Can you articulate why it’s not a good idea? There’s a few workers coops that pay equal salaries without occurrences of mass death.

To me at least the vast majority of pay structure in traditional companies seems to be hierarchical rather than actually being structured around ‘merit’. And for many businesses I’d wager it’s really hard to actually determine individual merit over the lifetime of a business. As such a flat pay structure might be better. Particularly if there is a profit sharing scheme?

I totally agree, some cashiers at Winco are millionaires and STILL working as Cashiers...and who wouldn't when the company treats you right and you are part owner?

Some jobs are harder than others, with the definition of "hard" varying from job to job (ie, physically, mentally, or emotionally draining, dangerous, or requiring a rare skill). Harder jobs should be paid more, otherwise, what incentive is there to take on hard jobs?

The "mass death" thing the other commenter brought up is just plain silly, IMO. Communism failed (and will always fail) due to corruption and greed, and in the past has always been implemented by malicious dictators.

The hierarchical pay structure makes some sense because the higher you go, the more risk you bring to the company. A low-level manager may make a bad hiring choice that costs the company tens of thousands in wasted wages after hiring someone unproductive. Middle management may mismanage their teams and create working environments that lower morale. Upper management and CEOs may make bad decisions on what new products to green light and can cost the company millions or tank it completely.

So, it makes sense IMO to pay the higher ups more, but there should be a profit sharing scheme of some sort to reward people of all levels for their contribution to the success of the company.

I don’t think we do a good job of paying well for hard jobs at all so I don’t really see the idea that people won’t do them if we don’t pay well as being very well supported.

Further I can definitely see the argument that having more responsibility could be incentivised with higher pay if the risk to the individual actually increased. But I also see no compelling evidence that is actually the case. But usually in structures with flatter pay like coops individuals have more say anyway.

Corruption and greed also seem like good explanations for the status quo TBH.

If you are the type of worker who can enable a company to triple it's value you likely are well compensated already, if you aren't paid well I'd suggest checking with your employers competitors to see if they too would like to triple their value and just how much it's worth to them.

If after that search you find no one willing to pay you more perhaps consider if you really are so pivotal to the companies success.

Great job missing the point entirely.

No single person will triple the value of a company. Not even the CEO. The CEO may make a major decision, but it's still the people at the very bottom doing the grunt work that implement it, and they should see some of the fruit of their labor.