4 ms·

That's some pretty impressive ingrained bias towards rent-seekers. Why not 1.1x or the board can try doing the work?

• perl4ever 7y ago
  Consider a fast food business. Should the manager be satisfied with making 10% profit on french fries?
  • frostburg 7y ago
    10% on raw materials would be losing money, but 10% on total expense, with the difference going to the workforce is fine to me. I don't see why fast foods shouldn't be cooperatives, they're not exactly capital intensive or high risk. To be clear, I wasn't referring to the board having a choice in the matter.
• alexis_fr 7y ago
  Sorry I both agree with you but reckon 10x is about the correct ratio. It’s not rent-seeking, it’s “sharing wealth” and “diminishing inequalities”. A good engineer needs to pay for: - Administrative employees, - Office rental, - Junior members of the teams who are growing up towards seniority, - Women who are non productive but required to pass the diversity requirements and make the company look good. You may claim it’s unfair that productive members are exploited to pay for nonproductive ones, but that’s the neo-conservatives’ argument, and has been rejected by most of the Silicon Valley. I honestly think that the currebt situation is already the middle ground betweeb “pay proportional to your added value” and “diversity, equality and social responsibility requires adjusting the salaries of highest-paid engineers.”