That notion of paying workers a minimum salary of $70k seemed like a good idea at the time

No. If everyone makes the same salary, we've rendered experience and job performance meaningless, and therefore rendered upward mobility nonexistent.

 

Odd to see someone paraphrasing Matthew 20:13-15 'round here.

 

Wrong. Paying a $70k minimum salary is going to attract a high level of interest from job seekers, and will widen the talent pool available to that company considerably. If the executive assistant sucks, he or she can be easily replaced, putting a higher premium on their job performance and thus increasing productivity.

Experience was rendered meaningless long ago. Experience, and the salary that comes with it, can be a hindrance to an employee in today's job market already. How many times have you seen newspapers, or other companies lay off their most experienced — and high-priced — employees, while retaining the younger — and cheaper — workers to cut costs? I'm not saying it's right, but it's nothing new to see employers who don't place a higher value on experience.

They didn't create a $70k ceiling on salaries, so there's no way this renders upward mobility nonexistent. In fact, it's the opposite. The $40k worker can now afford to erase debt, buy a home instead of renting it, afford better schooling for their children. The $67k worker who received a $3k raise did not lose anything by their co-workers receiving an increase in pay, except a hit to their egos because now they make the same amount as the executive assistant.

Sorry, but if you're upset that someone else makes the same amount of money as you do, when it didn't take away from your bottom line, you're being a petty asshole.

 

I am a Catholic. That's a pretty solid reference, Quant. Don't think I've heard "Are you envious because I am generous" since catechism, but I guess it's rattling around in my subconscious somewhere.

 

Not "someone else." "Someone" who's 23, while I'm closing in on 40? You're damn right I'd be pissed.

Not every industry is as hopelessly cold-hearted and fucked up as newspapers are. Experience and institutional knowledge rightfully have a lot of value in most other civilized industries.

Also, if the starting point is $70K, the ceiling is going to be much lower than you apparently think. It's egalitarian, to be sure, but it's a crock of shit. No way someone who put in 5 years should make as much as someone who put in 20, as a matter of official policy.

 

I've seen it referred to as the Parable of the Generous Employer or the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. But I think Parable of the Stingy Assholes works pretty good, too.

 

You can always tell those workers who are at the bottom end of the salary scale with little hope of making more.

 

I personally agree that experience and institutional knowledge have a lot value, but sadly, I don't think that's necessarily the reality for most companies these days. When given the choice between a 23-year-old employee making $40k who can learn the ropes or a $67k employee who already knows them, most companies are going to take the $40k employee. That institutional knowledge is not worth $27k per year to most companies.

Of course, that's comparing two employees doing the same job. I get the sense here that it's a case of middle managers or someone like that who is upset their assistant or the custodial staff are making the same amount of money. So that employee has three choices:

• Seek a new job making more money at a different company — which is a net gain.
• Stay in the current job, with a $3k raise, but make the same amount as the custodian — net gain.
  
• Make a lateral move to a different company with the same salary, where they'll make more than the custodian, but may have to move, or face a longer commute, etc. — maybe they feel better about themselves, but they're not doing any better financially.

In two of those scenarios, the $67k worker benefits financially. In one, he or she is shown to be a petty asshole. In none of them is the $67k worker worse off than they were before.

 

Part of the resentment in your hypothetical would be two employees in two entirely different situations: One who was hired, worked his/her way up, and EARNED $67K, and another who was hired and HANDED $67K. The "petty assholery" would likely greatly decrease had everyone in every situation been handed the same thing without earning it.

Remember the kerfuffle over rookie salaries in the NFL? Is it "reasonable" that Sam Bradford has essentially the same contract as Ben Roethlisberger?

 

But, again, I ask — why resent your co-worker making the same amount of money as you when you are both better off than you were before? Why not be happy for your co-worker, who can now afford to buy a home or pay off their student loan? You just received a $3k raise for no other reason than the owner's generosity. You didn't earn that $3k any more than the kid who received $27k did.

The salary your co-worker makes does not affect your family, nor does it take food off your plate. That guy didn't earn it? So what? As long as it's not taking away from your salary, why does it matter whether the other guy earned it?

 

Mail clerk should make as much as the CEO, or for the newspaper industry, janitor should make as much as the publisher.

Discuss!

 

You could always quit if you wouldn't like it.