[morgante]

I hope some academics are doing a study on this, as it's an almost prefect real-world example of efficiency wages.[1] I wouldn't be surprised if they see large increases in productivity amongst downmarket employees, as they now have an extremely strong incentive to kick ass at their job (any other job they could get would pay significantly less).

That being said, I also sympathize with the workers who were making $70k. If I were making $70k and a junior developer making $30k before (all hypothetical) got a raise to $70k I would absolutely be pissed off that I am now apparently considered equally valuable to them.

Probably a better way to handle this with total buy-in from all employees would have been to give an $Xk raise, where $Xk is the amount required to bring the lowest paid employee up to $70k. This would have preserved proportional productivity values while giving everyone an awesome reward (and introducing efficiency wages). Of course, it probably also would have been much more expensive.

Tangent: a salary of $50k seems absurdly low for a web developer in Seattle. That guy should be looking for a new job immediately.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage

[PhasmaFelis]

> That being said, I also sympathize with the workers who were making $70k. If I were making $70k and a junior developer making $30k before (all hypothetical) got a raise to $70k I would absolutely be pissed off that I am now apparently considered equally valuable to them.

I am baffled by this mindset. You had something that you were happy with, but now it's suddenly not good enough, because someone that you consider your inferior has it too and it's messing with your sense of superiority. This isn't even throwing a tantrum because the neighbor kid got a better toy--this is throwing a tantrum because the neighbor kid got the same toy.

[noir_lord]

Some people associate their worth with what they earn in a way others don't.

I've never really understood that mindset, back when I worked for other people I didn't give a shit what other people earnt as long as what I earnt was enough to cover my overheads and seemed reasonable for the work I was putting in.

[twic]

> Some people associate their worth with what they earn in a way others don't.

Moreover, they may associate the amount they are paid as an reflection of the esteem in which they are held by others.

[ArkyBeagle]

I just lack the part of my imagination that makes me care what anybody else makes. So far as I am concerned, it's simply not important.

I'd love to talk to somebody overpaid by three orders of magnitude but only to find out how it happened, in a "The Man Who Would Be King" sort of way. The world is far too arbitrary and random for anything like that to have too much meaning.

Indeed, someone in the office next to me in a dying company went on to harvest quite a bit of stock options - I spoke with her husband years after. She was definitely worth it, but it's still like the opposite of a tree falling on you.

The second rule is that what I make is important, but only to me and no you can't find out. Consistency has its limits.

[sneak]

What other people make comes out of the limited budget for all employees. If you deliver twice the value, it is only fair that you should receive twice the pay.

[ArkyBeagle]

There's nearly never a good system of measurement to determine that. The more elaborate the system, probably the less trustworthy it is. And people game them.

Then they try to gain a position to stop change because that would threaten their position. Once the firm reaches total hidebound status, it's merely a matter of time.

I mean - "second prize is a set of steak knives"....

[jkestner]

I've always wondered how pro athletes in their weird economy deal with this issue. With salary caps, max contracts and scarcity there are all sorts of constraints that change from year to year, and a superstar on a max contract signed a few years ago can be making less than a merely good player who just signed a contract. (One of the rare cases where one's actually voiced displeasure: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2015-07-14/john-wall-m... )

[plonh]

They make a lifetime supply of money each year, and plenty from non-league sources (endorsements, etc). Their energy is better spent learning how to manage the money they have, than fighting over who gets paid more of it.

[jkestner]

I agree with you. But these are serious competitors and they have egos, so I'm surprised it doesn't come up more. You do see some of the guys at the low-medium end of the pay scale really happy to get to a level where they can provide security for their family, taking into account how short their careers are.

[ArkyBeagle]

I expect many simply do not. It's a lot of work having money. Athletes don't have a whole lot of control over their time.

There is a Ken Burns film about Mark Twain, who went broke trying to fund a printing process ahead of its time in the manner of a bad gambler. It's heartbreaking.

Bob Wills went broke on a failed entertainment venture, but made it good at considerable personal cost.

"Life entails a parcel of risk" - Mr. Merriwether, "Little Big Man".

[VikingCoder]

"According to a 2009 Sports Illustrated article, 60 percent of former NBA players are broke within five years of retirement. By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress."