[anm89]

This is a nonsensical question and of course there is no answer.

Any time you are asking about universals in regards to the lived experiences of human beings you need to take a step back. This principle applies to issues many orders of magnitude less complicated than employee pay which i think goes to show how absurdly far off track this question is.

To illustrate the point,say you conclude some "universal pay" (good luck even defining what that means, who it applies to and when it applies) . Why do I care? I'm still going to go live my life and maximize my pay for my particular situation. So your universal pay is already not universal after the thought experiment of trying to apply it to the first person who you cannot directly control .

You'd be just as good debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[ramtatatam]

I second this opinion. From experience, as I was on both sides of hiring desk, if market offers better pay than the one candidate accepts, it is almost certain candidate will be gone a few months later. I cannot imagine how "universal pay" would work here. If market is forced to pay X then one of the sides would be unhappy and would seek to change the situation.

Also people face different circumstances, like person with mortgage vs person without mortgage, person with savings vs person without savings, person with family vs person with no family. Different circumstances will translate to different pay that will look good in the one's eyes.

Maybe we have some opportunity at the moment (on both ends) - that opportunity will probably be gone after some time, as more people take advantage of it. Market will even out until "the next thing"..