[ExI] article highly recommended

[David Lubkin]

John Clark wrote:

>That is especially true today. In 1978 the CEO of one of the top 350 
>US corporations made on average 30 times as much as the average 
>worker in their company, today its 271 times as much.

I don't care if certain employees make vastly more than others *if* 
their income is proportional to their achievements for the company. I 
resent CEOs like Thomas Vanderslice, who was brought in to rescue the 
flagging Apollo Computer, took it further down, and left with a 
golden parachute of allegedly $16 million. I welcome companies paying 
employees a hefty royalty for lucrative suggestions they'd made, 
deals they landed, or technologies they invented, so long as the 
process is transparent enough that I as employee or stockholder can 
see that it was warranted.

Bill W replied:

>I am thinking about what Spike said about no one believes in social 
>ranks anymore.  Intellectual ranks are always going to be apparent 
>to just about everyone.  My question is: are the two 
>correlated?  Social and intellectual?
>
>If so, then my statement contradicting Spike will stand: there will 
>always be ranking and condescension of the good kind.

Whether it's wealth, looks, strength, intelligence, rank, height, 
talent, achievements, etc., we will always have differences that are 
consequential. And it will always matter how you treat your 
ostensible lessors. A wise manager will ask the receptionist how an 
applicant treated her.


-- David.