Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you don't feel that those who have more rarer skills, work even when off of work and those who work the hardest at a company deserve more?

Does some one that understand how to do something deserve more than some one that doesn't but does the exact same job to the same specifications?

Does a person that works for a company deserve more the longer they stay with them (besides the raises based off inflation)

(Not saying unskilled labor deserves less.)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you don't feel that those who have more rarer skills, work even when off of work and those who work the hardest at a company deserve more?

One can set a reasonable rate of pay for all staff while still differentiating between experienced and skilled staff. The issue is not so much Gravity paying new/lower skill/etc staff too much, but the market paying those kinds of people too little.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you don't feel that those who have more rarer skills, work even when off of work and those who work the hardest at a company deserve more?

They deserve to be compensated appropriate to their skill level and responsibility. What someone else makes shouldn't really factor into what you deserve.

If your argument is that "my education, experience, abilities, and past performance means that I should make X, then more power to you."
If your argument is "I should make X because other guy makes Y or else I quit" then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Evidently multiple employees disagreed with your statement.

That doesn't make it any less of a stupid argument though.

Do you get a raise just because your boss gets a raise? So why should you make more just because someone below you got a raise?

 d-usa wrote:
That doesn't make it any less of a stupid argument though.

Do you get a raise just because your boss gets a raise? So why should you make more just because someone below you got a raise?

Because my skills and experience are better.
You're ignoring human nature completely. You'd be ok if the janitors in your org were making the same as you?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That doesn't make it any less of a stupid argument though.

Do you get a raise just because your boss gets a raise? So why should you make more just because someone below you got a raise?

Because my skills and experience are better.

So when you apply for a job, what did you carve into your stone tablet when you filled out your application?

I want $X or I want $X more than this other guy?

You're ignoring human nature completely. You'd be ok if the janitors in your org were making the same as you?

I work for the government and we have lots of veterans working here, so based on all their experience and other factors I am sure that there are janitors who are actually making more than me here .

When I was an engineer at ExxonMobil, most of the operators made more than I did. They will almost all retire at a younger age than I will, in fact. Probably with more in their 401K than I'll have.

I had a BS in Chemical Engineering that I went to school for 4 years to get, they did not. I was on call at all times, they were not. I never got to just "turn it off" at the end of the day. I was there to support a production line, 24/7.

However, they worked 4 days on, 4 days off, 4 nights on, 4 nights off. They only made more than me IF they worked 2 of those off days for their over time. If they hit 7 in a row, they got double time. I worked Monday through Friday. Day shifts. I would get called in from time to time, but my schedule was still Mon-Fri. They worked holidays, weekends, kids birthdays, and so on.

I don't begrudge them one bit.

 easysauce wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


People will perform better if they know their performance output is related to reward inputs.

Out of curiosity, have you heard Daniel Pink speak on this topic?

It is fascinating.

sort of in a very "the secret" or other psycho-motivational type speakers kind of way.

That being said, people are indeed influenced by and persuaded by him or any # of personalities/celebrities/gods/ect to do all sorts of things all the time because people motivate people.

Remember, my claim is not that humans are solely motivated by money, its just that money is defiantly a motivator and is generally proportional to the skills/ect its buying from the laborers.

I would argue they aren't motivated by money per se, but what money provides. However, that is just semantics now.

However, there is a point where getting a bonus only persuades a smaller percentage of people and the rest are motivated by something else. Typically, people are motivated by:

1. Money/Status
2. Public Recognition (i.e. awards and such)
3. Time
4. Relationships

So, money is only one component of motivating people to go above and beyond.

 Frazzled wrote:

You're ignoring human nature completely. You'd be ok if the janitors in your org were making the same as you?

If my organization employed janitors and there was one who made as much as me, I would have to tip my hat to him for his shrewdness while suspecting that The Garbageman found a way to truly break the 4th wall.

But in all seriousness, I wouldn't care. My ego isn't so fragile as to require the constant reassurance provided by earning more money than someone else.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You're ignoring human nature completely. You'd be ok if the janitors in your org were making the same as you?

If my organization employed janitors and there was one who made as much as me, I would have to tip my hat to him for his shrewdness while suspecting that The Garbageman found a way to truly break the 4th wall.

But in all seriousness, I wouldn't care. My ego isn't so fragile as to require the constant reassurance provided by earning more money than someone else.

Your pocket book would care. You children would care. You wife would care (unless she left you for the janitor... )

My salary doesn't suddenly buy less things just because a janitor makes as much as me.

And honestly, what options do the people who quit really have?

Find a job that pays more? That's awesome and making more money is always a good factor when deciding to change jobs.

Work somewhere else for $70,000? Great, now you have less seniority and still make the same amount of money. But at least someone makes less than you?

 d-usa wrote:
My salary doesn't suddenly buy less things just because a janitor makes as much as me.

And honestly, what options do the people who quit really have?

Find a job that pays more? That's awesome and making more money is always a good factor when deciding to change jobs.

Work somewhere else for $70,000? Great, now you have less seniority and still make the same amount of money. But at least someone makes less than you?

no one quit because someone made as much as they did, they quit because "their raise" was small or non existent compared to people who just got tens of thousands of dollars more each year. wouldn't really bother me personally, but I can at least see how some people would have also liked a pay increase.

if the lower paid employees deserved such a huge bump, their feelings are why dont they also deserve a large bump

So are they making more at their new jobs? Did they get a raise with quiting?

I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

I agree entirely. The largest con ever pulled is the rich convincing the less rich to despise the poor rather than wonder why the rich are somehow magically worth the money they "earn" while someone slugging their guts out doing unskilled labour should have to work two jobs and go on welfare to put a roof over their head.

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

Seems hypocritical. Why should he give a feth what the CEO makes? Doesn't 'I should be happy with what I make and the great work I get to do' work both directions? Why care if someone makes the same as you for less work, the same work, more work? Why care if someone makes more than you? Aren't both petty ways of thinking?

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

Seems hypocritical. Why should he give a feth what the CEO makes? Doesn't 'I should be happy with what I make and the great work I get to do' work both directions? Why care if someone makes the same as you for less work, the same work, more work? Why care if someone makes more than you? Aren't both petty ways of thinking?

One would assume it's because in the first example, you have two people putting in a day's work and receiving equivalent pay. They can buy the same clothes, eat the same food, and so forth. In the second example, you have two people putting in a days work, only one of them gets to have a private jet and dine in five star restaurants. Yet his job is not intrinsically any more difficult than that of the other two people.

It goes against what most people perceive as being 'fair'. You can't help but feel that the only reason he gets a bigger slice of the financial pie is by taking it away from everyone else. Which is somewhat true, it would easily be possible for a company to cut his wage down to the same level as everyone else's, and raise everyone's wages equally.

But yes, evils of socialism, look at those money grubbing immigrants, something about Jesus and hard work, when I was a lad, land of the free, everyone has the same opportunity, gigantic risks of CEO's, trickledown effect, etcetc. Pick your reason.

 d-usa wrote:
So are they making more at their new jobs? Did they get a raise with quiting?

well sometimes it creates bad feelings and people just dont "feel" motivated to work at a place once the work environment has that kind of feelings in it. as others and myselft have posted, money is A motivator, its not the only motivator.

Ive known people to quit over less trivial things then this.

not what you or I would do, but not everyone is us.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you don't feel that those who have more rarer skills, work even when off of work and those who work the hardest at a company deserve more?

Just how much more? 10%? 50%? 100%? 300%? This is where we have gone very, very wrong.

I would do my current job for less money but I wouldn't be washing dishes even if was paid my current salary.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So are they making more at their new jobs? Did they get a raise with quiting?

well sometimes it creates bad feelings and people just dont "feel" motivated to work at a place once the work environment has that kind of feelings in it. as others and myselft have posted, money is A motivator, its not the only motivator.

Ive known people to quit over less trivial things then this.

not what you or I would do, but not everyone is us.

So he really doesn't gain anything other than knowing "other folks make less than me"?

 Ketara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

Seems hypocritical. Why should he give a feth what the CEO makes? Doesn't 'I should be happy with what I make and the great work I get to do' work both directions? Why care if someone makes the same as you for less work, the same work, more work? Why care if someone makes more than you? Aren't both petty ways of thinking?

One would assume it's because in the first example, you have two people putting in a day's work and receiving equivalent pay. They can buy the same clothes, eat the same food, and so forth. In the second example, you have two people putting in a days work, only one of them gets to have a private jet and dine in five star restaurants. Yet his job is not intrinsically any more difficult than that of the other two people.

It goes against what most people perceive as being 'fair'. You can't help but feel that the only reason he gets a bigger slice of the financial pie is by taking it away from everyone else. Which is somewhat true, it would easily be possible for a company to cut his wage down to the same level as everyone else's, and raise everyone's wages equally.

Sometimes (I would even say usually) 'not intrinsically more difficult' is nothing but an opinion. A dishwasher may have a harder job from a physical aspect than the manager/owner/CEO of a restaurant. Yet ensuring employee schedules are made correctly, food and other supplies are ordered/paid for and stocked correctly to limit waste/spoilage, ensuring the bills are paid and payroll goes out on time, ensuring the proper resources are put into adverts and so on may be 'easier', but the failure to do them correctly results in a business folding and all that entails. His/her time and effort just may be worth a bit more than the dishwashers' time/effort.

I suspect most folks who don't think a CEOs job is 'hard' have never really been responsible for the failure or success of an organization. Are some overpaid? Most likely. Good for them. I'm not sure how being jealous of what others have and channeling that towards desiring them to have less is a worthwhile endeavor.


Fair is where you go to get tasty fried food on a stick.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So are they making more at their new jobs? Did they get a raise with quiting?

well sometimes it creates bad feelings and people just dont "feel" motivated to work at a place once the work environment has that kind of feelings in it. as others and myselft have posted, money is A motivator, its not the only motivator.

Ive known people to quit over less trivial things then this.

not what you or I would do, but not everyone is us.

So he really doesn't gain anything other than knowing "other folks make less than me"?

I doubt they see it like that,

their POV is likely "I work just as hard, if not harder, and I did X Y Z to prove it, why does joe get such a huge raise when I do not?"

considering how many people rage over various people being over paid in fashionable to hate positions like CEO, its not really that unexpected.





regarding "hard work"

its harder to dig ditches by hand

its easier to dig them with shovels


its easier still to dig them with back hoes.



does the hand digger get paid more cause "its hard?" or does he get paid in proportion to how much the employer can afford to pay someone who only digs 1 ditch for every 5 the shoveler digs, or for every 30 the back hoe digs?

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So are they making more at their new jobs? Did they get a raise with quiting?

well sometimes it creates bad feelings and people just dont "feel" motivated to work at a place once the work environment has that kind of feelings in it. as others and myselft have posted, money is A motivator, its not the only motivator.

Ive known people to quit over less trivial things then this.

not what you or I would do, but not everyone is us.

So he really doesn't gain anything other than knowing "other folks make less than me"?

I doubt they see it like that,

their POV is likely "I work just as hard, if not harder, and I did X Y Z to prove it, why does joe get such a huge raise when I do not?"

But then again, what do they gain by going somewhere else where they are still going to be paid the same amount of money that they are getting now?

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

Seems hypocritical. Why should he give a feth what the CEO makes? Doesn't 'I should be happy with what I make and the great work I get to do' work both directions? Why care if someone makes the same as you for less work, the same work, more work? Why care if someone makes more than you? Aren't both petty ways of thinking?

One would assume it's because in the first example, you have two people putting in a day's work and receiving equivalent pay. They can buy the same clothes, eat the same food, and so forth. In the second example, you have two people putting in a days work, only one of them gets to have a private jet and dine in five star restaurants. Yet his job is not intrinsically any more difficult than that of the other two people.

It goes against what most people perceive as being 'fair'. You can't help but feel that the only reason he gets a bigger slice of the financial pie is by taking it away from everyone else. Which is somewhat true, it would easily be possible for a company to cut his wage down to the same level as everyone else's, and raise everyone's wages equally.

Sometimes (I would even say usually) 'not intrinsically more difficult' is nothing but an opinion. A dishwasher may have a harder job from a physical aspect than the manager/owner/CEO of a restaurant. Yet ensuring employee schedules are made correctly, food and other supplies are ordered/paid for and stocked correctly to limit waste/spoilage, ensuring the bills are paid and payroll goes out on time, ensuring the proper resources are put into adverts and so on may be 'easier', but the failure to do them correctly results in a business folding and all that entails. His/her time and effort just may be worth a bit more than the dishwashers' time/effort.

I suspect most folks who don't think a CEOs job is 'hard' have never really been responsible for the failure or success of an organization. Are some overpaid? Most likely. Good for them. I'm not sure how being jealous of what others have and channeling that towards desiring them to have less is a worthwhile endeavor.


Fair is where you go to get tasty fried food on a stick.

You do not think a restaurant would fold without clean dishes?

Sure, but I can hire anyone to wash dishes. I can't hire just anyone to manage the business.

That makes the dishwasher much less valuable, and thus less deserving of higher pay.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, but I can hire anyone to wash dishes. I can't hire just anyone to manage the business.

That makes the dishwasher much less valuable, and thus less deserving of higher pay.

Why not? A lot of people out there with management experience looking for jobs.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, but I can hire anyone to wash dishes. I can't hire just anyone to manage the business.

That makes the dishwasher much less valuable, and thus less deserving of higher pay.

Why not? A lot of people out there with management experience looking for jobs.

There are a lot more people qualified to wash dishes than be managers.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I read an article the other day from a chap in a virtually identical position. His response was something along the lines of 'Rather than get mad at the fact that someone working a different job is getting paid as much as me, I'd rather get mad at the fact that the CEO of my company makes 400 times what I do for a job that isn't any harder'.

Seems hypocritical. Why should he give a feth what the CEO makes? Doesn't 'I should be happy with what I make and the great work I get to do' work both directions? Why care if someone makes the same as you for less work, the same work, more work? Why care if someone makes more than you? Aren't both petty ways of thinking?

One would assume it's because in the first example, you have two people putting in a day's work and receiving equivalent pay. They can buy the same clothes, eat the same food, and so forth. In the second example, you have two people putting in a days work, only one of them gets to have a private jet and dine in five star restaurants. Yet his job is not intrinsically any more difficult than that of the other two people.

It goes against what most people perceive as being 'fair'. You can't help but feel that the only reason he gets a bigger slice of the financial pie is by taking it away from everyone else. Which is somewhat true, it would easily be possible for a company to cut his wage down to the same level as everyone else's, and raise everyone's wages equally.

Sometimes (I would even say usually) 'not intrinsically more difficult' is nothing but an opinion. A dishwasher may have a harder job from a physical aspect than the manager/owner/CEO of a restaurant. Yet ensuring employee schedules are made correctly, food and other supplies are ordered/paid for and stocked correctly to limit waste/spoilage, ensuring the bills are paid and payroll goes out on time, ensuring the proper resources are put into adverts and so on may be 'easier', but the failure to do them correctly results in a business folding and all that entails. His/her time and effort just may be worth a bit more than the dishwashers' time/effort.

I suspect most folks who don't think a CEOs job is 'hard' have never really been responsible for the failure or success of an organization. Are some overpaid? Most likely. Good for them. I'm not sure how being jealous of what others have and channeling that towards desiring them to have less is a worthwhile endeavor.


Fair is where you go to get tasty fried food on a stick.

You do not think a restaurant would fold without clean dishes?

I know I can replace the dishwasher a LOT easier than I can the guy doing the other stuff I listed.

 CptJake wrote:
Fair is where you go to get tasty fried food on a stick.

Went to a fair yesterday, can confirm: many varieties of besticked foodstuffs.