No, the argument you're making is irrational.

You're a $100k/yr FTE dev. A VP above you makes $200k/yr. You believe that VP should be making $50k/yr. But your position isn't improved at all if they do. You're still making $100k/yr, and someone else is taking the $150k/yr premium.

So you say, "no, I should get a share of that $150k/yr premium." Well, OK, why aren't you? What you're saying is that you're worth more than $100k/yr. You already have a way of demonstrating that: demand a raise, then start interviewing.

The flip side of this, if it helps make the point clearer: you're a $100k/yr dev. The VP at your company is already making $50k/yr. This is good how? By any logic you could employ in the above scenario, you're worth more than $100k/yr in this scenario too.

What other people in your firm make is an orthogonal concern to what you make. Clinging to the belief that pay equity is an important part of your compensation is as likely to harm you as help you; stipulating that we are all especially high-functioning professionals, the notion of pay equity is part of what puts a ceiling on what you earn now.

This is the most anti-rational anti-worker worthless "explanation" I have ever heard.

What other people make is definitely not an orthogonal concern, and is hugely relevant. Your justification of not caring about other people earning more is incredibly short-sighted. Yes, it does improve my position if other people earn less, because that money is then available for the company to use on other things, such as paying me.

Furthermore, to suggest that this is "irrational" is offensive and irrational in itself, and would not be inconsistent with psychological propaganda.

How are you better off if an overpaid VP is laid off and replaced with a cheaper VC? Try to be specific.

The word "irrational" doesn't mean "idiotic", by the way.

The company has an extra $150k to spend on everyone else, R&D or sales, or distribute as profit. I think it's a net positive (for the employee, company and/or society).

Before the VP got his pay cut, you made $100k. After the VP got his pay cut, you made $100k. Explain to me how this is a rational thing, in the economic sense of "rational", for you to care about.

Wanting your employer/society to perform better is pretty rational in my book, and could result in personal economic gains in the future. I think you are working with a very narrow definition of "rational" here (earning more money right now).

Here is an analogy: the business has $150k to spend. Would you rather have it spent on a pair of paintings for the meeting room, or in company-wide renovations? I think it's rational to choose the latter, though it doesn't immediately affect your bottom line.

> Explain to me how this is a rational thing, in the economic sense of "rational"

Ah, I think this explains the disagreement. That kind of "rational" has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with maximizing individual payoff. I think you've conflated the two, when they're almost completely incompatible. I knew you were a closet republican ;)

What definition of "rational" are you working from?

Maximizing individual payoff is not necessarily contradictory to more intuitive notions of "fairness". One ignored variable is the timescale you're maximizing over. If your company spends money on other things than exec pay, you (and others) are very likely to do better in the long run, in ways that are not mathematically (or computationally) quantifiable, at least by existing theories (or resources). But just because something is not quantifiable does not mean that considering it is "irrational". Rather the opposite, you are using what computational resources you have personally (emotions and intuition) to judge this, rather than ignoring it completely.

This is why I get supremely annoyed at claims that a specific non-mathematical argument is "irrational".

(Examples of non-computable things: company spends resources on R&D and makes more long-term profit; company spends resources on higher pay for everyone else and boosts morale; reputation of company increases and you attract a wider pool of potential employees; etc.)

In more mathematical terms, greedy optimisation algorithms in the name of short-term "rationality" most often lead you to a local, not global, maximum.

There is nothing irrational about equitable pay, unless you're the check-writer trying to depress wages and pay everyone the minimum that you can get away with. This is, of course, why salaries are secret.

For what it's worth, I have made substantially more than my coworkers in almost all of my jobs (based on what I could infer from watercooler talk after being around a while), and I don't think that's fair either. I actually chewed out one of my managers once when I found out a coworker was making half of what I was.

Why wasn't he paying him more? Because he could get away with it, not because it was fair. He was a hard worker, very smart, but rather timid. Put this guy against the alpha male manager, and unless the manager wants to be charitable, that guy is not getting a dime more than the manager can bully him into taking. What's worse, the guy will probably come out thinking he got a good deal.

I don't think you addressed my point. How are you better off if a 200k/yr VP is replaced with a 50k/yr VP, and whatever benefit you get from that transition, why should it depend on what some other person makes? If you did work worth 150k/yr, you should be making 150k/yr regardless.

Equity grants are somewhat more rival than cash salary, though.

If a company has 5% to give to employees in a certain year, VPs getting 1% does increase the odds an engineer will get 0.03% instead of 0.1%.

> The flip side of this, if it helps make the point clearer: you're a $100k/yr dev. The VP at your company is already making $50k/yr. This is good how? By any logic you could employ in the above scenario, you're worth more than $100k/yr in this scenario too.

The difference is in one scenario you're talking about a company that can pay out 300k a year, and in the other it's only 150k. Fairness is not about absolute numbers, but relative numbers in proportion to the total available.

Are you doing work worth 250k a year? Why are you accepting 100k for it? Do you think every dollar generated by a company is allocated to salary? That's a company with a 0% (or worse) margin.