When the market raises salaries, it is based on ability.
I don't believe this at all, and in fact for teachers I think salaries and compensation have been effectively lowered with respect to their increased responsibilities over the decades. Put simply, teachers are sandbagged. See also: the fundamental attribution error, where an interesting thought experiment can be had by imagining entire occupations subject to its whims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/06/leveson-...
Re:The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent
by stretchwithme on Monday October 15, 2012 @04:00AM
(#4654159)
well, its true. The most capable workers earn more than workers that are barely capable. And as someone's capabilities grow, their salary tends to go up.
And when an employer looks at someone that can do a lot and at someone that can do very little, they want to pay the former more.
When the market raises salaries, it is based on ability. When government does it and unions are involved, warm bodies are brought in. Friends and family, people who are political allies, people who kiss ass.
As with so many things, you can't look at an effect and treat it as though it were the cause. For example, productive people are more likely to own real estate. Giving everyone a house won't make them more productive.
Higher salaries are the result of competition for skilled workers and workers responding to the market. You don't get the same results by arbitrarily raising salaries.
The private sector will raise its salaries to keep its workers. And the public sector will get workers that want what the private sector will never give them: freedom from having to compete.