3 ms·
> This logic horrifies me because it applies equally well to wage disparities based on protected classes. I dunno if GP meant to imply that, but this is kinda
by leetcrew 6y ago
> This logic horrifies me because it applies equally well to wage disparities based on protected classes.
I dunno if GP meant to imply that, but this is kinda the key flaw with the "equal pay for equal work" thing. most engineers earn way more than the median income. this is a direct result of existing in a market-based economy where wages are determined by supply and demand rather than some abstract notion of fairness. you can't complain that the payscale is different for atlanta vs sf while maintaining that it's totally fine for you to make 5x as much as the cashier at 7-Eleven.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago> you can't complain that the payscale is different for atlanta vs sf while maintaining that it's totally fine for you to make 5x as much as the cashier at 7-Eleven. It's that the "equal work" part? Comparing one cashier to another cashier (assuming same hours, same responsibilities, etc) is equal work, so is part of an "equal pay for equal work" conversation. Comparing a cashier to a software dev is a wholly separate conversation.
- leetcrew 6y agotaken in isolation, sure, "equal pay for equal work" makes sense. but it sidesteps the question of why certain work commands higher pay in the first place. the answer lies in the balance between supply and demand. engineers were quite happy to accept the market equilibrium pay when it placed them near the top of the income food chain in their locale, but suddenly they are quite unhappy to see other engineers getting paid even more. maybe I'm not articulating this quite right, but there seems to be an inconsistency in here. it strikes me as similar to the type of feminism that only cares about seeing more women as CEOs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]