[ARandumGuy]

I'm not sure what companies you've worked for, but salary is almost never based on a 'meritocracy,' it's based on the minimum amount an employer thinks they can get away with. That value has nothing to do with an employee's output, and everything to do with minimizing costs.

[umvi]

Well, speak for yourself and the companies you've worked for, but that hasn't been my experience at all.

At both of the companies I've worked at we got a yearly "merit-based" increase depending on how your manager ranks you vs. your peers. The increase is anywhere from 0-5%, and the manager can only recommend their top employees for the high (5%) merit-based increases. This is on top of other increases (such as promotion-based increases), btw. I've gotten several pretty high merit-based increases back-to-back, and those +5% really start to compound with other forms of increase (promotions, bonuses, etc) after a few years.

[raxxorrax]

That isn't paying by merit, it is a leadership style with financial incentives. An obnoxious one in my opinion, but some people like it. Very common in sales.

If you were paid by "merit", you would be paid by your contribution to the revenue of the company. That is mostly restricted to owners.

[burfog]

Your merit is the minimum amount an employer can get away with. If you had more merit, some other employer would steal you away by offering that much.

Your output determines your merit and thus your pay, subject to random inaccuracies.