Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The boss who put everyone on 70K

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 381 posts

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#271

Post by mperham »

volkk wrote: post #266
zacharycohn wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure. He cut his salary - but he still owns the company, and I'm sure his equity stake in the company is worth a loooooot more as a result of all this. Let's not paint this as some huge, noble sacrifice.

sure but don't you have to first sell it for it to be worth anything? if on a weekly basis he's making much much less, (if you had read the article), he would need to be doing other things to afford his life, which seems to be the case. he was airbnb'ing his apartment for side cash.

If you own a company, you keep whatever profit remains after expenses. Your salary can be $70k but your monthly or quarterly owner distribution can be much, much more.

Of course, if you are not profitable...

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#272

Post by dominotw »

bloblaw wrote: post #241

I used to work at Gravity. Dan (owner of Gravity) is sincere and frankly the real deal. Dan Price really is like what is presented in this article. He actually cares about his employees and is being genuine here. He's a good person, making a private business decision to increase the pay of frankly his lowest paid workers. In a city where the average tech worker earns $275k a year, he believes its the right thing to d…

>average tech worker earns $275k a year

I need to move to bay area this year. thats my sole mission this year.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#273

Post by dominotw »

anentropic wrote: post #253

> Two senior Gravity employees also resigned in protest. They weren't happy that the salaries of junior staff had jumped overnight, and argued that it would make them lazy, and the company uncompetitive. The mentality of these people...! Not people you want in your company

>and argued that it would make them lazy,

I have hard time believing this.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#274

Post by volkk »

mperham wrote: post #271
volkk wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure but don't you have to first sell it for it to be worth anything? if on a weekly basis he's making much much less, (if you had read the article), he would need to be doing other things to afford his life, which seems to be the case. he was airbnb'ing his apartment for side cash.

If you own a company, you keep whatever profit remains after expenses. Your salary can be $70k but your monthly or quarterly owner distribution can be much, much more. Of course, if you are not profitable...

true, good point. also Mike, thanks for sidekiq (amongst many other things) :)

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#275

Post by someguyorother »

_qwfv wrote: post #158
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. There are roughly three ways to convince people to keep the discipline needed for the collaborative work: force them, interest them economically, or have them believing the cause. Slavery, capitalism, and monastery. Real systems usually are mixes. E.g. Soviet system is largely slavery plus some bits of capitalism and a lot of propaganda to cover the monastery aspect. Or a capitalist company with a visionary l…

What about worker coops? Not capitalist, but not necessarily driven by believing in a cause.

Or tenured professors in fields where they could get paid a lot better if they went private, yet they don't?

That's basically a position that makes money go away as an immediate problem, and then the rest of the appeal is having one's hobby as one's job. Scientific freedom and intrinsic value.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#276

Post by alexbanks »

dominotw wrote: post #272
bloblaw wrote: post #241

I used to work at Gravity. Dan (owner of Gravity) is sincere and frankly the real deal. Dan Price really is like what is presented in this article. He actually cares about his employees and is being genuine here. He's a good person, making a private business decision to increase the pay of frankly his lowest paid workers. In a city where the average tech worker earns $275k a year, he believes its the right thing to d…

>average tech worker earns $275k a year I need to move to bay area this year. thats my sole mission this year.

I'm curious where this poster got that figure. I haven't found anything like it, in fact a pretty consistent 145k average salary. I would also be wary of average vs. median, as there's some real crazy outliers out there.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#277

Post by cdubzzz »

dominotw wrote: post #272
bloblaw wrote: post #241

I used to work at Gravity. Dan (owner of Gravity) is sincere and frankly the real deal. Dan Price really is like what is presented in this article. He actually cares about his employees and is being genuine here. He's a good person, making a private business decision to increase the pay of frankly his lowest paid workers. In a city where the average tech worker earns $275k a year, he believes its the right thing to d…

>average tech worker earns $275k a year I need to move to bay area this year. thats my sole mission this year.

If you only make the average, expect to have a 1hr+ commute to work (:

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#278

Post by justanotherhn »

zacharycohn wrote: post #260
bloblaw wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Gravity and made much more than $70k. Nobody had their salaries cut. Only the CEO cut his salary from > $1MM to $70k.

I mean, sure. He cut his salary - but he still owns the company, and I'm sure his equity stake in the company is worth a loooooot more as a result of all this. Let's not paint this as some huge, noble sacrifice.

Was this an obvious consequence at the time? I think he took a big risk and it paid off. Props to him! It could have just as easily tanked his company as a result of an economic downturn.

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#279

Post by fahadkhan »

alexbanks wrote: post #276
dominotw wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>average tech worker earns $275k a year I need to move to bay area this year. thats my sole mission this year.

I'm curious where this poster got that figure. I haven't found anything like it, in fact a pretty consistent 145k average salary. I would also be wary of average vs. median, as there's some real crazy outliers out there.

Pedantic note. You probably mean mean (or mode) vs median. They are all different types of averages (amongst others).

Re: The boss who put everyone on 70K

#280

Post by skookum »

alexbanks wrote: post #276
dominotw wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>average tech worker earns $275k a year I need to move to bay area this year. thats my sole mission this year.

I'm curious where this poster got that figure. I haven't found anything like it, in fact a pretty consistent 145k average salary. I would also be wary of average vs. median, as there's some real crazy outliers out there.

Presumably from stories like this one earlier this week: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/seattle-tech-workers-earn-279k...
Post reply on HN