Does this guy still have an obscene amount of money from the sale? Sure. But did he literally change the trajectory of a few hundred people's lives? Absolutely.
This guy didn’t whine about taxes while being worth over $600 billion while paying less taxes than a dead rat and then go on psychotic rants??? He didn’t buy a mega yacht he can park inside his super mega yacht?! Is he even a billionaire?!
A billionaire, Chick Feeney (think that’s his name) has given most if not all his $6bn away. He may still be alive …but he’s definitely in the process of donating to various causes
The entire point is that she's giving away a metric fuckton of money and is pretty much immediately recovering that philanthropy in the market. They could all do it and not lose a single penny.
The truck drivers that move her equipment got $100,000 bonuses. In the commercial trucking industry, that’s nonexistent. I’m not a Swift fan, but she goes out of her way, time and again to be generous with what she’s made and she sure as fuck doesn’t need more good PR.
She would only pay for non-union truckers on her tour, then underpaid and overworked them so much they were about to walk out on the remainder of the tour dates.
"Taylor Swift's Eras Tour employees received significant bonuses on top of regular pay, with truck drivers getting $100,000 each and dancers reportedly receiving around $750,000 in bonus checks, part of a total $197 million in bonuses distributed to the entire crew, including band, techs, and support staff, showcasing exceptional generosity beyond typical industry standards.
Key Pay & Bonus Details:
Truck Drivers: Each driver received a $100,000 bonus, a massive increase from typical annual wages, with handwritten notes from Swift.
Dancers: Estimated bonuses were around $750,000 per dancer, potentially five times their annual salary, though exact figures varied.
Total Bonuses: A reported $197 million in bonuses was distributed across the entire tour staff, including musicians, security, catering, merchandise, production, and more."
It takes cash to pay bonuses. They obviously had very hard years until very recently where they were losing money. Should the employees have also had to pay to work there those years?
A buy out is usually paying way more than a business makes in a year. It's speculative. It's a bet on the future, paid all upfront. You literally can't pay that type of money to people until there is a sale.
Bought out companies are immediately saddled with the debt of the sale. The buyers intend to have a positive ROI or they would not have bought the company.
It has nothing to do with bonuses or cash. The money exists to pay workers more everywhere else too. This example proves that the workers could have been earning higher wages the entire time instead of the largesse of the owner.
Bought out companies are immediately saddled with the debt of the sale.
This is not correct. It can be the case in certain kinds of leveraged buyouts often via private equity, but it is not the default case of one company buying another.
The money of a couple of good years of sales following several years of barely keeping the company afloat while it loses money does not magically give the ability to pay people a lot more money. It might convince someone to make a large bet paying multiple times the current revenue of the company, which can then be distributed to workers (but usually not so much).
There is a huge difference between cash available under normal operation and that available after a sale. That is completely orthogonal to worker ownership, etc.
This is an actual idea worth exploring to force trickle-down economics to work. The only reason it doesn't is because the CEOs and owners don't do their part where this person did. We ought to enforce trickle-down economics to work by codifying mandatory quarterly bonus checks and other stuff like this.
Everyone got on board with the idea of trickle-down economics because they were told it was gonna work, so now we're gonna force you to hold up your end of the bargain motha fuckas
The only thing that trickles down in trickle-down economics is the piss you receive from the 1%.
Trickle-down economics was just another failed economic plan by another actor that had 0 reason to be president. Reagan did more for the 1% than any of the citizens he served.
He also actively lied when snitching out other actors/acctresses he believed were communist when they were against the fascist ideolologies of the Republican party.
Sounds a lot like the current Chief Pedo in office as he obfuscates his current dealings with the billionaire pedo ring.
And then the government could I don’t know, do a fair distribution of this money, to provide for who needs the most, being due to health concerns or other things.
Payments over 5 years? I really hope in the fine print it says they get the money regardless if they are laid off or have to leave the company. I have lost a bonus before when they split payments over the year and in the same year I was let go.
And what is in place to ensure that the new owners don't renege on the promised bonuses? I've been through enough buy-outs and mergers in my day to know that the employees ALWAYS get it worse afterwards.
It was part of the paperwork of the sale. It's legally binding, and the former owner was the one who fought to have it included. I 100% believe he would take them to court if they didn't hold it up.
No, they do not. You clearly have never tried to collect a judgement from a large company before. They just ignore you, until you foreclose on their properties.
Nothing it makes the seller feel good, washes their hands of the guilt and blames it all on the new owners. Hopefully it doesn't work that way, but my money is on that timeline.
During the first term trump tax cuts, while many corporate businesses gave bonuses to their employees, my employer decided to give equivalent amount of money in company stock that you had to click a link in an email to sign up for and you would get it in 3 years if you still worked for the company. I know several people that were on PTO or leave that did not click the email and failed to receive the “bonus”, or were no longer with the company for various reasons. Also the company had bad press around the time of the announcement and the stock tanked significantly
Worked at a manufacturing plant that was being moved to another state. They promised the employees that everyone who stayed until the end would get big bonuses.
I don't know if they ever paid out any bonuses. I do know that a LOT of employees didn't make it to the end. Because they were laid off before then.
I got bitten by this one. Offered some attractive retention bonus then got laid off before it matured. It was a lot of money. Like several years salary over a few years.
Maturity was three years after issue so they laid me off six months before the first tranche was due.
Remember that dude who posted here like a week ago basically saying how he doesn’t understand this sub or the members of it, because CEOs are entitled to all their money and they worked hard for it?
Fuck that guy and CEOs, except this CEO who gave out these amazing bonuses.
They don’t the normal ones with empathy do. Once you make enough as a healthy adult you realize more doesn’t make you happy but empowering others and providing a life does.
That's a very ignorant thing to say. People earning less than $75k/year tend to donate about 4.3% to 7.6% of their annual income to charity, while people earning $100k+ only donate 3.1% on average and people making $2M-$5M donate 3.44%.
More lower income people also make donations than those with $100k or more. So the 'poor' are exceptionally more generous than the rich.
I was downvoted to hell when I pushed back about Taylor Swift donating $1m to Feeding America. This is fucking dystopia that we have to rely on the good graces of a billionaire
And this is what would happen at more publicly traded companies if dodge brothers vs Ford was rescinded. The most overlooked supreme court decision that screws over every working man.
Didn't he give the money because if the workers didn't get something the deal would have fell thru or something. Real generous if the gift was only a compromise to make himself richer
This is all anyone on the left wants. I don’t care if you are a billionaire but becoming one of the backs of others, then cutting them out from the profits of their labor is the problem. If I get a reasonable slice of that profit then fine
Ok. There's 1 good billionaire in the world.
Does this guy still have an obscene amount of money from the sale? Sure. But did he literally change the trajectory of a few hundred people's lives? Absolutely.
This guy didn’t whine about taxes while being worth over $600 billion while paying less taxes than a dead rat and then go on psychotic rants??? He didn’t buy a mega yacht he can park inside his super mega yacht?! Is he even a billionaire?!
I was fortunate to be working for such a family when they decided to sell. Others were more fortunate, but I was oh-so-grateful.
I was on the Due Diligence team. Cash balances were reserved by the owners.
They gave out 4 separate bonuses in the year of the sale. I was so proud to approve each and every bonus run.
They spent nearly all of the $15MM cash on the employees.
A billionaire, Chick Feeney (think that’s his name) has given most if not all his $6bn away. He may still be alive …but he’s definitely in the process of donating to various causes
Mackenzie Scott is one of them.
I don't think she's a billionaire anymore, which is why she was a good one
68. Mackenzie Scott - $28.2B
Forbes World's Billionaire List 2025: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
Damn, still. She'll keep giving it away at least.
I suspect she will, especially considering she donated a total of $7.1 billion in 2025.
"Scott’s updated philanthropic tally puts her behind only fellow billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates in terms of lifetime giving, according to Forbes." - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/13/mackenzie-scott-revealed-her-total-charitable-donations-for-2025.html
She definitely is.
The entire point is that she's giving away a metric fuckton of money and is pretty much immediately recovering that philanthropy in the market. They could all do it and not lose a single penny.
No.
Says the greedy person
Taylor Swift did this too, actually. But vast majority of billionaires won't.
Didn't Billie Eilish donate 1/5 of her fortune too?
She's nowhere near a billionaire, though.
So? Being worth 50 ish million and giving away 11 million of it is bad ass.
They could give away a lot more and not even notice it.
True, but they want the power that comes with it...
Donated the proceeds of her recent tour ... about $11m IIRC. Good person.
Nah, just not a cannibal. She can still be a shitty human lol
Exactly most have the wealth, very few have the impact
Taylor swift did it for her PR. And barely any employees got that money. Here its different.
The truck drivers that move her equipment got $100,000 bonuses. In the commercial trucking industry, that’s nonexistent. I’m not a Swift fan, but she goes out of her way, time and again to be generous with what she’s made and she sure as fuck doesn’t need more good PR.
She would only pay for non-union truckers on her tour, then underpaid and overworked them so much they were about to walk out on the remainder of the tour dates.
Then, and only then, did she issue those bonuses.
"Taylor Swift's Eras Tour employees received significant bonuses on top of regular pay, with truck drivers getting $100,000 each and dancers reportedly receiving around $750,000 in bonus checks, part of a total $197 million in bonuses distributed to the entire crew, including band, techs, and support staff, showcasing exceptional generosity beyond typical industry standards.
Key Pay & Bonus Details:
Truck Drivers: Each driver received a $100,000 bonus, a massive increase from typical annual wages, with handwritten notes from Swift.
Dancers: Estimated bonuses were around $750,000 per dancer, potentially five times their annual salary, though exact figures varied.
Total Bonuses: A reported $197 million in bonuses was distributed across the entire tour staff, including musicians, security, catering, merchandise, production, and more."
Her entire touring staff got bonuses so…no
Wrong
Some poor executive isn't getting their second yacht now. I hope these peasants are proud of themselves.
What a cool story
The point is that everyone in that factory should have already gotten these raises - same as everyone else.
It takes cash to pay bonuses. They obviously had very hard years until very recently where they were losing money. Should the employees have also had to pay to work there those years?
A buy out is usually paying way more than a business makes in a year. It's speculative. It's a bet on the future, paid all upfront. You literally can't pay that type of money to people until there is a sale.
Bought out companies are immediately saddled with the debt of the sale. The buyers intend to have a positive ROI or they would not have bought the company.
It has nothing to do with bonuses or cash. The money exists to pay workers more everywhere else too. This example proves that the workers could have been earning higher wages the entire time instead of the largesse of the owner.
This is not correct. It can be the case in certain kinds of leveraged buyouts often via private equity, but it is not the default case of one company buying another.
The money of a couple of good years of sales following several years of barely keeping the company afloat while it loses money does not magically give the ability to pay people a lot more money. It might convince someone to make a large bet paying multiple times the current revenue of the company, which can then be distributed to workers (but usually not so much).
There is a huge difference between cash available under normal operation and that available after a sale. That is completely orthogonal to worker ownership, etc.
This is an actual idea worth exploring to force trickle-down economics to work. The only reason it doesn't is because the CEOs and owners don't do their part where this person did. We ought to enforce trickle-down economics to work by codifying mandatory quarterly bonus checks and other stuff like this.
Everyone got on board with the idea of trickle-down economics because they were told it was gonna work, so now we're gonna force you to hold up your end of the bargain motha fuckas
The only thing that trickles down in trickle-down economics is the piss you receive from the 1%.
Trickle-down economics was just another failed economic plan by another actor that had 0 reason to be president. Reagan did more for the 1% than any of the citizens he served.
He was a class traitor because he hated paying taxes on the money he earned in Hollywood. He was only out for himself in many ways.
He also actively lied when snitching out other actors/acctresses he believed were communist when they were against the fascist ideolologies of the Republican party.
Sounds a lot like the current Chief Pedo in office as he obfuscates his current dealings with the billionaire pedo ring.
And we could name it I don’t know, taxes.
What? What I'm talking about is direct payment from business to employee. Taxes go directly from taxpayer to government
And then the government could I don’t know, do a fair distribution of this money, to provide for who needs the most, being due to health concerns or other things.
That's how taxes are supposed to work, we don't really need a new method
I believe they're talking about putting money directly from the company into employees' hands, which taxes do not do.
Secondly, if something is 'supposed' to work a certain way, but it does not work that way in practice, then yes we need a new method.
Payments over 5 years? I really hope in the fine print it says they get the money regardless if they are laid off or have to leave the company. I have lost a bonus before when they split payments over the year and in the same year I was let go.
Its to ensure the employees don't jump after the sale. Still nice though, hope it works out.
And what is in place to ensure that the new owners don't renege on the promised bonuses? I've been through enough buy-outs and mergers in my day to know that the employees ALWAYS get it worse afterwards.
It was part of the paperwork of the sale. It's legally binding, and the former owner was the one who fought to have it included. I 100% believe he would take them to court if they didn't hold it up.
Nothing stops the rich buyers from simply ignoring the poors.
Courts do.
No, they do not. You clearly have never tried to collect a judgement from a large company before. They just ignore you, until you foreclose on their properties.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/s4emjPKKpr
When you have that much money, you can out money the poors who usually dont have enough to money to actually collect.
These are usually escrowed since they were part of the purchase price proceeds to the seller rather than a retention payment coming from the buyer.
Nothing it makes the seller feel good, washes their hands of the guilt and blames it all on the new owners. Hopefully it doesn't work that way, but my money is on that timeline.
During the first term trump tax cuts, while many corporate businesses gave bonuses to their employees, my employer decided to give equivalent amount of money in company stock that you had to click a link in an email to sign up for and you would get it in 3 years if you still worked for the company. I know several people that were on PTO or leave that did not click the email and failed to receive the “bonus”, or were no longer with the company for various reasons. Also the company had bad press around the time of the announcement and the stock tanked significantly
Worked at a manufacturing plant that was being moved to another state. They promised the employees that everyone who stayed until the end would get big bonuses.
I don't know if they ever paid out any bonuses. I do know that a LOT of employees didn't make it to the end. Because they were laid off before then.
God damn that is cruel
Oh scheisty. Good point, and fuck those assholes for doing that to you.
I got bitten by this one. Offered some attractive retention bonus then got laid off before it matured. It was a lot of money. Like several years salary over a few years.
Maturity was three years after issue so they laid me off six months before the first tranche was due.
I seem to be missing my paycheck.
Remember that dude who posted here like a week ago basically saying how he doesn’t understand this sub or the members of it, because CEOs are entitled to all their money and they worked hard for it?
Fuck that guy and CEOs, except this CEO who gave out these amazing bonuses.
That's what people are brainwashed to think.
Only a private owner could do this. A CEO of a publicly traded company would be terminated if they even had this thought
Right, because that money belongs to shareholders.
What if other rich people were actually kind to their fellow man? Maybe the world wouldn’t be so fucked.
[deleted]
Rich people aren't negatively affected as much as the average or poors when they help others.
They don’t the normal ones with empathy do. Once you make enough as a healthy adult you realize more doesn’t make you happy but empowering others and providing a life does.
That's a very ignorant thing to say. People earning less than $75k/year tend to donate about 4.3% to 7.6% of their annual income to charity, while people earning $100k+ only donate 3.1% on average and people making $2M-$5M donate 3.44%.
More lower income people also make donations than those with $100k or more. So the 'poor' are exceptionally more generous than the rich.
I highly doubt anyone on antiwork has ever donated anything ever. U gusy literally lost the sub after the fox news special with ur mod.
I'm on antiwork and I donate money to charities. So that comment is really making you look less intelligent..
I was downvoted to hell when I pushed back about Taylor Swift donating $1m to Feeding America. This is fucking dystopia that we have to rely on the good graces of a billionaire
Just give your people all the money at once lmao if your gonna be Robinhood then be Robinhood 100%
Always some fine print shit 🙄
And this is what would happen at more publicly traded companies if dodge brothers vs Ford was rescinded. The most overlooked supreme court decision that screws over every working man.
It's a start.
He's giving 15% to the people that made that company as wealthy as it is, and he's only keeping 85% for himself.
Gifted the employees after selling the company for 1.7 billion, your title makes it sound like he did that without that important detail.
Agreed, ain't my title though.
Didn't he give the money because if the workers didn't get something the deal would have fell thru or something. Real generous if the gift was only a compromise to make himself richer
Fantastic way to lower turnover rate. Probably it's at zero.
This is all anyone on the left wants. I don’t care if you are a billionaire but becoming one of the backs of others, then cutting them out from the profits of their labor is the problem. If I get a reasonable slice of that profit then fine