I see. I think you worded it quite badly. This in particular; "because they added $1,000 dollars of value?" This suggested that they had added a thousand doll

I see. I think you worded it quite badly. This in particular; "because they added $1,000 dollars of value?" This suggested that they had added a thousand dollars of value, whereas you presumably meant no such thing? Your example gave me the impression that we were in direct disagreement. Continuing the discussion, now that I understand what you were saying; having recognised that what people are paid is disconnected from what value they bring to a company (and thus that someone could be worth millions to a company, but paid peanuts [0]), is it right that recompense is "almost totally disconnected from the profits (or losses) the employer reaps from having that task completed for them"? This is something of a moral judgement and we stray into different grounds; the great god Market is very popular hereabouts. [0] Some argue that by defintion, what someone is paid is what they are worth. Fortunately, because that is presented as a simple definition, we can discard it as easily as it is presented.