sofa,
yeah, you're right. We're cynical.
I realized that I had not read an article, I had instead depended on Mr. S for facts. My bad.
From
Price said he will cut his nearly $1 million salary to $70,000 and use about 80 percent of the business’ anticipated profit to increase the salary of about 70 employees. About 30 employees, including the lowest-paid clerk, will see their salaries increase to the $70,000 threshold.
So there is a lowest-paid clerk, if not someone on staff who empties the trash. And the math can work.
It does not say all 120 employees will receive (I can't bring myself to say "earn") $70,000. It doesn't say some make more. It says 70 employees will see salary increases, and 30 will see their income increase to the falsely-named "threshold" of $70,000. It doesn't clearly say whether the 30 whose income goes up to $70,000 are part of the 70 whose incomes will increase, or whether the writer intended to discuss 100 employees, of whom 70 this and 30 that.
The workers reportedly clapped and cheered when he made the announcement at the Seattle office.
Of course they did. What a great stunt.
The point that the owner earned a million the year before carries a lot of weight. When disposable income has been huge, and probably some of it invested, weekly income becomes less of a crucial issue. Consider my boss, many years ago, solving a storage problem for me by suggesting that I buy a kind of cabinet that would cost me two weeks' salary, while he made five times what I made. It's easy for us to forget, since we're not in that crowd, that a few years of five times another's salary makes the weekly income a bit less of an issue.
