taken 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

taken 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.