[rescue] Cluesticks (was Mounting and Dumping)

Lionel Peterson lionel4287 at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 17 20:03:01 CST 2004

--- "Carl R. Friend" <crfriend at rcn.com> wrote:
>    On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Brian Dunbar wrote:
> > Eighteen months ago the salaried staff at work were "asked" to 
> > take a 10% pay cut.  The folks at the VP and C*O rank took a 15%
> > pay cut.* The amounts involved for the latter were negligible,
> > but the morale boost involved was not unsubstantial.
>    The fifteen percent figure is meaningless once one gets into the
> mid six-figures compared to the ten percent hit to some poor bloke
> making 50k.

I dunno if I agree with this...

>    For the working bloke that 5k/yr may mean the difference between
> making the mortage payment or not....  For the Corporate Criminal,
> the 26,250 (for a salary of $175k, *excluding* perks and other bits)
> is peanuts by comparison.

Assumption: Most people live right at the edge of waht they can
"afford", based on their income. This is usually expressed as "most
people live paycheck to paycheck" or "many folks are one or two
paychecks away from being homeless"...

The cost of living/standard of living for the two hypothetical
individuals is not equal, so it is doubtful that the "suit" can
"afford" to make $26,250 less than they previously did without ,
similarly, I doubt the "non-suit" can equally not afford to do with
$5,000 less.

Note: Two "suits" taking a 15% paycut on their imaginary $175K salary
can keep one more "non-suit" onthe payroll for another year - fully
*nine* "non-suits would have to take a 10% paycut to accomodate that
same "non-suit" - thats not peanuts if *you* are the one that gets to
keep their job...


"I am not into examining other peoples' dumps..." - Sheldon T. Hall

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

More information about the rescue mailing list