[yibg]

Is it? The post I responded to was saying the company makes 2.5 million a month and they got a pat on the back. Sure, no one is asking for exactly what the company makes, but the implication is always they should get paid proportionally to the company's additional revenue due to their work. I'm just saying that's not how it works.

[dvt]

> the implication is always they should get paid proportionally to the company's additional revenue due to their work

Being proportionally paid with the value you bring isn't even remotely comparable to being paid everything you make. In fact, proportionality of pay is quite common in plenty of industries, e.g., real estate, law, etc.

[yibg]

Real estate also gets very little (nothing?) if no sales are made. Is that what you're proposing? That software developers work on commission and don't get paid if the stuff they build doesn't make the company money? Or should it be like sales folks with a target? Seems like some folks want the best of both worlds. A bit fat salary that's guaranteed regardless, but also a big fat bonus if what they work on makes money.

[dvt]

> Is that what you're proposing?

You are being extremely uncharitable, and are attacking a straw man yet again. I don't think my argument is particularly hard to follow. A degree of proportionality between value generated and compensation isn't some far-fetched kooky idea.