The principle is that the higher you're position is the more you are paid. Meaning that if you're job requires higher qualifications or level of expertise or more responsibility you are entitles to more money that someone who has less of these three requirements. For example the president or prime minister is the highest position in the land yet some managing directors earn more. Entrepreneurs who experience the highest levels of financial income can earn even more than these so does that satisfy the hierarchal role of position and pay.

Some say that product manufacturing or design is more important than political governing yet these higher income earners are still accountable to government leaders and legislation. So we must eight in the balance the financial requirements of the jurisdiction and responsibility of leaders. On the other hand it paying someone more money going to make them more happy or are they content to lead and take responsibility for the joy and pleaser of it. Is servant hood a form of leadership?

Should the scale depict more accurate levels or are people happy with current ones. The thing is that if you earn more you should be happier but because of pressure to perform and the nature of success. (tall poppy syndrome). People are not satisfied with or content with their level. Age and experience alongside education and skills differentiate these levels but the principle still remains that the higher you are, the more money you are paid, whether it is the psychological state of mind or bank account balance or pay cheque. But it all should be in equilibrium and perspective.