Sometimes a single conversation changes the way a person sees an entire organization. In 2015, Dan Price heard something from a friend that made him question what his own employees were earning, and the answer eventually led him to make a decision that would cost him more than $1 million a year.

Price decided to set a $70,000 minimum salary at his company, Gravity Payments, while cutting his own annual pay from about $1.1 million to the same amount. What happened over the next six years offered a striking look at what can happen when financial security reaches beyond the executive office and into ordinary households.

Insta Via danpriceseattle

A $200 Rent Increase Changed The Conversation

The story began with a number that sounds almost ordinary. Price’s friend Valerie was earning around $40,000 a year while working roughly 50 hours each week and managing rental properties on the side. Then her rent increased by $200 a month, forcing her to consider giving up the car she needed for her second source of income.

That conversation stayed with Price. Valerie had been working hard and trying to make sensible choices, yet one relatively small increase in housing costs threatened to disrupt the balance she had built. The problem was not a lack of effort. She simply did not have enough room in her budget to absorb another expense.

Price later realized that Valerie’s situation was not unique. Around a third of the 120 people working at Gravity Payments were earning less than $40,000. They were helping process payments for thousands of small businesses, while Price himself was receiving roughly $1.1 million a year.

The contrast forced him to look more closely at what financial pressure actually meant for the people working beside him. A salary can appear adequate on paper while leaving almost no room for an unexpected bill, a higher rent payment, a medical expense, or a decision about starting a family.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Daniel Price (@danpriceseattle)

What Price Found Inside His Own Company

Once Price began asking questions, he heard stories that went far beyond ordinary financial inconvenience. Some employees were living without running water. Others were sleeping on friends’ couches, commuting more than an hour to work, delaying having children, or withdrawing money from retirement accounts to cover everyday bills.

Price described the situation in blunt terms: “some were living without running water. They were sleeping on friends’ couches, commuting over an hour to work, waiting to start a family until they could afford it and taking money out of their 401(k) to pay their bills.”

Those details changed the question for Price. He was no longer looking only at salaries as numbers on a spreadsheet. He was seeing the choices those numbers created or removed from people’s lives.

That distinction can be easy to miss. Two employees may both work full-time, perform well, and contribute to the same organization, yet one may have enough financial breathing room to plan for the future while the other spends every month trying to prevent one unexpected expense from becoming a crisis.

Why The Number Was $70,000

Price did not choose $70,000 entirely on instinct. He had read a 2010 Princeton study by Angus Deaton and Daniel Kahneman examining the relationship between income and emotional well-being. The research found that lower income was associated with greater day-to-day emotional strain, while the relationship became less pronounced around $75,000 in annual income.

Price rounded that figure down. On April 14, 2015, he announced that Gravity Payments would establish a $70,000 minimum salary within three years. Of the company’s 120 employees, 70 would receive raises, while 30 would see their pay double.

The financial sacrifice began with Price himself. His salary dropped from approximately $1.1 million to $70,000, putting his compensation on the same basic level as the newest employee in the company.

“I would not do this if I thought I was doing anyone a favor,” Price said at the time. “I just think this is what everyone deserves.”

The announcement quickly attracted enormous attention, generating more than 500 million social media interactions in its first two weeks, according to Price’s account. Yet the attention around the decision was only the beginning. The more interesting question was whether the company itself could sustain the change.

The Company Kept Growing

Six years gave Gravity Payments enough time to see whether higher salaries would damage the business or become part of its growth. According to figures from the company, payment volume increased from $3.79 billion in 2014 to $11 billion in 2020, with $13.5 billion projected for 2021.

The customer base doubled during that period, while the number of employees increased by roughly 70%. Employee engagement was reported at 76%, compared with a national average of about 38%.

Those numbers do not prove that raising salaries will produce the same outcome in every company. Gravity Payments was a single privately held business operating in a particular industry, and its experience cannot automatically be applied to every employer.

Still, the company’s explanation for its growth offers an interesting lesson. Price argued that employee retention was one of the biggest reasons the higher salaries became financially sustainable.

“Our turnover rate was cut in half, so when you have employees staying twice as long, their knowledge of how to help our customers skyrocketed over time and that’s really what paid for the raise more so than my pay cut,” Price said.

The Changes Reached Beyond The Workplace

The most striking numbers were not necessarily the ones appearing on the company’s financial statements. They were the changes taking place inside employees’ homes.

According to Gravity Payments, the number of employees buying homes increased tenfold over six years. The number having babies also increased tenfold. Around 70% of employees paid down debt, while contributions to retirement accounts increased by 155%.

These figures point toward something that is often missing from conversations about wages. Income does not only determine what someone can buy today. It can affect whether a person feels able to make decisions about the years ahead.

For someone living close to the edge each month, buying a home may remain permanently out of reach. Having a child may become something to postpone. Retirement savings may feel like money that can only be touched when everything else has gone wrong.

Higher income cannot solve every difficulty in a person’s life. But financial breathing room can change the range of choices available to them.

Then The Pandemic Tested Everything

The most revealing test came in March 2020, when the pandemic brought an enormous shock to businesses across the country. Gravity Payments lost about half of its revenue between March 10 and March 17.

Price calculated that the company had only four to six months before it could run out of money. Faced with the possibility of layoffs, he presented the situation to employees and asked them to help decide what could be done.

The response went in an unexpected direction. All 210 employees across the company’s Seattle and Boise offices volunteered to accept temporary pay cuts ranging from 5% to 10%, depending on what each person could afford.

Around two dozen employees volunteered to give up half their paychecks. Ten people offered to work without pay, including chief operating officer Tammi Kroll, whose salary was $275,000.

The voluntary reductions saved approximately $2 million and gave the company additional time to survive the downturn. No employees were laid off as a result of the crisis.

The Employees Who Had Received More Gave Back

The pandemic response added another layer to the salary experiment. Several employees had previously experienced what higher wages could do in their own lives, and they were now willing to sacrifice some of that security to keep their colleagues employed.

Carrie Chen said her household reduced its income to $40,000 during the crisis. Alex Franklin described his own reduction as “somewhere around 60%.” The employees who volunteered these cuts were later repaid every dollar they had given up.

Chen’s description of her life after the salary changes captured the personal side of the experiment. “We are right on track for the American dream, you know, we have a beautiful baby boy, a wonderful home, a beautiful life. We’re not only just living, we’re able to thrive,” she said.

There is a significant difference between receiving a raise and gaining a sense of stability. A higher paycheck can help someone pay down debt, build savings, purchase a home, or feel able to start a family without immediately fearing what happens when the next unexpected expense arrives.

The pandemic showed another side of that security. When circumstances suddenly changed, some employees had enough flexibility to give part of it back.

The Experiment Had Real Limits

There is a temptation to turn a story like this into a universal formula. The evidence does not support that conclusion.

Gravity Payments was a privately held company with a few hundred employees in one industry and one particular business environment. Its experience cannot establish that every company could introduce a $70,000 minimum salary and produce the same results.

There was also a practical reason the original decision was possible. A substantial portion of the money needed to fund the raises came from Price’s own compensation, which had been around $1.1 million. Many business owners do not have that level of salary available to redistribute.

Price himself has expressed frustration that the idea remained unusual rather than becoming more widespread. “I would say that’s the failure of this,” he said. “You know, I feel like I’ve been shouting from the rooftops like, ‘This works, this works, everybody should do it!'”

That limitation may be one of the most useful parts of the story. A single company cannot settle the broader debate about wages, but it can show what becomes possible when employers take seriously the connection between compensation and people’s ability to build stable lives.

The Number That Started Everything Was Only $200

Valerie never worked at Gravity Payments. She was simply a friend who happened to tell Price what a $200 increase in rent meant for her household. She did not ask him to redesign his company’s compensation system. She was describing a problem that many people experience privately because financial strain can be difficult to discuss at work.

That is what makes the beginning of the story so powerful. Price did not discover a complicated business problem through an elaborate analysis. He heard about a person who had reached the edge of what her income could absorb, then wondered how many others were living in similar circumstances.

The answer was waiting inside his own company. The larger lesson is not that every employer should copy one salary figure. It is that the numbers on a payroll can represent very different realities in people’s lives. A salary can determine whether someone is merely covering the present or has enough room to make plans for the future.

For Valerie, the number was $200. For Price, it became a question about what his employees needed to live with greater security. Sometimes the most consequential changes begin when someone is willing to listen closely to a problem that would otherwise remain invisible.

Loading...