[lotsofpulp]

That can only be true if labor budgets are limitless.

Even a business like Apple has some number that is the most it can pay to all of its employees. And if there is a maximum, then that means it can be divided any number of ways.

[ryandrake]

I don't think Apple (or any company) are paying "the most it can pay to all of its employees". Labor is a market, and in a market, buyers don't pay any more than they can get away with. All companies are paying the least they can get away with while still retaining the people they want to retain.

There isn't some fixed bag of money $X that gets distributed to employees, where X is uninfluenced by the market. If the labor market happened to change such that X must be more, companies would have to pay X or do without some employees.

EDIT: I think we actually agree. Roundabout way of saying the same thing.

[Spivak]

Yes but that gets factored into the hiring because this salary scheme is for retention. If someone negotiates a higher salary it's taken as the market price for the position increasing and the company not wanting to lose their employees who will eventually or immediately realize they could be making more somewhere else.

[lotsofpulp]

I do not understand what salary scheme for retention means. There exists $x to pay everyone in the company. You can start from dividing it equally amongst all employees. As you pay some employees more, you have to pay others less.

Keep going along this track and “max(individual rate, group rate)” will break down as you winnow down the definition of group.