Silly question but answers may be interesting

[Jarhead]

If you had a choice betwen the following outcomes which would you prefer (assuming all things are eqaul):

1) Your annual income is raised to your bosses income

2) your bosses income is lowered to yours.

 

[VaYank5150]

If you had a choice betwen the following outcomes which would you prefer (assuming all things are eqaul):

1) Your annual income is raised to your bosses income

2) your bosses income is lowered to yours.

By choosing 1), don't I sort of get 2)?

 

[rightwinger]

I would answer neither

I do not expect my bosses income and I do not want his responsibilities either. I do object if working level employees are expected to make sacrifices in wages and benefits during hard times while executives continue to be rewarded at the same or higher levels

 

[Jarhead]

I would answer neither

I do not expect my bosses income and I do not want his responsibilities either. I do object if working level employees are expected to make sacrifices in wages and benefits during hard times while executives continue to be rewarded at the same or higher levels

I dont disagree with you. But you left out the most important thing. Lower level emplyees that make themselves indispensible are not asked to make anymore sacrifices than the executives.

Argue that if you wish, but I go by experience, not by rhetoric.

A valued employee is a valued employee. If a business owner is very successful, he/she knows the importance of an indispensible, valued employee. And yes, a smart successful business owner willnot alienate a valued employee regardless of the rhetoric out there.

 

[Jarhead]

If you had a choice betwen the following outcomes which would you prefer (assuming all things are eqaul):

1) Your annual income is raised to your bosses income

2) your bosses income is lowered to yours.

By choosing 1), don't I sort of get 2)?

No sir Mr. Yank. Option 2 means the lifestyle of your boss is dramatically affected.

 

[VaYank5150]

If you had a choice betwen the following outcomes which would you prefer (assuming all things are eqaul):

1) Your annual income is raised to your bosses income

2) your bosses income is lowered to yours.

By choosing 1), don't I sort of get 2)?

No sir Mr. Yank. Option 2 means the lifestyle of your boss is dramatically affected.

How about if my boss's salary (less bonuses) is not all that different from my own?

 

[Jarhead]

By choosing 1), don't I sort of get 2)?

No sir Mr. Yank. Option 2 means the lifestyle of your boss is dramatically affected.

How about if my boss's salary (less bonuses) is not all that different from my own?

OK. It was a theoretical question and you are in a playful mood, so I will elaborate on the question.

If your boss made 200K a year as the business owner and you made 50K a year as his only employee and a law was passed that would result in one of the following, what would you choose:

1) your salary goes up to 200K with your boss with the extra money coming from a sprite that flys over the office.

2) his income is dropped to 50K, with the extra money being taken by that sprite.

Which would you prefer?

 

[Defiant1]

If you had a choice betwen the following outcomes which would you prefer (assuming all things are eqaul):

1) Your annual income is raised to your bosses income

2) your bosses income is lowered to yours.

Choice number 1 may get me more money short term but in the long term my employment would probably be terminated. Most people think they are worth more than they are earning but the reality is they are being paid what the job is worth. Once they are being paid more than what the job is worth it's time for them to go.

Choice number 2, I wouldn't make as my boss is one of my best friends. For the sake of the argument it would again be a short lived thing since most bosses are worth the salaries they are earning. If their pay is lowered they will stay until they find another employer that will pay them more.

 

[VaYank5150]

No sir Mr. Yank. Option 2 means the lifestyle of your boss is dramatically affected.

How about if my boss's salary (less bonuses) is not all that different from my own?

OK. It was a theoretical question and you are in a playful mood, so I will elaborate on the question.

If your boss made 200K a year as the business owner and you made 50K a year as his only employee and a law was passed that would result in one of the following, what would you choose:

1) your salary goes up to 200K with your boss with the extra money coming from a sprite that flys over the office.

2) his income is dropped to 50K, with the extra money being taken by that sprite.

Which would you prefer?

Since the money would be taken or given by said sprite, I will choose #1.

 

[Patriot214]

About 70% of the bosses in this country are small business owners. If their salaries were lowered to match the salaries of their employees, then how could they pay their employees? How could they pay their benefits? This could also be said for answering "yes" to question one. If my salary was increased to match that of my boss, how would he pay for it? Answering yes to either question would result in the business closing it's doors. This is why every class is important. It is what makes our economy function.

 

[Jarhead]

About 70% of the bosses in this country are small business owners. If their salaries were lowered to match the salaries of their employees, then how could they pay their employees? How could they pay their benefits? This could also be said for answering "yes" to question one. If my salary was increased to match that of my boss, how would he pay for it? Answering yes to either question would result in the business closing it's doors. This is why every class is important. It is what makes our economy function.

Thank you.