- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,286
- Reaction score
- 20,381
You don't have to see a correlation. If you go and pull total compensation figures over the last 50 years it's right there in the data. Total compensation has risen in line with inflation over the last 50 years. However, the increase has been in the value of non-wage compensation. Wages have not moved.I don't see any correlation to fringe benefit increases in high skilled labor roles and low skilled labor wage stagnation. Increases in non-wage comp are a result of the basic principles of economics which is to balance supply and demand. Maintaining top talent in order to continue driving top and bottom line growth is the sole driver of these benefits.
Even once historically low paid trade skills have seen an absolute boom in pay once again solely tied to economics. When you have a skill in demand you get paid more. Hence, go to school and get a real major or skill rather than an Art History major or Diversity management degree.
No one says not to pay your top people more. The point which the data shows is that the "more" is in non-wage compensation. A company could just as easily pay it's top performers more money. But they're not, they're paying them in benefits instead. And since some of those benefits often go un-used, even the top performers are actually taking home less compensation than if they were simply given the cash.