> For example, if you work in space industry, your salary and benefits contribute directly to the costs of space exploration. This means that ultimately the mor

> For example, if you work in space industry, your salary and benefits contribute directly to the costs of space exploration. This means that ultimately the more you earn the less space exploration we can do per buck. Doesn't this assume that you the value you create for the company is less than or equal to your salary? Seems like the opposite of reality. In for-profit businesses, workers should always be a net gain. Your space exploration analogy would fall apart if you worked for SpaceX, for example. Paying engineers dearly doesn't mean the company makes less money: it means it can get even more lucrative contracts. So yes, in budget-constrained non-growth organizations like NASA, you might be a net-loss, but that's a pretty special case.