Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the sydney-morning-herald-wrong-again dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

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.

[...]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.

On top of that, while it lost a few customers in the kerfuffle, the company's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent, and only two employees quit. Two weeks after he made the initial announcement, the company was flooded with 4,500 resumes and new customer inquiries jumped from 30 a month to 2,000 a month.

Previous: Gravity Payments: CEO Takes Cut and Makes $70k/year New Minimum Salary
All Staff Pay Raise Backfires on Credit Card Processing Firm


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:00AM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:00AM (#255345) Homepage

    Lots of kudos to them. This sets a strong precedent for other companies to start doing the same, although I hope the growth isn't just due to PR and actually comes from increased productivity, since that's all most CEOs care about.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:04AM

    by slinches (5049) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:04AM (#255347)

    Yes, lets get Walmart to do this for all 2.2 million US employees. That would only come out to $154 Billion in annual salaries. I'm sure they could absorb 10x their net annual income in increased worker pay.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by meledian on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:40AM

      by meledian (268) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:40AM (#255361)
      Looking over the 2014 report, looks lIke they only made about 125 billion in profit. http://stock.walmart.com/files/doc_financials/2014/Annual/2014-annual-report.pdf [walmart.com]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:57AM (#255368)

      > Yes, lets get Walmart to do this for all 2.2 million US employees.

      Howabout, lets at least get Walmart to pay all of their 2.2. million US employees enough that they don't have to use foodstamps?

      • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:02AM

        by slinches (5049) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:02AM (#255443)

        How about we let the employers and employees decide what's a fair wage for an hour of work? The only "fix" is to raise the minimum wage and that just makes it harder for younger people who may be able to live off of a lower paying job while working to pay for school.

        Besides, is the situation where a few people who are employed part time are receiving government benefits that damning? Should Walmart employees also not accept need based financial aid for school?

        If the system is going to be set up this way, why complain when it works as intended?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:48AM (#255459)

          How about we let the employers and employees decide what's a fair wage for an hour of work?

          Because they have continually proven, again and again, that what they decide is "fair" is anything but, and is just barely above slave-level exploitation. That's why minimum wage became federally mandated in the first place.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:44AM (#255474)

          The only "fix" is to raise the minimum wage and that just makes it harder for younger people who may be able to live off of a lower paying job while working to pay for school.

          Found the grandpa. You are decades behind the times. Living independently off the minimum wage, let alone less than the minimum wage has not been possible at any point for anyone under 40. Working your way through school has not been possible without extreme amounts of help for at least half of that time.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:10PM (#255612)

          Lets see here. Minimum wage? 7.25 How many hours will you be given? Probably around 25. 25*7.25 = 181.25 a week. The is 725 a month (Assuming 4 weeks in a month, will be slightly more). I am not even going to deduct taxes or anything lets see if we can work with 725.

          Studio apartment? in the cheapest markets probably around 450.
          Electric? 30 a month if we shut off the lights and sweat out the summer.
          Gas? 30 a month assuming we live far south.
          Water/Sewer? 15 thats on the cheap side, remember this is best case scenario.
          Food? 100 a month if we eat lotsa ramen.
          Buss pass? 50.
          Assorted necessacities? 100, you know clothes, shoes, haircut, soap, cleaning supplies, household sundries.
          Phone? 20, cheap prepaid.

          450+ 30+30+15+100+50+100+20= 795

          That is 45 dollars more then you make. That also doesn't include health care, taxes, social security, state taxes. So to live you would need at least two of these jobs, and sometimes finding one is hard enough. Finding a second that doesn't interfere with the schedule of one is almost impossible in many of these part time gigs where your schedule is often decided the week before by the supervisor.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by CoolHand on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:44PM

      by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:44PM (#255639) Journal
      A large number of Walmart's employee's are part time, so probably wouldn't get the same annual salary. Also, only 1.3 Million are in the US, so a large number of foreign associates with lower cost of living might survive comfortably on far less of a salary. In fact, a huge number of Walmarts inside the US are in areas with much lower cost of living that where the business in the article is located. So, $70K/year for ALL Walmart associates might be out of the question, but a live-able salary per region for all full time associates may in fact be much more possible.
      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams