[bprieto]

The interesting thing about this wage ratio is they had to increase it in the beginning of the cooperative because very few people were willing to take more responsibility for little more pay.

So maybe there is a study to be done about what could be the optimum wage ratio that allows a company to attract top talent for management positions and at the same time is not perceived as injust and exploitative by the lower workers.

[hawkice]

There is a difference between pay so poor no one is willing to take the job and pay good enough to get top talent. Clearing the first hurdle doesn't say anything about the second.

[usrusr]

But the same is true for all the lower ranks. It's one thing to pay enough to get someone to do the job and another to get the best for the role. A believable promise that the employer won't suppress low end wages for the benefit of C-suite compensation can be very attractive, even if the initial offer has exactly the same numbers on it.

A weak CEO with strong people beneath him can still very much succeed, but the best CEO in the world won't help a company with otherwise sub-par employees.

And it's not just hiring: a company where people are not financially punished for sticking to what they are best at can have a huge advantage over a competitor ravaged by the Peter Principle because that's the only way to get a party of the pie.

[Sawamara]

The myth of top talent is overrated, especially in managerial positions for companies where the workers have more say in decisions.

[chungus_khan]

And in those cases you'd certainly be more concerned about getting top talent and passion out of workers anyway.

[qaq]

top talent +/- makes far beyond what regular workers would perceive as unjust.