Just a quick note to let you all know that the 2025 Sunshine List is out and the number of public sector employees making over $100,000 has grown, 404,922 this year compared to 377,881 last year. I’ve been giving it a bit of a closer look this time around, and I have to admit—it’s not something I’ve historically paid much attention to. Having spent most of my career in the capital markets, public sector compensation was never really on my radar.

But this year feels different.

As I scan through the list, I find myself pausing—especially when it comes to roles connected to long-term care. It raises questions for me, not from a place of criticism, but from a place of trying to better understand how resources are allocated in a sector that we all know is under immense pressure.

Long-term care is complex. It’s underfunded in some areas, stretched thin in others, and relies heavily on frontline staff who are often overworked and under-supported. At the same time, leadership roles carry significant responsibility—operationally, financially, and ethically. So where is the balance? What is fair, and what reflects the realities on the ground?

I’ll be honest—I don’t have the answer.

Is what we’re seeing typical in long-term care? Is it aligned with the level of responsibility these roles carry? Or does it point to a broader disconnect within the system?

What I do know is this: transparency matters. Lists like this are meant to give the public insight, but they also invite reflection. Not just on numbers, but on priorities, values, and outcomes.

And maybe that’s the real point.

Because in a sector that cares for some of our most vulnerable, every dollar—and every decision—should ultimately tie back to quality of care, dignity, and support for both residents and the people who serve them.

I’m still forming my thoughts on this, and I’d genuinely be interested in hearing how others see it—especially those working directly in long-term care.

Is this typical?