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

Because giving disproportionate raises to everyone just to match some arbitrary salary level devalues everyone's work.

On a wide scale, if LPNs started making the same salaries as MDs, you have successfully devalued a medical school education, internship and residency.

 

This discussion doesn't really apply to a wide-scale concept. We're not talking about an industry-wide pay scale movement, or a government-mandated wage. This is about a single company that decided to pay all of its employees at least a certain amount, and the fallout that the company is seeing from that decision.

Hypothetically, though, let's say a private medical practice starts its MDs with a salary of $150k/year and then decides it is going to pay all of its employees a minimum of $150k. That medical practice is going to be inundated with resumes from job seekers. It's very likely going to rapidly have a staff comprised of the best LPNs, imaging specialists, orderlies, receptionists and custodians among its competitors. Each of those employees are going to know that if they don't perform well, there are a plethora of job seekers who would fill the position immediately, and they'll be driven harder to excel at whatever they do.

The MDs may be upset and they may leave, citing the devaluing of their medical degrees. They will then either make a lateral move, in which they continue to make the same amount of money but feel better about themselves because they make more money than the LPNs, or they'll get a better job and make more money. Meanwhile, the practice will have to replace the departed MDs. Since the practice was already paying a market-level salary, they should be able to replace the former MDs at equal cost. Overall, that practice should now provide better care than it did when it paid nurses $60k.

 

If you don't see a problem with that, or at least understand that others would have a legitimate problem with it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Not if they're doing most of the work. Should an agate clerk make the same as a major beat writer?

 

What is the problem with that, exactly? The MDs are making a market-level salary commensurate with their experience, roughly equal to what they would make at any other similar practice. The nurses etc., are overpaid. Why should it bother the MDs that the nurses are overpaid? Jealousy, pettiness and ego. I want to be overpaid, too!

I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree on this one, and I'd assume most people would side with you in the debate. I'm sure I'm in the minority.

 

You're not the one with the education and/or experience, are you?

And, yes, it does hurt the MDs. Isn't salary and future purchasing power part of the allure? You're not going to get people going into $100-300K of student loan debt just so someone with a two-year degree can make the same money.

 

If the agate clerk is performing well at meeting all the duties required of him or her and the major beat writer is making a fair market salary, sure, why not? If the major beat writer is upset, he or she can request a move to the agate desk or look for a job at another newspaper (that will likely pay approximately the same).

The only person who should worry about an overpaid employee is the one cutting the paychecks.

 

Twelve years in newspapers, several more in public relations, a college degree. Thanks for checking in, newb.

 

Different timeframe, different unit of analysis, etc., etc. Also known as apples-to-orangutans.

 

You're looking at it as if this is an industry-wide situation. It is not. And I don't think we've seen anyone advocating for a $70k minimum wage or anything of the sort. If a company decides to make it a policy to pay its employees a minimum of $70k, it's going to make some employees very happy and they're going to get an extremely competitive pool of applicants for open positions. It also may get some employees who are unhappy with losing their status as high-salaried employees. Jealousy, pettiness and/or ego are the reasons to be unhappy about that situation.

Look at it like this: If you're a doctor making $140k per year and you have the opportunity to join a practice that is loaded with the best staff of any practice in your region, and that practice is going to pay you $150k to start, but it's also going to pay everyone else $150k to start, are you going to turn down that job? If you do, it's because you're petty asshole who would rather make $10k less per year at a lesser practice than get paid the same as the custodian and LPNs.

 

This company in Seattle must be the bestest-ever credit card processing firm.

 

That's how we are.