Because those categories are not so neatly separated as you think they are. Most work is done in teams, and some enable others to churn out project after project by takingn care of the maintenance, meetings, documentation, etc. It's hard to say who did more, but it's also hard to say someone in the team has more output than others.
Are the wheels of the car more productive than the frame? I agree with those that say this is a discussion not worth ones time. I can always go to another team, or go at it myself, if the pay isn't what I want.
> I can always go to another team, or go at it myself, if the pay isn't what I want.
In industries that have tenure-based pay, you often cannot do this because you reduce your pay when you switch companies because you reset your tenure.
What you’re describing is an uncommon scenario (at least in the US) where within a given industry some employers are paying for tenure and others are paying for performance. This is uncommon because pay for performance tends to win out because it attracts the best talent, at least in highly paid fields. Pay for tenure probably results in higher average pay across a role but lower pay for the top performers.
no it is not really, but to use your car analogy, should a wheel on the car that is flat, and slowing the car down be paid the same as the 2 wheels that are operating to spec?
Because non-performance based pay tends to flat tires....
I think generally that a competent manager without too many direct reports can have a good sense of who’s contributing more in the end, even when mixing apples and oranges like you describe.
Are the wheels of the car more productive than the frame? I agree with those that say this is a discussion not worth ones time. I can always go to another team, or go at it myself, if the pay isn't what I want.