Better Compensation Than Industry Norms

A non-rationalist who makes fewer assumptions than another non-rationalist is not necessarily more rational, but less irrational. A murderer who has killed 10 people is not righteous as opposed to someone who has murdered 20 people, but less evil. Having two broken doors in one's home is not good, but it is better for general living than having three broken doors.  For the same reason, an employer who pays better than a competitor might still be underpaying as much as they expect to get away with or whatever the bare minimum is to have a somewhat positive reputation.  The pay could still be terrible except compared to some other amount in light of factors like the cost of living, the effort involved in the job, and so on.

A company's compensation or benefits could be better than the industry norm, yes, but this does not mean they are livable or good--it only necessitates that they are better than some lesser alternative that might be much, much worse!  Better is not inherently the same as good, though it is less bad.  Getting paid 10 dollars an hour instead of 7.35 is a stronger position to be in, but neither of them will do much to help someone in contemporary America who needs, say, $30,000 or more just to survive comfortably while perhaps saving some money aside.  Depending on one's region, one might need far more than that to simply get by.

One might find that a confronted employer (of the irrational kind, since there is nothing about being an employer that necessitates this) thinks that paying more, in actuality or according to their erroneous delusions, than some other company makes their compensation good by default.  Is it livable?  Can someone afford housing (either a true home or some rented property) in spite of requirements like needing to make three times one's rent, enough food to not have to skip meals out of poverty, health items like sufficient amounts of toothpaste or soap, ans so on?  If it is livable in the most literal sense, is it also enough for a person to live on even if sudden emergencies spring upon them?  Can they save for a more financially secure future?

If the answer to any of these is no, then the compensation is in no way pragmatically good (and if humans have moral rights such as a right to live unless they commit a capital sin, then this would also be morally good).  It is either abysmal or it is barely enough to afford what is needed to strictly stay alive in a potential status of miserable hunger, thirst, fear, and despair.  Someone who thinks that they are rational and just for merely doing better than another employer, in addition to perhaps only caring out of utilitarian greed, is not good.  It could certainly be possible for them to be less greedy, less malicious, or less philosophically asinine.  They would not be a good employer for this alone.