GameboyRMH said:
Trimmed for the section being responded to:
Boost_Crazy made a correct observation that past a certain point, you can't pay a person any more to work any harder or be any more productive. The amount of money the top 5-9% is taking home is way past that, it's utterly ludicrous, and the higher you go the more batE36 M3-bananas it gets. It's an amount that a system that seeks to optimize costs shouldn't naturally allow to occur, any more than it should allow a specific employee to make 3x more than their peers doing similar work or all oil change techs to have salaries in the 6-digits. That's what makes me think that this situation isn't just the system doing what it normally does if left to its own devices.
I may be wrong, but I believe the statement about diminishing productivity returns after a certain level of pay was not meant to say that point is the same for all people.
I've worked blue collar jobs where some people would take all the overtime offered, and others would turn it down regularly. So 1.5 times was enough incentive for some to work more hours and produce more, while not enough for others. I've also worked white collar jobs where some people are content at a certain level and do what is necessary to remain employed, while others push themselves to move up in salary and role.
As people move through their career the increase they receive in salary is the result of their performance record, and not increased as an incentive to do more work. The workplace is competitive, and is no different than any other competitive activity.
Whether it's the office or playing field, the work need to be put in to get the reward. Teams don't win if they don't work to practice and improve skills before getting to game day. They can't say once we win we'll practice harder, the work come first in order to win.
In the workplace it's competitive. If you want the promotion, raise, or bonus you need to put in the work before you get the reward. The work needs to be done to show you deserve get that reward, rather than receiving the rewards as an incentive to work harder. If your coworkers put in more effort and produce more revenue (directly through sales or indirectly through development) than you, then they will be rewarded with increased salary, promotion, or bonus. They out worked you and deserve a bigger piece of the pie.
Move beyond that and start looking at the c-suites. These are people that in many cases have out worked the average employee over the years by petting more effort into developing their skills, knowledge, and network. As a result they have climbed to upper levels of executive management, and have responsibility for steering the ship and producing value for shareholders. They are compensated with stock option to link their income to performance of the company, and to reduce potential for them jumping ship through vesting schedules.
Sure the guy in the corner office gets paid more than me, but he's also traveling a majority of the time to different corporate offices, attending shareholder meeting, addressing news conferences, and working to create a team that can address the problem areas of the company to increase revenue, sales, and overall value. Those are all thing that keep the other 91% employed and payed competitively in the market place. That's a lot of responsibility and commitment to a job where you can be the hero one day and a failure the next, and if the market rate is 7 figures to get the best person you can for that job, then that's the value of that person.
If everyone gets paid the same, then you will eliminate the people stuck at the bottom, but you will also eliminate any incentive to work harder or improve, creating a civilization dominated by mediocrity.
I'm sorry you feel it's unfair because the opportunity is equal instead of outcome, but all employees have the opportunity to put in the work to reap the rewards, some just don't want to put in the effort.
