5 ms·
If you don't mind telling, how did that result in animosity?
by dnh44 7y ago
If you don't mind telling, how did that result in animosity?
- fastball 7y agoResentment? Pretty common human emotion.
- Aeolun 7y ago“You shouldn’t be making that much! I’m doing just as good a job as you!” (narrator: They didn’t)
- iso1210 7y agoThat's an interesting take "you shouldn't be earning more than me" rather than "I should be earning as much as you" I wonder why (some) people immediately think the former
- BlargMcLarg 7y agoAgency and effort. Or rather, let's change the latter statement so it sounds less entitled: "Why am I not earning as much as you? I should be able to" The latter statement requires the speaker to admit they screwed up. They can get to that point, if they did research on how to get there or worked on the key things they are missing currently. The former statement puts the agency on the opposing party and basically expects some divine will of the heavens to strike them down for their sin of earning more. Most people don't want to change or admit their own mistakes. Or worse, they are indoctrinated by Calvinism.
- aalleavitch 7y agoThis is all very self-indulgent. People don't get paid what they're worth, they get paid the smallest amount someone can get them to accept.
- rcoveson 7y agoJust what do you think the word “worth” means?
- iso1210 7y agoThe amount of value they add Company X needs to employ two people in a role. The person they employ will add $100 an hour of value to the company. Person A has lots of money in the bank from a large inheritence and doesn't need the job to live Person B has desparately needs a job to pat the mortgage Company X offers both $40 an hour Person B takes the offer, as the alternative is reposession Person A says 'no' Company X still wants that extra $100 an hour of value, so offer person B $50 an hour, then $60. Person B then accepts at $60. Both person A and person B are worth $100, neither get paid what they are worth, but person A is paid 50% more than person B.
- rcoveson 7y agoSo if a crippled person needs somebody to go to the bank and withdraw $1,000 for them, and they figure they can hire somebody trustworthy for $50 to do the errand, is that person not being paid what they’re worth, because they added $1,000 dollars of value? If person A in your narrative was capable of creating $100 dollars of value all by themselves, they would do that instead. But they can’t. The $100 opportunity exists because of the company. The company needs a shovel strong enough to dig up the $100. If one person will sell such a shovel for $40, and that’s the best price available, they’ll take it. That was the market value of shovels. It would be wrong to say the shovel was worth $100. Even if all the shovel sellers in the area knew about the details of this opportunity and decided to set they’re prices at $99, it would quickly become apparent that shovels aren’t really worth that. Two things would happen: sellers would defect and set they’re prices lower than $99 to secure the deal; this would happen as long and there was still and profit to be made. And the company would remember what a shovel was supposed to cost, get suspicious, and look in to manufacturing a shovel of they’re own, or commissioning a rake shop to make one. This game of price setting is pretty good at approximating worth, especially compared to your proposed strategy of measuring the delta between company profits in reality, and in an alternate reality where the employee didn’t exist and the company didn’t attempt to fill their position with anybody or anything. The latter is not worth talking about.
- badrabbit 7y agoExactly! You don't get paid for quality or quantity of work, you get paid for demand vs supply of your skills and your ability to negotiate a salary.