Put simply, you should be paid relative to the power you have to cause the company to make or lose money. A floor worker has almost no power to make a company succeed or fail. The floor worker's manager has more power, because he controls a number of employees. The manager's manger has even more power, etc, etc, ad nauseum. If what you say or do can cause the company to experience dramatic shifts in revenue or image, you should be paid for that responsibility. I'm not going to represent an entire company as a CEO without the money that should come with that responsibility. If the company goes down, its MY fault.. not Mr. Floor worker.
You seem to have veered away in your argument of semantics and "experience in the industry" with Cyn, but I still don't see how you believe that
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
... the priority is to pay the upper management.
|
is..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
... the sign of bad management and a complete lack of good education. A proper CEO should have education in both mathematical economics and economic game theory.
|
"Economic game theory"? Really? It's pretty simple to understand that you should be paid more the higher your position within a company. It is harder to replace upper management than middle management, harder to replace middle management than hourly employees. Likewise, you should always put "priority" towards paying the upper management.