🚀 go-pugleaf

mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.175907.3013@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>>Excuse me, Marc, but you seem to be operating under some new-age
>>illusion that suggests employees have an inherent primacy in the
>>food-chain of organizational funding.

>I think you misunderstand what I said.  Let me clarify:

>Suppose your company has two boxes to put money in.  One of them is
>labelled "bud@mtek.com's salary".  The other is labelled "Everything
>else".  Now, money that they put in the "Everything else" box cannot
>also be in the "bud@mtek.com's salary" box.  This is what I meant when
>I said, "Money that the company uses for restrooms, etc. (everything
>except paying the employee's salary) is money that they cannot pay
>you."

I believe I understood perfectly. Let *me* clarify, using your example
above:

"Now, money that they put in the `bud@mtek.com's salary' box cannot
also be in the `Everything else' box."

This phrasing strongly suggests that "bud@mtek.com's salary" should
be paid only to some inescapable minimum in order to optimize funding
for the (presumably) more important "Everything else".

Would you agree with this rendering, which only reverses your order
of presentation?

*Either* phrasing implies preference of one disposition of funds over
the other, unless where followed by a balancing qualifier such as:
"And vice versa." Notably absent.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!