Listen now (106 min) | In 2015, Dan Price did something we wish would keep happening: as the CEO of Gravity Payments, a credit card company, he raised Gravity’s minimum yearly salary to $70k — and lowered his own salary to $70k from over a million dollars. In this week’s episode of Krystal Kyle & Friends, we talk to Dan about this choice, from its catalyst to its effects. How does he respond to the CEOs who insist that paying poverty wages is good for business? What kind of ideology was he exposed to as a CEO, and what made him turn away from it? Dan answers all of these questions and more in Episode 31 of Krystal Kyle & Friends.
Amazing episode that demonstrates the profitability of worker rights. Another incredible guest. I relate so much to this show and could listen for hours.
The way the Supreme Court rules, it won't allow anti-trust enforcement to succeed. They have listened to the academics and corporate think tanks and have decided if the consumer prices aren't raised. They do not account for squeezing the suppliers or the employers.
That was supposed to say that if the monopoly does not raise consumer prices, the Supreme Court has decided that anti-monopoly laws do not apply. What they also don't account for is that monopolies get that way by undercutting the competitors until they drive them out of the market, and then they raise prices. Take Microsoft, for example. They have set the computer industry back by decades by driving out any company that does better software than Microsoft does.
There's no Video for this week?
Yeah wtf…..don’t see one for Bernie either
Amazing episode that demonstrates the profitability of worker rights. Another incredible guest. I relate so much to this show and could listen for hours.
Idk man…he has some allegations against him not many people have been fortunate enough to draw their attention to………makes me wonder….
The label I like to use is "what worksist". Take some policy action, measure how it works, and if it makes society work better, then keep it.
The way the Supreme Court rules, it won't allow anti-trust enforcement to succeed. They have listened to the academics and corporate think tanks and have decided if the consumer prices aren't raised. They do not account for squeezing the suppliers or the employers.
That was supposed to say that if the monopoly does not raise consumer prices, the Supreme Court has decided that anti-monopoly laws do not apply. What they also don't account for is that monopolies get that way by undercutting the competitors until they drive them out of the market, and then they raise prices. Take Microsoft, for example. They have set the computer industry back by decades by driving out any company that does better software than Microsoft does.