So what dollar amount is acceptable between the person whose responsibility is a broom and the person that has hundreds of people’s livelihoods at stake and dozens of stores to maintain?
Nah, overall I don’t hate people. Just the ones who are void of common sense and refuse to use logic in their decision making, relying on feeling to navigate their way through life. Couple that with being forced to go along with nonsense in order to be a part of society, it’s exhausting.
I mean that’s just a long list if excuses. It’s that mentality that keeps you back. Our outcomes in life are a direct reflection of our choices. It might take a lot of sacrifice but easy and successful are not synonymous.
So when a company decides to compensate employees, your belief is that the janitor who has minimal responsibilities and training for that job provides the same value as the one who had to earn a degree for the position, is actively trying to expand the company, which has an added benefit of hiring new employees, among many other factors?
Here’s a real world example. I train people to do the job and meet the standards I require for my company. They start out with no or minimal skills, I provide the knowledge so they can do the work. Should I not be compensated more than them even though I’ve invested my time and money in them? Should they not be compensated more than the brand new hire even though they have more skills and seniority? Or do we all make the same since we all ‘give it our all’?
Why did you dodge the question and inserted a completely separate scenario. Your scenario is true in some cases, but so is mine. Would you be willing to answer my question now?
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]
CEOs of top 100 ‘low-wage’ US firms earn $601 for every $1 by worker, report finds ( www.theguardian.com )
These companies paid their employees a median wage of $31,672 in 2022, while their CEOs took home an average $15.3m