3 ms·
Zero-sum thinking like this is probably not healthy for anybody. If you're unhappy simply because your neighbor is better off, even though he hasn't actually ta
by philangist 12y ago
Zero-sum thinking like this is probably not healthy for anybody. If you're unhappy simply because your neighbor is better off, even though he hasn't actually taking anything from you, then a little bit of self-reflection might be in order. I'm not attacking you specifically, just speaking in general terms. Anyway I think the point being made here is that an employee's compensation shouldn't only be thought about in terms of what's best for the company's bottom line (employee Jon Fish provides the company with a value of X dollars/year, the least we can pay him without him quitting is .4X dollars/year) but also in terms of what's best for the employee's quality of life. That's what's radical and interesting about it.
- gotrecruit 12y agoi feel like this is a zero-sum situation though, since they're all employees and not owners, which means to a certain degree, the decision by the employer/owner to give more to one employee usually necessarily means giving less to another. to be more pedantic, you could even say the employer doesn't necessarily give less to another but HAS less to give or allocate to another employee. the situation of course changes if we're talking about part owners as well, then the argument does get a little murkier since it can be argued that improving the overall morale of the lower paid employees will bring about improved productivity and thus eventually lead to improved sales/revenue/profits, which ultimately benefits all the owners.