A store clerk starts working at $10 an hour. Every year he receives a 4% raise....after 10 years he is making $14.91....However, he is still a store clerk doing exactly what he was doing when he was there on day 1. A little more efficient, a little more in the know, but to the success of the company? He is not doing anything more for that 14.91 than he was doing for the 10.
So the company hires a replacement at 10 an hour and saves 4.91 an hour and the output of that emnployee is exactly the same.
Is this wrong? Seems unfair, yes...but wrong? Would you say it is smart business to pay someone more than the posaition warrants...even after 10 years the employee proved to be only as valuable as one with 1 year experience?
Maybe that store emplyee after 1 year should have seeked a more lucrative opportunity. Maybe an opportunity that is not one that can be easily replaced when he has years of experience?
You see Peepers, people starts companies to make money. They want to make as much money as they can so they can enjoy life and retire. They take on the long hours, the risks, the days if not weeks away from family so they are in control of their destiny.
Otrhers dont want the headaches or the risks or the long hours or the days if not weeks away from their families. Fine., But then they need to realize that they are NOT in control of their destiny. They should, however, find a way to differentiate themselves from the rest. Make themselves indispensible.
That store clerk for example...maybe if he were seen on a daily basis at the end of the day sweeping floors that were not part of his job, or staying later after the close with the managers as they went over inventory, he would be seen as worth the extrra 4.91 an hour.
