3 ms·
What is not in doubt is that better paid workers means not quite as well paid executives. Something to back this, other than personal experience/opinion, would
by bassman9000 7y ago
What is not in doubt is that better paid workers means not quite as well paid executives.
Something to back this, other than personal experience/opinion, would be nice.
A = better paid workers
B = better paid executives
Your point seems to be that A => ¬B. Which, even if statistically accurate, seems a bit weird as a causation.
- scarejunba 7y agoTrue. It comes from a zero-sum game view of the company. But there are true inefficiencies that may be solved by A that make B actually more likely. For instance, if A causes lower attrition and therefore training costs, it _may_ cause sufficient higher productivity across the board for every organization as a worker gets skilled and stays in his job for longer. And that increased productivity may manifest as better company performance. It is plausible that we could have A & B. I didn't even consider the time-axis myself (implicitly assuming zero-sum) so that's a good objection.
- mdszy 7y agoWhat possible reason could you have for writing it this way and not just saying "Your point seems to be that better paid workers leads to worse paid executives..."
- bassman9000 7y agoNot being a native speaker, probably not being as fluent as you in English, and not wanting to misunderstand that the OP made more complicated than needed, IMHO.