And it's an unethical system where people who have leverage end up able to negotiate more pay for the same output than people who do not. I suspect that if you weren't in a privileged position, you'd be upset about the disparity too.
Ah come on, we know that this is not true. For example we know that many CEOs come from very select few universities, have typically unique connections through families etc.. So not really hard work practice and dedication
I generally agree with what you're saying, but it's often more simple than that. The greatest leverage in a salary negotiation comes from the freedom to actually quit, a freedom, especially in the United States, that many do not have (and never "earn"). While, on the other hand, the privileged are born with this freedom.
>The greatest leverage in a salary negotiation comes from the freedom to actually quit
Leverage comes from alternatives to an agreement.
The asymmetry in negotiations is that in most circumstances, employees or candidates tend to have zero (remaining unemployed) or one (remaining at a job) alternatives.
People think they have more alternatives, but there's a huge difference between an alternative at an exact moment, and alternatives that are theoretical within days, weeks or months.
Employers have alternatives, even if they aren't great, right now. So you're not on an equal footing whether you are interviewing or talking to your current employer.
Not to mention, when you do have leverage, exploiting it to the hilt can poison or destroy a future relationship.
Leverage means having the life situation that allows you to walk away. That's something you can build, later in life; but having it from the start can build a huge advantage.
They’re not getting screwed over. They’re getting paid what they agreed to when they took the job, just like everyone else is.