> The only thing different about knowledge work is that you're not producing a commodity.
That’s a categorical difference. Not some minor detail.
It’s also not the only difference. Knowledge workers contributions are necessarily much more interdependent than the contributions of people who make commodities.
But see that if you think of knowledge work as little different from manufacturing commodities, your arguments and conclusions makes sense.
I just think your assumptions about the similarities are not correct.
In this way - you can't just simply count how many pies a SWE coded.
But you still get paid to produce "something". Is it even relevant what that is?
Should you get paid less at Google if you work on a new product and you absolutely crush your job vs you work on optimizing ads and aren't very good at your job - but regardless are able to generate a lot more profits?
Maybe?
I don't have a good answer for this.
I'm assuming "productivity" is somehow tied to "profit". No one cares if you work really hard and get nothing done. But if you work really hard and do your job well, but your boss told you to work on something unproductive - what should happen? You and your boss are considered unproductive? Just you? Just your boss? I don't know.
I think the easiest fairest system would be a mix of levels like FAANG has along with ratings (which FAANG also has) along with transparent pay (which almost no one has).
From a business perspective - you're currently paid the least possible amount it costs to employ you or replace you. If you have a valuable and rare skill set, you'll get paid a lot more, even if you aren't particularly good at your job.
I don't see this ever going away.