The Price Dan Price Paid For Trying to Change The Tech World
Dan Price was the CEO of Gravity Payments. Can you separate his idea from him?
Before diving into this complex story, I want to make one thing absolutely clear: this article in no way endorses or excuses harmful behavior toward any individual. Physical, emotional, or mental harm inflicted upon another person is unacceptable in all circumstances. However, the timing and nature of certain allegations can raise legitimate questions about power structures in our society.
In 2015, Dan Price, CEO of Seattle-based credit card processing company Gravity Payments, made headlines worldwide with a revolutionary announcement: he would set a minimum salary of $70,000 for all his employees. Even more shocking to the corporate world, he would slash his own nearly $1.1 million salary to the same $70,000 level to help fund the initiative.
Price explained his decision came after discovering one of his employees was secretly working a second job at McDonald's just to make ends meet. "It was clear I was an awful CEO who was failing his employees. I gave her a raise to quit that job. No one should have to work two jobs to make ends meet," Price stated.
This decision immediately made Price a media sensation and a champion of progressive business practices. But was his sudden rise to fame also the beginning of a carefully orchestrated downfall?
The reaction from establishment media outlets was swift and revealing. On Fox Business, presenter Stuart Varney labeled Price the "lunatic of all lunatics." Radio host Rush Limbaugh went further, calling Price's decision "pure, unadulterated socialism" and stating he hoped "this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's going to fail."
What's interesting is how visceral and personal these attacks became. Were these simply honest critiques of a business decision, or did Price's actions threaten something more fundamental to the power structure? After all, Price himself pointed out: "I did this as a private business owner. It affected no one but myself (I cut my salary from $1.1M to $70k) - the definition of private enterprise. But what I did was very threatening to them because it disrupts the narrative of 'CEOs must be paid 1,000x more than their employees.'"
Let's examine the sequence of events following Price's revolutionary announcement:
Prior to the $70k announcement:
- March 2015: Dan Price was served with a lawsuit by his brother and business partner, Lucas Price, alleging overpayment of himself and minority shareholder oppression. This lawsuit concluded in Dan Price's favor in July 2016
The $70K Decision and Immediate Fallout
- April 13, 2015: The New York Times publishes a story about Price's $70,000 minimum wage plan, bringing international attention
- April 24, 2015: Just days after the announcement goes viral, Price's brother Lucas files a lawsuit against him, alleging Dan "improperly used his majority control of the company to pay himself excessive compensation"
- December 2015: Bloomberg reports that Price's ex-wife Kristie Colón had spoken in a TEDx talk about being beaten and waterboarded by her ex-husband, although she didn't specifically name Price. Price denied these allegations, stating the abuse "never happened"
2020–2022: Mounting Allegations and Resignation
- Around December 2020: A fitness coach named Serena Jowers alleges Price pulled up pornography on their third date and pressured her to have sex after she resisted watching it
- 2021: An incident occurs in Palm Springs that would later lead to rape charges
- 2022: Price resigns as CEO of Gravity Payments following allegations that he cornered a woman in his car, forcibly tried to kiss her, drove while drunk, and grabbed her neck
2024: Criminal Charges
- October 2024: Dan Price is charged with rape of an unconscious victim in California, stemming from the 2021 Palm Springs incident. Court documents show Price posted $55,000 bail after a grand jury indicted him in September
The timing of these allegations raises legitimate questions. Is it merely coincidence that Price's troubles began shortly after he challenged one of capitalism's most sacred tenets - that CEOs deserve astronomically higher compensation than their workers?
There's a documented history of powerful interests using character assassination to discredit those who challenge economic orthodoxy. When an individual becomes a symbol for systemic change, attacking their character often proves more effective than engaging with their ideas.
I'm not suggesting a specific conspiracy theory here, but rather inviting readers to consider: how often do we see promising movements for economic equality derailed by personal scandals? How convenient is it when someone who threatens the status quo is suddenly engulfed in controversy?
Perhaps what made Price truly dangerous wasn't just his actions but the idea those actions represented. If other CEOs had followed his example, it could have fundamentally shifted expectations about fair compensation in America.
"The most dangerous thing is not a weapon but an idea." This adage has proven true throughout history. Ideas that challenge entrenched power structures - especially economic ones - often face extraordinary resistance.
Had Price's experiment gained more traction, it might have triggered what some anti-socialist elite groups would consider a crisis: workers across America demanding their fair share of the wealth they help create.
It's worth considering these questions:
- Why does American media respond so viscerally to even modest attempts at economic equality?
- How often are personal scandals used to discredit economic reformers throughout history?
- Does the timing of allegations against prominent challengers to the system follow patterns?
- Why are we so quick to accept character assassination as a way to dismiss ideas that threaten the status quo?
To be clear, sexual assault allegations should always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. At the same time, we should remain aware of how power operates in our society and how established interests protect themselves.
The story of Dan Price is complex and still unfolding. While the courts will determine his guilt or innocence regarding the specific charges against him, the broader pattern deserves our attention.
In a healthy democracy, we should be able to question power structures without fear of character assassination. We should be able to propose alternative economic models without immediate demonization.
Do you want to live in a system where challenging economic orthodoxy comes with such risks? Where ideas about fairness and equality are immediately labeled as dangerous "socialism"? Where the messenger is attacked rather than the message engaged with honestly?
I believe we deserve better. We deserve a system where economic ideas can be debated on their merits, not drowned out by scandal and sensationalism.
What do you think? Have you noticed similar patterns with other economic reformers? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
If you liked this content I’d appreciate an upvote or a comment. That helps me improve the quality of my posts as well as getting to know more about you, my dear reader.
Muchas gracias!
Follow me for more content like this.
X | PeakD | Rumble | YouTube | Linked In | GitHub | PayPal.me | Medium
Down below you can find other ways to tip my work.
BankTransfer: "710969000019398639", // CLABE
BAT: "0x33CD7770d3235F97e5A8a96D5F21766DbB08c875",
ETH: "0x33CD7770d3235F97e5A8a96D5F21766DbB08c875",
BTC: "33xxUWU5kjcPk1Kr9ucn9tQXd2DbQ1b9tE",
ADA: "addr1q9l3y73e82hhwfr49eu0fkjw34w9s406wnln7rk9m4ky5fag8akgnwf3y4r2uzqf00rw0pvsucql0pqkzag5n450facq8vwr5e",
DOT: "1rRDzfMLPi88RixTeVc2beA5h2Q3z1K1Uk3kqqyej7nWPNf",
DOGE: "DRph8GEwGccvBWCe4wEQsWsTvQvsEH4QKH",
DAI: "0x33CD7770d3235F97e5A8a96D5F21766DbB08c875"