> I would not feel all that impressed with the idea if I were a senior level in my career and earning 75k and suddenly the mail boy makes 75k or the level 2 call taker does
I would understand your feeling if it implied you being somehow less well off, or having less chances of being promoted in the future, etc. But you seem to dislike the idea of other people being better off, period. I don't see what you gain from the mail boy being poorer.
> But you seem to dislike the idea of other people being better off, period. I don't see what you gain from the mail boy being poorer.
Great point.
This seems to be an unfortunate aspect of human nature. Many people seem to exhibit the same kind of attitudes, myself included. It takes mental effort to correctly realign one's own thinking.
Similar attitudes arise around the idea of a Basic Income. The gut reaction of most people is "why would I support the idea of a lazy bum getting free money?". It takes mental effort to shift one's own position on the matter.
It's interesting that (in America at least) a lot of people who are not wealthy fight to keep taxes low for the wealthy because they assume they might be wealthy someday. Yet fewer people fight for entitlements for lazy bums despite the fact that becoming a lazy bum is a much more realizable aspiration.
So let me make my assumption: the people are not fighting to keep taxes low for the wealthy because they assume they might be (extremely) wealthy someday. That possibility is so very small. They are fighting to keep taxes low for the wealthy because they assume that this helps the society to develop its economy and technology, become wealthier and collect a higher tax revenue, as opposed to higher tax percentages.
You know, the government cannot consume percentages, it consumes money.
Over 20 years ago, in the midst of a huge recession and collapse of tax base, my country dropped the marginal tax rate for high earners of capital gains from 65 % to 25 %. What followed was a substantial rise in tax revenue. It doesn't happen overnight, it doesn't happen in one year. Conjunctures impact it. But when you are at the falling slope of Laffer curve, it would be good to do something about it.
A) Nobody is mad that a mail boy makes $75k. They are mad that they carry more of a workload than a mail boy but are rewarded with identical compensation.
B) It bolsters stagnation. $75k is great pay for mail room work. I should buy a bigger house, more TV's, enjoy this life. Never shall I be bothered with professional growth again!
C) Mail room workers don't generate or assist in $75k of revenue for the company, they generate or mitigate costs of drastically less. Therefore we are now working for a company that is forced to needlessly pass the costs on to our customers.
All this crazy pay is fun if you are in a tech bubble or in a single city in California where everyone can be this 'innovative' but the fact is, most people aren't able to contribute to a cause to the tune of $75k/yr.
Your logic right also be a tad messy. A company like that probably doesn't have a "mail boy" or anything very similar. The lowest paying jobs are probably customer support and office manager which are always inexplicably low-paying jobs.
I think this is the way of thinking in capitalism. "I have been working my ass off to become what I am now, I have paid college, and now one with lower try is making as much as me. That's not fair." Also this leads to another hidden thought of "That mail boy is currently getting the money which I should have been making".
Well I can't say thought first one is not justified but the second one is really absurd.
Hard work may give you an edge over other people in the same job role, so seniority way be seen as somewhat correlated with hard work within a position, but across job roles pay is much more dependent on other factors for instance the opportunities provided to you by your wealth, race and sex to name a few. I'm of the opinion that just because someone is paid less, doesn't mean they work less hard, and I don't think it fair to begrudge people their pay for quite possibly just not being born with the same silver spoon.
P.S: Not to imply that wealth, race, and sex don't also hinder you within a job role, but I think that it's probably even more prevalent across them.
Shockingly, hard work gives you an edge over other people even in the same wealth, race, or gender categories as well. So, why lean on those categories as an excuse?
I would understand your feeling if it implied you being somehow less well off, or having less chances of being promoted in the future, etc. But you seem to dislike the idea of other people being better off, period. I don't see what you gain from the mail boy being poorer.