers generalizes to long-term working class employees of this facility. I have no idea what lessons can be learned from the NFL case, but I suspect none at all.
    - BoiledCabbage 10mo ago
      > It's really common for people with sudden windfalls to lose it all. 5% of people isn't "really common". Estimate of 1% of US adults declare bankruptcy within a 5 year period (based on ending in July 2025 and right now is a very low period). 2010 a peak it was likely closer to 3% of adults. It is rightfully calling it a false trope of "Only rich people deserve money. We should prevent others from getting it".
    - ashtonshears 10mo ago
      I speculate the correlation to lottery activity and poor financial habits is the principal factor
  - katzgrau 10mo ago
    You’re correct that belief is a powerful driver of prosperity/poverty - and that believing that you’re headed for either can lead to you to different modes of decision making. I’ve experienced and witnessed both. An unexpected windfall will amplify the psychology of the recipients. For people who have lived without, the mindset is frequently “live today like it’s your last” or “enjoy it while it lasts” and blow it or self destruct. Some will be obviously be more mature about it though.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- LewisVerstappen 10mo ago
  No, but it would be great if large sums of money came with financial literacy courses to save a lot of pain and suffering later down the road. The number of people who live paycheck to paycheck and make $500k a year is insane.
  - mrastro 10mo ago
    Source? I doubt many making north of 300k per year are living paycheck to paycheck. It's hard to not save money (like at least 10%) at that income imo.
coldtea 10mo ago
Does it matter? It's their money, and they have needs and wants. The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.

pcurve 10mo ago

To be paid out over five years. A great retention bonus too for the new owner.

VladVladikoff 10mo ago
So $87k/year per employee? Sorry I can’t actually read the OP it keeps crashing my browser.
missedthecue 10mo ago
Does this create an accrued liability on the balance sheet?
- mgh95 10mo ago
  I am not an accountant, but I have written accounting software, and if I'm understanding it correctly yes.

userbinator 10mo ago

It's $240M total for all >550, to make the title less clickbaity.

huhkerrf 10mo ago
Just because you misunderstood the title doesn't make it clickbait. It seemed pretty obvious that it was a total amount.

rib3ye 10mo ago

The ultimate "trust me bro". > Potential buyers and others warned against the idea. > ... [the] Walkers froze salaries for several years amid the difficulties. > [the CEO] wanted to do something good. He also worried about going to a local grocery store and feeling ashamed he hadn’t shared his windfall.

andrekandre 10mo ago

> Instead of individual performance bonuses, the company introduced group incentives tied to safety and operational targets. this is how it should be imo; focus on quality overall and other things fall into place

jongjong 10mo ago
This is how it should be if we had a scarce money supply (e.g. gold-backed). If it was truly people handing out their own hard-earned money, then it would be great and we would know they TRULY deserved it. With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive. Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets. If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster. It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy. There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately. When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
- lesuorac 10mo ago
  If you don't think there was wealth inequity under the gold standard then I recommend opening a history book ... This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart? That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...