[madez]

In general reasonable implies fair.

Yes, there might be situation where you can only decide between two unfair solutions and one is less unfair, and one could argue that that one is the reasonable choice. This is because reason-ability and fairness are not binary. Still, the tendency remains: if you say X is reasonable you imply X is fair.

Income per employee is not a good metric, you are right. However, if your profits are very high you must raise salaries if they are not already too high, lower your prices or invest to be fair.

[Tenhundfeld]

I hear what you're saying. People use the words interchangeably, but in this context, I think there's an important distinction between fair and reasonable:

- Fairness is a moral judgment.

- Reasonableness is a logical argument.

That's why I argued that Valve's taking 30% is reasonable but not necessarily fair.

[madez]

Reasonableness usually implies more than just a logicality, including fairness. To then say that the 30% cut is reasonable means that to say that it's fair.

Let's assume reasonableness were equivalent to logicality. Then, for a decision to be reasonable, it must satisfy some logical conditions. I'd argue that is in our case maximizing a fixed metric in relation to all other possible options. One either doesn't value fairness in the decision-evaluation metric, the 30% cut is fair enough or it's unreasonable.

So, putting it all together, we get

(1) 30% is fair (enough),

(2) one doesn't value fairness prominently in decision making metrics or

(3) the 30% cut is unreasonable.

I'd say the 30% is _not_ fair (enough). That leaves one to pick (2) or (3).