> I don’t think many here would define a VBA/Excel analyst that knows the data model and how to access a bunch of legacy platforms to produce a criterial report each month as high performing - but they’re scarce and difficult to replace.

I didn’t mean to debate semantics with you and I can see how my language provoked that. My claim is that a scarce, difficult to replace employee deserves more money because of their scarcity and difficulty in being replaced.

> I don’t think it’s fair that those who work in higher risk or less fulfilling jobs should be paid half as much. There are credible arguments about why it’s justified , but I don’t think there are any tenable arguments that it is fair.

I believe its fair. In fact I believe its unfair not to do so. Rather than debate the fairness, I’m more interested in if you think fairness is objective or intersubjective?