4 ms·

I agree with this in general, but let’s not forget that everyone has a different budget structure and comparing these is apples to oranges. On one hand, that gu

by wruza 5y ago

I agree with this in general, but let’s not forget that everyone has a different budget structure and comparing these is apples to oranges. On one hand, that guy has a family and obviously is short on everything, but on the other, this guy has no family and spends on various substituting activities to make up their life. The difference may be 5-10x, but personally I don’t care how much it is to someone, if that is my baseline. It is not like free money, it is like that some people are cash sinks by design and operate out of some negative basis. If they didn’t, they couldn’t be themselves. Also, sudden 10x may destroy your identity in just a year. In my circles it’s called to punch with money. Most people cannot manage that and become hostages of their various delusions.

eesmith 5y ago
You think the employer should pay based on what employees will do with their income, not what the employee provides to the company? I mean, great, that's Marxism 101 - "to each according to his needs" - and I can respect that. But does the employer get to decide if the employee's budget structure is appropriate? Surely a progressive income tax would cut down on the 10x differential, and strong social services would help support the family.
- wruza 5y ago
  employer should pay based on what employees will do with their income, not what the employee provides to the company? Neither. It is all based on negotiation and people negotiate based on their baseline needs (sorry for this tautology).
  - eesmith 5y ago
    My father, with a family to support as the sole breadwinner, was a lousy negotiator. Someone who "has no family and spends" the extra time learning salary negotiation can accept a higher risk of failure, would be negotiating from a stronger position. So I don't see how your examples have much bearing - the company is going to pay for what they can profit from, not what the employee needs. If my father doesn't know what comparable positions pay, he has a harder time knowing if (say) 3% pay increases per year is appropriate for his position.

by wruza 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

You think the employer should pay based on what employees will do with their income, not what the employee provides to the company? I mean, great, that's Marxism 101 - "to each according to his needs" - and I can respect that. But does the employer get to decide if the employee's budget structure is appropriate? Surely a progressive income tax would cut down on the 10x differential, and strong social services would help support the family.

wruza 5y ago
employer should pay based on what employees will do with their income, not what the employee provides to the company? Neither. It is all based on negotiation and people negotiate based on their baseline needs (sorry for this tautology).
- eesmith 5y ago
  My father, with a family to support as the sole breadwinner, was a lousy negotiator. Someone who "has no family and spends" the extra time learning salary negotiation can accept a higher risk of failure, would be negotiating from a stronger position. So I don't see how your examples have much bearing - the company is going to pay for what they can profit from, not what the employee needs. If my father doesn't know what comparable positions pay, he has a harder time knowing if (say) 3% pay increases per year is appropriate for his position.