You shouldn't, and that isn't my argument. If Gravity was paying some people $40k and some people $75k for the same work and result, they were being economically irrational. I'm saying that the $75k worker, up until today, was someone who likely commanded $75k because a) their training and experience allowed them to do productive work that exceeds that of entry-level workers, and b) they are harder to replace than entry-level workers.
If your employer says "your value to this company is equivalent to the value of unskilled entry-level workers", when you are in fact a highly trained and experienced worker, that may well be difficult to swallow.
That is your argument. The company decides what it values, not you.
> If your employer says "your value to this company is equivalent to the value of unskilled entry-level workers", when you are in fact a highly trained and experienced worker, that may well be difficult to swallow.
Your value doesn't necessary map to your training and experience.
That's the point. The value of the output of various workers in various positions is NOT the same. Often that comes as a result of considerable effort, btw. That difference is naturally reflected in pay.
> That's the point. The value of the output of various workers in various positions is NOT the same.
The company decides the value, however, and they pay according to that. Are you suggesting this is not the case? This is literally how practically every company I know of works.
