“It’s a poignant story, one that I almost wrote.”
December 2, 2015 10:32 AM Subscribe
Back in April, we learned of Gravity CEO Dan Price’s generous wage increase to employees. At the start of November, we learned about how the pay change had caused a legal battle with his brother. Now, just in time for the holidays, Bloomberg reporter Karen Weise has discovered that the living wage was a smoke screen: “The CEO Paying Everyone $70,000 Salaries Has Something to Hide”
This post was deleted for the following reason: I get that there's sort of a topical continuity/update angle here, but I'm not sure this is something that we really need to have a third post just to come back around on. -- cortex
That article gets pretty intense at the end. (Don't piss off the capitalist establishment, I guess, they will find what there is to find.)
posted by advil at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by advil at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
That article gets pretty intense at the end. (Don't piss off the capitalist establishment, I guess, they will find what there is to find.)
The fuck? Are you suggesting that his ex-wife going public with a story of domestic violence is some kind of "capitalist" conspiracy?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
The fuck? Are you suggesting that his ex-wife going public with a story of domestic violence is some kind of "capitalist" conspiracy?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
The fuck? Are you suggesting that his ex-wife going public with a story of domestic violence is some kind of "capitalist" conspiracy?
A news org deciding to run with it certainly is.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
A news org deciding to run with it certainly is.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The fuck? Are you suggesting that his ex-wife going public with a story of domestic violence is some kind of "capitalist" conspiracy?
No [I am not suggesting this incredibly uncharitable and offensive thing], I'm suggesting that the fact that this was brought into such public light is likely a direct consequence of many, many people having an axe out for this guy. It turns out he is (most likely, in the court of public opinion) a bad person after all, in contrast to his public actions. Not sure any of this is a win, though.
posted by advil at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
No [I am not suggesting this incredibly uncharitable and offensive thing], I'm suggesting that the fact that this was brought into such public light is likely a direct consequence of many, many people having an axe out for this guy. It turns out he is (most likely, in the court of public opinion) a bad person after all, in contrast to his public actions. Not sure any of this is a win, though.
posted by advil at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
Always great to read an article in which nobody, including the article’s author or the news organization that publishes it, comes off looking good.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2015 [10 favorites]
1. Strange coincidence that the first and only time a financial magazine will report on a CEO being overpaid is when he decides to not be overpaid.
2. That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
3. Fuck Price and his domestic violence.
posted by one_bean at 10:55 AM on December 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
2. That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
3. Fuck Price and his domestic violence.
posted by one_bean at 10:55 AM on December 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
> A news org deciding to run with it certainly is.
The fuck? Are you suggesting that they should have covered it up like the multimillionaire would have preferred? Did you even read the story? This place is like a parody of itself sometimes.
posted by languagehat at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The fuck? Are you suggesting that they should have covered it up like the multimillionaire would have preferred? Did you even read the story? This place is like a parody of itself sometimes.
posted by languagehat at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Even if Price is an abuser, and even if the employee wage increase was actually a strategy by Price to screw his brother, it's a still a good thing that Gravity's 70+ employees are making significantly more than they did.
I hope whatever Price's personal failings may be don't taint the idea, because it's a good idea even if the person who implemented it isn't an angel and did it for selfish reasons.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
I hope whatever Price's personal failings may be don't taint the idea, because it's a good idea even if the person who implemented it isn't an angel and did it for selfish reasons.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
one_bean: "1. Strange coincidence that the first and only time a financial magazine will report on a CEO being overpaid is when he decides to not be overpaid.
2. That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
3. Fuck Price and his domestic violence."
Shouldn't we wait to find out if it actually happened before we condemn him?
posted by Samizdata at 10:57 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
2. That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
3. Fuck Price and his domestic violence."
Shouldn't we wait to find out if it actually happened before we condemn him?
posted by Samizdata at 10:57 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
If there was a vast corporatist conspiracy against the guy, don't you think that their vertically integrated media conglomerates would have just not covered the story in the first place?
posted by thecjm at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thecjm at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
> That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
Certainly research can be wrong or misleading, but the fact that you can give it a fatuous paraphrase doesn't by itself indict the findings.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Certainly research can be wrong or misleading, but the fact that you can give it a fatuous paraphrase doesn't by itself indict the findings.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
3. Fuck Price and his domestic violence."
Shouldn't we wait to find out if it actually happened before we condemn him?
You think someone is hiding video of it? "[W]ait to find out if [domestic violence] actually happened" is a repugnant stance to take.
posted by Etrigan at 10:59 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Shouldn't we wait to find out if it actually happened before we condemn him?
You think someone is hiding video of it? "[W]ait to find out if [domestic violence] actually happened" is a repugnant stance to take.
posted by Etrigan at 10:59 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Even if Price is an abuser, and even if the employee wage increase was actually a strategy by Price to screw his brother, it's a still a good thing that Gravity's 70+ employees are making significantly more than they did.
It may not be a good thing if it means the firm will eventually fail. Someone took an 80 percent pay cut to work at this place, and if it blows up, I doubt they'll get their job at Yahoo! back.
posted by pwnguin at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2015
It may not be a good thing if it means the firm will eventually fail. Someone took an 80 percent pay cut to work at this place, and if it blows up, I doubt they'll get their job at Yahoo! back.
posted by pwnguin at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2015
solidifying his place as the next do-gooder businessman, joining the CEOs of bigger companies, such as Zappos’s Tony Hsieh
[citation-needed-like-whoa]
posted by schmod at 11:01 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
[citation-needed-like-whoa]
posted by schmod at 11:01 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well shit, I kinda was afraid of something like this and kinda said as much in the first thread, new emphasis mine:
Maybe I'm just a cynic,
Hey, me too, or pessimist or whatever you want to call it but I don't think it's fair to make the perfect the enemy of the good here by holding this guy to some sort of ideal-capitalist litmus test. Seriously, I don't think it's fair for folks, unless this does turn out to be just an egregiously trumped up media event, to judge him inadequate for not fixing all the woes of the working class in the country.
I mean damn, that's harsh.
I'm holding my breath waiting for the further big reveal to come....
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015
Maybe I'm just a cynic,
Hey, me too, or pessimist or whatever you want to call it but I don't think it's fair to make the perfect the enemy of the good here by holding this guy to some sort of ideal-capitalist litmus test. Seriously, I don't think it's fair for folks, unless this does turn out to be just an egregiously trumped up media event, to judge him inadequate for not fixing all the woes of the working class in the country.
I mean damn, that's harsh.
I'm holding my breath waiting for the further big reveal to come....
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015
1. Strange coincidence that the first and only time a financial magazine will report on a CEO being overpaid is when he decides to not be overpaid.
site: bloomberg.com "ceo pay"
posted by mr_roboto at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
site: bloomberg.com "ceo pay"
posted by mr_roboto at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
2. That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
Of course they're happy about it and that's not what the paper even says.
posted by kenko at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Of course they're happy about it and that's not what the paper even says.
posted by kenko at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here's the puncher, almost at the end. Wish this had been in the FPP instead of just teased.
If the lawsuit wasn’t a reaction to the wage hike, could it have been the other way around? After all, Price announced his magnanimous act a month after his brother sued him for, in essence, being greedy. Lowering his pay could give Price negotiating leverage, too. “With profits, at least in the short term, shifted to salaries, there is little left over to buy out his brother,” the New York Times reported Price said.and
Price’s life may get more complicated the week of Dec. 7, when TEDx plans to post online a public talk by his former wife, who changed her last name to Colón. She spoke on Oct. 28 at the University of Kentucky about the power of writing to overcome trauma. Colón stood on stage wearing cerulean blue and, without naming Price, read from a journal entry she says she wrote in May 2006 about her then-husband. “He got mad at me for ignoring him and grabbed me and shook me again,” she read. “He also threw me to the ground and got on top of me. He started punching me in the stomach and slapped me across the face. I was shaking so bad.”posted by rebent at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't understand how they didn't get a quote from the ex wife confirming she was talking about him in the first place? I mean, throwing that out to someone without having at least confirmation that you're asking the right guy seems a bit much. Obviously if she means him, he is a huge pile of shit and I believe her. But the whole thing is grimy and ick.
posted by SassHat at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by SassHat at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2015
thecjm: "If there was a vast corporatist conspiracy against the guy, don't you think that their vertically integrated media conglomerates would have just not covered the story in the first place?"
If we're talking "vast-conspiracy," it's probably way more effective to give the guy publicity, and then totally and profoundly discredit him.
That way, the idea gets associated with him, and doesn't need to be discredited separately.
It's a really convenient narrative, and regardless of it's true, it's already poisoned any similar efforts that might happen in the future.
posted by schmod at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
If we're talking "vast-conspiracy," it's probably way more effective to give the guy publicity, and then totally and profoundly discredit him.
That way, the idea gets associated with him, and doesn't need to be discredited separately.
It's a really convenient narrative, and regardless of it's true, it's already poisoned any similar efforts that might happen in the future.
posted by schmod at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
If she was married to him in 2006 and she says the piece written then was about her former husband that seems pretty clear.
posted by emjaybee at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
2. That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world. "Well yeah - we're earning 200 to 1,000 times as much of you peasants, but we're not happy about it." - every CEO ever.
IIRC, the study didn't show that they weren't happier making over $75k, it was that giving them more money didn't make them significantly happier the way it does when you make less than $75k and it represents a much more noticeable difference in your level of financial security. In doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that if you make $45k and then you get $50k, it has a much bigger impact on your state of mind than if you get a raise from $450k to $500k.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
IIRC, the study didn't show that they weren't happier making over $75k, it was that giving them more money didn't make them significantly happier the way it does when you make less than $75k and it represents a much more noticeable difference in your level of financial security. In doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that if you make $45k and then you get $50k, it has a much bigger impact on your state of mind than if you get a raise from $450k to $500k.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I tried to read the article but got tired of the coyness. I didn't even get to the domestic violence part. Frankly, I think it's a bad article and flagged the post.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:12 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 11:12 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
This article on GeekWire is mostly fluffed filled out with "the Bloomberg article says..."-style pull quotes we've already read. However, it does have this statement from Gravity Payments, which as far as I can tell is the only response to the article from Dan Price or any of his associates:
posted by koeselitz at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2015
“We’ve been floored at the attention our story has gotten over the past year, and inspired by the millions all around the globe who have engaged and shared their stories with us. Unfortunately people in the public eye are subject to speculation and criticism. Sometimes it’s fair, other times it isn’t. Today’s story in BusinessWeek contained reckless accusations and baseless speculations that are unequivocally false.As for the whole kerfuffle in general: I'm at the point where I basically don't trust anything a tech company does, so I was already kind of cynical about the whole thing (which probably doesn't say nice things about me, honestly) – but the domestic violence angle is more than I really anticipated.
As a company, we’ve faced many challenges in our history. Each time we’ve banded together, worked hard and focused on our mission to help our community businesses, we have eventually emerged stronger. This has been a truly memorable year in many ways. We’re looking forward to working harder than ever in pursuit of our mission.”
posted by koeselitz at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2015
Frankly, I think it's a bad article and flagged the post.
What did you flag it with? I’m curious, because I’m generally not sure how to flag posts that just feel off.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2015
What did you flag it with? I’m curious, because I’m generally not sure how to flag posts that just feel off.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2015
Shouldn't we wait to find out if it actually happened before we condemn him?
You must be new to the Internet. There's no time for that sort of thing anymore! Quick, pile on!
posted by entropicamericana at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2015
You must be new to the Internet. There's no time for that sort of thing anymore! Quick, pile on!
posted by entropicamericana at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2015
Bloomberg has put business owners on notice: Fuck with the basic tenents of modern capitalism, and we will dig up your dirt and serve it to you.
posted by gwint at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by gwint at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I just flagged it with "other". I find the descriptors more annoying than anything.
This is really gross "journalism" regardless of whether the accusations are true and I don't think it should be here.
posted by selfnoise at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is really gross "journalism" regardless of whether the accusations are true and I don't think it should be here.
posted by selfnoise at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
That Kahneman and Deaton paper on people not being happier when they earn more than $75,000 is the biggest piece of bourgeois propaganda in the history of the world.
This is embarassing and anti-science. You don't agree with the results, so you dismiss it as propaganda?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:29 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is embarassing and anti-science. You don't agree with the results, so you dismiss it as propaganda?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:29 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
No [I am not suggesting this incredibly uncharitable and offensive thing], I'm suggesting that the fact that this was brought into such public light is likely a direct consequence of many, many people having an axe out for this guy.
Could anyone deny this, plausibly? I don't think it's possible. There are thousands of people in the public eye in America who have done awful things that don't ever get dug up by journalists.
It turns out he is (most likely, in the court of public opinion) a bad person after all, in contrast to his public actions. Not sure any of this is a win, though.
This, here, is exactly the purpose, to take a story about social and economic justice and turn it into a referendum on a single man's moral character. The original story here is that a CEO chose to disrupt the prevailing character of employer-employee relations by paying a much better starting wage than virtually every other private corporation in the country. That move has been profoundly threatening to business elites not simply because it might make their workers want higher pay, but because it shines a spotlight on a fact that business owners want to keep hidden: that they have immense control over their workers' lives, and they choose to use that power in relentlessly miserly ways. It demonstrates very simply that economic/distributive justice isn't some vague, utopian pipe dream, that it's totally outside of anyone's control so we all just have to live with how things are now. In actuality, a far more egalitarian society is not at all out of reach, it's just being constantly, actively suppressed by those in power.
So business elites have to make this story about something else. It's not about the absurd amount of power that CEOs have over workers' lives, or about the fact that 98% of all Americans are having the nation's prosperity withheld from us and diverted to the already-obscenely-wealthy; no, it's just about the moral character of one person, as the lie goes.
Frankly, I don't care at all if he's an awful person, though I do hope that he will be held to account just like any other perpetrator of domestic violence should be. What I do care about is that Americans should notice that the wealthy and powerful get extremely nervous and vindictive when a business that pays workers a good, living wage succeeds.
posted by clockzero at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
Could anyone deny this, plausibly? I don't think it's possible. There are thousands of people in the public eye in America who have done awful things that don't ever get dug up by journalists.
It turns out he is (most likely, in the court of public opinion) a bad person after all, in contrast to his public actions. Not sure any of this is a win, though.
This, here, is exactly the purpose, to take a story about social and economic justice and turn it into a referendum on a single man's moral character. The original story here is that a CEO chose to disrupt the prevailing character of employer-employee relations by paying a much better starting wage than virtually every other private corporation in the country. That move has been profoundly threatening to business elites not simply because it might make their workers want higher pay, but because it shines a spotlight on a fact that business owners want to keep hidden: that they have immense control over their workers' lives, and they choose to use that power in relentlessly miserly ways. It demonstrates very simply that economic/distributive justice isn't some vague, utopian pipe dream, that it's totally outside of anyone's control so we all just have to live with how things are now. In actuality, a far more egalitarian society is not at all out of reach, it's just being constantly, actively suppressed by those in power.
So business elites have to make this story about something else. It's not about the absurd amount of power that CEOs have over workers' lives, or about the fact that 98% of all Americans are having the nation's prosperity withheld from us and diverted to the already-obscenely-wealthy; no, it's just about the moral character of one person, as the lie goes.
Frankly, I don't care at all if he's an awful person, though I do hope that he will be held to account just like any other perpetrator of domestic violence should be. What I do care about is that Americans should notice that the wealthy and powerful get extremely nervous and vindictive when a business that pays workers a good, living wage succeeds.
posted by clockzero at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
Bloomberg has put business owners on notice: Fuck with the basic tenents of modern capitalism, and we will dig up your dirt and serve it to you.
This whole capitalist-paper-will-destroy-a-class-traitor feels like such a weird reading. I mean, it just ran a piece on how Walmart spies on employees. Just because its interest is business doesn’t mean that the reporting is somehow inherently biased. Do people read books by Michael Lewis and assume that he’s in love with Wall Street just because he finds it endlessly fascinating?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:31 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This whole capitalist-paper-will-destroy-a-class-traitor feels like such a weird reading. I mean, it just ran a piece on how Walmart spies on employees. Just because its interest is business doesn’t mean that the reporting is somehow inherently biased. Do people read books by Michael Lewis and assume that he’s in love with Wall Street just because he finds it endlessly fascinating?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:31 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This, here, is exactly the purpose, to take a story about social and economic justice and turn it into a referendum on a single man's moral character. The original story here is that a CEO chose to disrupt the prevailing character of employer-employee relations by paying a much better starting wage than virtually every other private corporation in the country.
Why shouldn’t the story be how this benevolent gesture was actually a dodge to get out of paying his brother profits that he owes? Frankly, I’m concerned for the employees if it’s found that Price’s actions were illegal.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2015
Why shouldn’t the story be how this benevolent gesture was actually a dodge to get out of paying his brother profits that he owes? Frankly, I’m concerned for the employees if it’s found that Price’s actions were illegal.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2015
« Older And now, a departure from "Sharktopus vs.... | How Railroad History Shaped Internet History Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by el io at 10:38 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]