On Dec 28, 2012 1:02 AM, "cyrano" <cyrano.fawkes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Le 27/12/2012 21:34, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
> On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, "James Salsman" <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> this is the most current iteration of a type of thread
>>> that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There
>
> are a
>>>
>>> number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are
>>> targeted at people I work with (some of them I consider friends), so it
>
> is
>>>
>>> very difficult for me to read this
>>
>> I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could think my
>> proposal that the salaries of Foundation employees be increased so
>> that none of them are less than 50% of the top executive salary is
>> made in bad faith or "targeted" towards anyone.
>
> I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe
anyone
> could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad
idea. When limits on such
> ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is
> completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your
> junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract
any
experienced
senior staff.
Hello Thomas,
are you saying that NOBODY can and will do a good job for five times less
money?
There are extremely talented people in the third world, and
extremely passionated people in the first world, that may accept such a
pay. I'm dubious about your statement.
Well, I suppose "any" is a bit of an exaggeration. It would be extremely
difficult though. Why would someone from the third world come to San
Francisco and accept a salary 5 times lower than they could get at a
similar organisation ?