BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Issues essay

Expert replies

Rate my essay (although other feedback would be appreciated too!)

6
0
No votes
5
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
3
0
No votes
2
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 0

by elliebelly » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:50 am
"Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."
Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

It is true that linking the salaries of executives and lower level employees would build a strong public image, which could help reduce labour disputes. However, in practice it is likely to raise the overall costs of the company, and make it difficult to recruit the right people for the right roles.

Establishing and promoting a link between different salary levels is purely a 'band aid solution' to a far deeper problem. The recent outrage over bonuses to executives during the Global Financial Crisis has shown that the public perception of executive pay is important. However this outrage was primarily caused by an increase in unemployment, rather than a decrease in the salary of lowest paid employees.

In fact, formalising a link between different salary levels would likely increase the overall costs of corporations. This is because any increase in the salary of lowest paid employees could then lead the justification of similar increases at every level of the hierarchy, resulting in exponential increases in overall salaries paid. Introducing a rigid salary structure of this nature would ultimately be most harmful to the lowest paid employees, as it would deter management from increasing their salaries or taking on additional staff. In the long term, this is likely to only exacerbate the unemployment problems created by the financial crisis, and further damage the worker relations that this measure seeks to improve.

Therefore, while linking salaries provides a cosmetic solution to industrial relations issues it does not address the underlying need to create jobs and improve the base salaries of the lowest paid employees.
Join the discussion
Source: — GMAT Essays (AWA) |

• Page 1 of 1