Hacker News Reader

Comment by numlock86 | Hacker News Reader

Oh, that story. I remember it. A lot of the high-performers left shortly after that. It was all triggered by some lawsuit in the first place anyway. The "give everyone the same salary" was like a compromise to weaken the lawsuit while at the same time to make a positive impact on media.

View on HN

Alfred Nobel started the prize because his obituary was accidentally published, putting him in a bad light and he wanted to be remembered differently - we benefit from this prize today, in spite of his destructive business activities. I think it's fair to mention the fact that it was due to Price being accused of overpaying himself that the situation got turned around to be something valuable for his company and staff. However, I don't think it's fair to vilify him in the present day and discredit the results.

This would be an interesting motivational tool. Have someone write your obituary and then see if you're happy about it. Modify your life accordingly.

With respect to preparing one's own obituary in advance the following quote came to mind:

"In journalism, we recognize a kind of hierarchy of fame among the famous. We measure it in two ways: by the length of an obituary and by how far in advance it is prepared. Presidents, former presidents, and certain heads of state are at the top of the chain."

- Walter Cronkite Quotes

American - Journalist November 4, 1916 - July 17, 2009

> However, I don't think it's fair to vilify him in the present day and discredit the results.

I'm with you for the second part, I think the results can be looked at independently. However, I don't think one good deed should excuse past bad behavior and one should be careful about glorifying someone to the extent that we ignore their misdeeds.

> However, I don't think one good deed should excuse past bad behavior and one should be careful about glorifying someone to the extent that we ignore their misdeeds.

I disagree. What you say is true in a lot of cases [1], but you're devaluing personal growth way too much. This guy's "one good deed" was a drastic and radical break with his misdeed of overpaying himself. He deserves all the glory he can get for that.

[1] For instance: a businessman who spent his life exploiting thousands to make himself rich, who then engages in some half-ass charity at the end of his life.

> we benefit from this prize today, in spite of his destructive business activities.

I really hope that was intentional.

> A lot of the high-performers left shortly after that

The article specified that "two senior Gravity employees also resigned in protest". Do you have a source for "a lot of the high performers" outside of those two?

It sounds to me like it worked out for the company, regardless of the CEO's personal goings-on. It's a win for the idea that if you pay all your employees reasonably, they won't just fall back and let the company crumble. I think it's really important to point and show that this initiative, which so many people derided as ridiculous and guaranteed to fail, actually worked.

But is it actually interesting why this started? As a purely economic experiment it's surely at least not a total failure as the company is still standing.

I'm not sure what value the "high performer" qualification has in this instance. They were the highest paid, but I don't think we have any guarantees to their actual output. If the CEO is an untrustworthy agent (as some of the stories make him out to be) how can we trust any of the valuations of his employees?

Yeah, I'm really surprised more people aren't bringing up the lawsuit aspect of it (and the accusations of domestic abuse) while saying he's a 'nice guy.'

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-pric.... https://www.hundredeightydegrees.com/investigation/2018/2/27....

Here's the correct link (yours has ... in it):

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-pric...

Thanks!

Those links are broken, probably because they were copy and pasted from the comment rather than from the hyperlink. Here are the correct links:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-pric...

https://www.hundredeightydegrees.com/investigation/2018/2/27...

I worked at Gravity (and was paid well above $70k). There was a lawsuit filed before the $70k thing was even planned.

source: https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...

> Lucas Price served the suit on his brother prior to the $70,000 announcement, and the core allegations related to the preceding years. The suit alleged that Dan Price used his majority control of the company to pay himself excessive compensation, manipulate valuations of the company to his financial benefit, and charge hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses to the company.

FWIW, Dan Price (owner of Gravity) is the real deal.

While I no longer work there, I am proud of what he is doing. He is a capitalist, making a decision as a private business owner to help improve the lives of his employees earning < $70k (in the expensive Seattle area mind you) by reducing his own compensation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com