By way of Remuneration

The irony about being compensated is that much as, however, one is being valued, the function of pay is to be fuel. With more fuel, one can go more miles; with less, less. Everyone knows this.

Think about how the socio-economic bands developed...

When ideas of a currency had, yet, not developed, compensation - I can only assume! - must have involved the transactional or relationship-based exchange of organic or inorganic material.

Surely, quantifying and sustaining the outsourcing of jobs must have been matters of significant difficulty, not withstanding which, whatever outsourcing went on did really go on.

Some people were happy about what they got. Some people were not.

Some people got rich. May be they killed their predecessors. Or may be, the predecessors died without children. Or, as could well have been the case, a lineage of rich people evolved.

Some people got poor. They may have been overworked and ill-compensated. They may have not been able to nurture their successors well enough. Or, by some unfortunate means, some rich people got bankrupt.

Society would see cultures, religions and behaviors.

Granted, compensation is the employer's mandate, and not so much the employee's.

But is this good enough a reason not to have objectivity about what an employee is to be paid?

For the sake of argument, I pick up a side: not at all! Be objective. Go all the way. Make a balanced scorecard. Invest in fairness. Drive the best behavior. Grow a thriving culture. Count every coin you pay. Reconsider remuneration.

I'm no communist. And don't charge me with treason. I did my work.