[dwaltrip]

> If I work for a company and I'm earning them millions of dollars, you're saying that I don't deserve to be compensated proportionally, I should just give them my time and effort because of "self-respect"?

Companies offer compensation based on a combination of the possible alternatives for that individual and cultural norms. If they know you can't get more elsewhere and the given amount is not vastly outside of the accepted norms (e.g. such that leadership feels morally satisfied and the company isn't at risk of harm due to a possible societal backlash), why would they offer you more?

Of course, some companies care about norms more than others. And I don't think it is ever the primary factor.

[jamespollack]

Companies literally collude to keep salaries down.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...

[dwaltrip]

Yes, many (not all) companies are morally and ethically compromised to varying degrees. The law should attempt to reduce these harms where possible.

I don't think this significantly affects what I wrote above.

[jamespollack]

The link addresses the "If they know you can't get more elsewhere" portion of what you posted, but I didn't respond substantially to the rest. Thanks for the chance to expand.

> "at risk of harm due to a possible societal backlash"

Fear of backlash over paying too little should not be a motivation for compensation. Trying to push it as low as you can without actually sparking dissent, internally or externally, is a cruel game.

I'm into the idea of worker co-ops, so I'm not starting from an assumption that the purpose of a business is to maximize profits for shareholders. Sure, the business might profit less if it pays its employees more, to me a business IS its employees, not a separate entity. If the employees create even more value for the company as a whole, paying them more is a cause for celebration.

If the amount of value you provide increases in a meaningful way, so should your compensation. Instead, on salary we provide unpaid overtime in times of need and enjoy a flat-line of compensation even if we create a new product, invention, or process that massively increases company value.

Bonuses, equity compensation, etc can and are gamed by companies to pay as little as possible without "fear of backlash," like you said. (Cliffs, golden handcuffs, dilution, preferred shares, etc).

Theoretically a salary should be desirable because it de-risks the downside: what if you're put on an under-performing team, or your product launch flops? NBD, because you're on salary, right?

Likely you'll just be fired anyway - you can be fired anytime without cause (in CA anyhow, since we're at-will).

So, salaried positions result in what the OP I was replying to said - "the logical thing to do is to scale back your effort to a point where the amount you get done matches the amount you get paid for".

That DOES seem logical to me. And undesirable. We want people to dial their effort up, right? How do we build compensation and hiring systems that reward people who can add value? As it stands we're leaving a lot of human potential untapped - by design!