I felt as though Dan had done his homework and it was corroborated by what I was able to find. I you want to take issue with his work, I would recommend that you do the research as you say you always do. I cited him as a source, and I am comfortable with it. I have done some research beyond Dan’s piece, and though this type of information is not easy to find, I stand behind what I have written.

If you would like to become a patron of this site I would have a lot more time to devote to researching the personal history of all of these individuals. Let me know if you would like to contribute.

Thanks for reading the piece!

Have you checked all these individuals to be sure that Eden’s article is and honest one? I would have appreciated knowing the sources he used to compile this list of Israeli-Americans. These days I always check the sources before coming to any conclusions.

Thanks,
Carolyn

Of course I would go on Oprah, it is the most coveted bump you can get if you sell anything. I can assure you that the Oprah appearance directly translated into a huge bump in traffic to Zappos.com.

But there is nothing wrong with that. I mentioned it because Tony tries to craft an image of being different, kinder, cooler, more generous…and this is the problem. He looks for this type of PR on Oprah, and then lops off heads a week or two later. That is way uncool to me.

The cubicle thing is part of the image shaping. His top two colleagues, Alfred and Fred, sit next to him. But they can all come and go as they please. If they don’t want to be at their desks, they won’t be. They will work from home or be on a trip somewhere. I don’t think it’s wrong to work from home or travel. But don’t think that the cube thing means he is in the cube all day every day like you or me.

You talk about “how business works.” I agree, but I suggest that how it works isn’t working for unemployed people, and it isn’t working for the economy as a whole, is it? We need to think differently to fix the problem.

About your point that Tony is not the guy to single out because he is cooler than most. That is why I took the time to write this. He needs to be setting a better example if he is to be what he wants people to think he is. Maybe I expected better from him.

Personally, if I had several hundred million dollars, I would be set, and I would spend my life trying to help others. I’m not trying to sound like I’m so great, but that is honestly what I’d do. I wouldn’t care about profit for me, I would just want to keep people employed, and in fact, I would give my employees all of the equity.

Cheers, and thanks again.

Let me ask you this::
If you were the CEO of a corporation, would you be willing to go on talk shows to help promote the growth of a company that you were personally invested in? After having watched Tony’s segment on Oprah, it doesn’t seem that he’s the type of guy who really enjoys public speaking for the fame of it…

Also, would you be willing to sit in a cubicle right next to the rest of your employees? As much as I would like to say that I would, I might prefer to have my own office. It’s hard to tell unless you are put in that situation. With Hsieh, you know what his answer was to that question, which tells a lot about him.

Finally, I can easily see how a company, who has shown explosive growth for almost a decade, would hire expecting to see the same type of growth in 2008 (particularly with no indication that it wouldn’t happen). When the expected growth and sales don’t materialize or even go negative, that company would be far overreaching in terms of operational costs, which would then lead to layoffs. This is how business works.

If 2007 was the first year Zappos even made a profit (which is regardless of sales figures, no matter how high), one could then deduce that they probably weren’t making very much of one. One could further conclude then, were that the case, they might not be profitable for 2008. It will be interesting to see what they have to say about their financial state in Q1 2009.

Anyhow, just some things to think about. You also have a great evening, and thanks for the post.

Thanks for writing. I’m aware that Tony sits in a cubicle. I don’t know what that has to do with it. It is the myth that he is such a regular guy that motivated me to mention him by name so often in this piece. He gets a pass at all times, and I’m coming out to say not this time.

The age of the company is not an issue–the fact that they are profitable is. I don’t know why Nick left, and I didn’t say that I did. And if you have pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate dealings, I would absolutely say that you are part of the corporate elite, albeit the entrepreneurial wing.

The bottom line is, the company is profitable and it could have kept the people on and still made a profit. That’s what I’m railing against.

This is why we do need forced redistribution of wealth, taking from the top 5%, because the greed of the haves is strangling the economy. We need a salary cap and a limit on personal wealth to pay for a $25 an hour minimum wage and money will trickle around, and up. There is plenty of money in this country, but people like Tony have it all, regardless of where they sit (and for the record, he travels more than he sits at his desk).

I do appreciate your input Justin, thank you very much for taking the time to read the post and comment, have a great evening.

1. Tony works in a cubicle in the middle of his office right alongside the rest of his employees. This does not really comply with your notion of him being a part of the “corporate elite.”

2. Zappos is 9 years old. This is not some entrenched corporate conglomerate where old men with cigars laugh about the poor conditions of the workers on the frontlines.

3. Zappos may be scheduling $1b in sales for 2008, but who knows how much that actually translates into profits. In fact, it apears as though 2007 was the first year in which they actually MADE a profit.

4. You imply in your writing that Nick Swinmurn either left the company under poor conditions or was moved out of the company by Hsieh. Do you have any sources to back this notion?

All in all, I would say that the post was good in spirit, but please make sure you do some more research next time before grabbing your pitchfork and yelling about how the proletariat needs to rise up against its’ oppressors.

sources: http://www.serviceuntitled.com/tony-hsieh-of-zappos/2008/02/04/
http://www.successmagazine.com/article?articleId=391&taxonomyId=15

Sustainability and equitable distribution are not parts of the equation, which is why we are where we are economically. Nothing trickles down. You can’t put people out of work so that you can continue to add to your hundreds of millions and maintain your status as a respected progressive. I’m sorry if that doesn’t resonate with you, but I can’t understand how any decent person could disagree.

The type of decision Zappos made to satisfy the VCs is strangling the worker and crippling the country economically. Profitable companies need to provide jobs first and foremost, not provide growth for investors. If they won’t do it willingly, we need force them to do so legislatively and/or tax them so hard they might as well pay the workers instead of the tax.

Thanks for reading the post. I am not angry at, nor was I when I wrote the post. I don’t feel that this is a failure in the least, and your haughty response that is completely lacking in substance is the epitome of the elitism that the post exposes.

It is a failure simply because you say so. What about the post do you disagree with, and why do you think the writer is angry?

The wealthy need to realize the pain that they are causing with their greed. I’m sorry if you don’t like what you see in the mirror, which is economic collapse and widespread unemployment.

Though I am not angry in an energetic sense, I am reminded of the Bob Marley song, “A hungry mob is an angry mob… .”

Once again, thanks for reading!

All the best!