|
|
|
|
|
|
by Waterluvian
1052 days ago
|
|
|
I think the theory is that “importance” shouldn’t really drive salary. The ability to find someone to do the same job for less money should. If the industry cannot reliably deliver packages with proper security, safety, reliability, humanity, etc. without this level of compensation, then it’s the right number. The interesting thing about this salary is that if you can actually earn that much without an expensive education or hard-to-attain skills, then there would likely be a lot of people saying, “heck I’ll do that for less! It sure beats massive debt and this shitty job I have.” And salaries would correct… unless there’s more to this story, or a union stops the system from correcting. |
|
|
Ah yes, because the market is perfect but for those pesky unions and government interventions. The economy totally prices things efficiently on its own— managers and executives would never abuse their power to extract more than their fair share. Must be nice to live in that simplistic Econ 101 fantasy camp.