[jusonchan81]

I am not saying I am right, but my theory is:

If you are able to deliver a better result than "Person X" who is paid more than you, and if you get a chance to deliver that result, won't you demand to be paid more than the "Person X"?

And for the company who is paying, who already seems to agree to pay that much for "Person X"'s result - would likely to be happy to pay you the same or more since you are delivering more

Where am I wrong? Isn't this just capitalism? Help me understand :)

If you voluntarily say I need only half the pay of "Person X" aren't you basically being charitable or just sacrificing what you could potentially get? I am not saying that doing this is wrong (probably morally right) but this is probably rare.

[coderintherye]

You don't seem to understand that there is nothing preventing mediocre applicants from asking for more money than better applicants. How much a person asks to be paid may or may not have anything to do with their actual ability to deliver results. And in fact, what has been empirically shown is that applicants who ask for and receive outsized compensation are actually worse performers on average.

[jusonchan81]

Ok, probably you and I are talking about different things.

But on your point, what's the root cause of this issue? Why do people hire people with outsized compensations when the other option is empirically proven?

[coderintherye]

If you read the article I linked you to, it answers that very question.

You can use archive.is to read it if you don't have a WSJ subscription: https://archive.is/bkDCO