Not to forget that old saw of " Them That Has, Gets " applies more oft
>>> [log in to unmask] 2/26/2007 12:24 AM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Phillips" <[log in to unmask]>
> Perhaps it goes to the heart of things. We all tend to pay grotesque
> salaries to people who do jobs most of us won't touch. Garbage men ?
> Really good sales people ? In the companies I've worked for, you had
> pay serious money for them. You hated doing it, but what they
> into the company in sales made paying them VERY unreasonable money,
> well, unavoidable. Simple business equation. They created
> Except vast incoming cash flow. The creative folks actually creating
> products, well, I guess there just isn't much glamour in being
This varies..."creative" people (see under: "Rolling Stones") are paid
in proportion to the amounts their creations bring in for their
Other than that, people who perform various tasks are paid the minimum
amount for which they will do the job (the exception being unionized
labour, which is fast disappearing as the split between "peasantry"
and "aristocracy" rapidly approaches medieval levels...).
Remember, all these pseudo-aristocrats struggled to get their
"gentleman's C" and get that MBA degree...never mind the fact
that if the doorknob suddenly falls off their back door, they
know SFA about how to reattach the dommed thing! That's "physical
labour" and beneath their ken!
Forget who wrote this...
"The world is composed of two groups: those who actually move
objects from one point to another, and those who tell the
former which objects and where. The latter gain more dignity
and recompense for their duties."
Steven C. Barr