Sure, and you can tie the two together more with higher equity component. But the argument here is that Facebook should pay engineers more because they make a lot of money. My point is, then should a company that doesn’t make as much money (which is most) pay their employees less? Or in the cases of companies that don’t make money, not pay their employees at all?
Seems like workers would want to work at a place if they're fairly compensated (in contrast to increasing with company profits), treated well and enjoy their job. Sure you can reward employees for good company performance, and many do in forms of bonuses, equity growth etc, but 1) it's not required and 2) it's not directly correlated to company profits. I mean, if a company won a "lottery", e.g. a huge sale contract, should all employees get a corresponding boost in income?
Is it financially beneficial to a company? Maybe not, unless as a means to incentivize employee retention and attract high performers.
Is it something that should happen in a conceptual/philosophical/ethical sense? Perhaps as corporations become more productive and profitable while requiring fewer workers, due to technological advances, automation, etc.- perhaps this should be discussed? Why should compensation structures be frozen in amber, while the methods of production improve by leaps and bounds?
Not frozen in amber, but perhaps linked to something else like performance, expertise, experience etc. If we're talking about this as a means of wealth distribution then that seems like it should be something at the government policy level.
While they are indeed very high compared to other professions and the national average, they are still on relatively low growth compared to others. There's also the argument that it's not software engineers that are overpaid, but that everyone else is underpaid [1].
