What happened to the logical premise that people receive payment in accordance t

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 8 years ago

   What happened to the logical premise that people receive payment in accordance to their educational,
   
   skill set, brand, & customer/public demand level, not to mention level of job complexity & responsibility?  Why do some people strongly contend that job payment should be equally distributed despite jobs required vastly divergent educational, skill set, complexity, & responsibility levels?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 93

   lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

   I don't know that anyone contents that payments should be equally distributed. I think most logical people understand that a CEO should be paid more than a cashier.
   
   However, I do think that over the course of the last 50 years, the difference between what a cashier is paid, and what a CEO is paid, has widened to a point that is ridiculous. Since the 1970s, CEO salaries have risen over 900%, while worker's salaries have risen 11%.
   
   Even given the more complex job of being a CEO in the modern world, how is this inequity fair? If a CEO is doing his job, and his company is making a profit, shouldn't his workers be seeing higher salaries, as well? It seems as though more often, the profit goes to those at the top, and nothing makes it down to the workers. In contrast, when a CEO does a bad job, the workers are often the first to suffer, with cuts in hours and pay, or loss of employment, while the bad CEO is given a huge severance package.
   
   50 years ago, a worker on the lowest end of the pay scale could still feed their family, and consider saving up for a home. Today, those lowest workers have to ask for government assistance just to keep food on their tables. Meanwhile, the big bosses are raking in the bonuses, stock options, and huge salaries. Does this seem fair to you? Does it seem logical to reward people for underpaying their workers?
   
   I think that's the equality issue here. Not that everyone should be paid equally, but that everyone should be paid in equal proportion to their contribution to the company. Right now, that payment is way out of balance.

   replyreport
3. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   For the most part the educational requirement by companies isn't really valid or substantial. A college degree is useful for companies to bring on new talent for entry level positions. But, when it comes to working knowledge, education is secondary to the actual experience of the candidate.
   
   Much of educational knowledge, especially in the high technology field is out of date to the technology used by most hi tech companies. In addition, every company has their own way of doing business. So, moving between companies is an educational process in and of itself. The new company has to train the person in the way that they do business, as in procedures and processes. They also may use the tech products uniquely.
   
   So, a person that is intelligent could quite easily be trained on the job without a college education, but a personal with a college degree, still needs to be trained by the company.
   
   Education and industry are not in sync. There are trade schools that are more in sync with industry for technology positions.
   
   Lets face it, technology will grow, and education will not be able to keep up with it. Experience and accomplishment trump education.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      lisavollrathposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      If "experience and accomplishment trump education" were true, companies wouldn't lay off older, more experience workers, and hire younger, less experienced workers to replace them. The only thing that matters to any company is the almighty dollar.

      replyreport
   2. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It is still true nevertheless.
      Even though they may get younger people that doesn't mean that they choose education over experience. One factor that you have not mention is that hi technology makes use of contractors,
      they are experienced& expen

      replyreport
4. 87

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   There is a difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome.
   Those demanding flat wages for all want equal outcome - the guy serving fries making as much as the one working physically twice as hard digging ditches and the one risking his life fixing downed power lines.
   Those who want wages set by the market want equal opportunity - you study longer for a marketable degree or take the work no one else wants to do (Dirty Jobs of Mike Rowe fame), and you make a lot of money because of supply and demand. If you're willing to learn or do the harder or nastier jobs, you will make more.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Most college degrees are worthless. They are only check marks on application forms, and then only important when the person has little to no experience.

      replyreport