The first paragraph mentions two employees with different salaries. One resents the others and so wants them equalized. If the difference is _not_ merit based then equalizing the salaries is a _good_ thing. Since the articles states equalizing is a bad thing, there is a hidden assumption that inequality is due to merit.
Likewise you do not want decision makers to be deterred from giving raises to some and not to others. This behavior would only be desirable if those raises were merit based. If they were not merit based than they should indeed be deterred. etc.
> Assuming both are equally human, you'd expect people to have a tendency to slack off and to like it when it doesn't hurt their bottom line.
Yes, presumably every employee will try to get the highest pay per work unit possible. If they do not know the salary of their coworker and their coworker has negotiated a higher rate then a disparity will exist that is not due to merit but due to negotiation. If they know about this disparity then either 1. they can demand the same rate thus be more meritocratic or 2. (less likely) the low productivity employee will be pressured or have his (lack of) work more reported on by peers. In this case, the resentment you mention is actually a useful thing.
If a pay differential is justifiable then the employer will have no problem explaining it to the lesser paid person or, if he gripes, replacing him with someone who produces the same or more per dollar and being better of for it.
Put simply, if two employees are paid the same and know it but one spends the day on facebook, the other will demand a raise and the employer will either grant it or loose one of the workers. Any of those three outcomes is an improvement.
Put even more succinctly, a system with more open information (eg regarding salaries) will be more efficient than a more information closed system.
A resenting B says nothing about their relative merit, just about merit as perceived by A. A usually sees more merit in A than B, C or D. B, on the other hand, tends to overstate B's merit.
So no matter how wages are set, and regardless of disparities between salaries, people will find the wages unfair. In this sense equalization is bad because it reveals everyone's wage. The best is unknown inequality.
Of course it has own its drawbacks, I was just pointing out this one angle.
Likewise you do not want decision makers to be deterred from giving raises to some and not to others. This behavior would only be desirable if those raises were merit based. If they were not merit based than they should indeed be deterred. etc.
> Assuming both are equally human, you'd expect people to have a tendency to slack off and to like it when it doesn't hurt their bottom line.
Yes, presumably every employee will try to get the highest pay per work unit possible. If they do not know the salary of their coworker and their coworker has negotiated a higher rate then a disparity will exist that is not due to merit but due to negotiation. If they know about this disparity then either 1. they can demand the same rate thus be more meritocratic or 2. (less likely) the low productivity employee will be pressured or have his (lack of) work more reported on by peers. In this case, the resentment you mention is actually a useful thing.
If a pay differential is justifiable then the employer will have no problem explaining it to the lesser paid person or, if he gripes, replacing him with someone who produces the same or more per dollar and being better of for it.
Put simply, if two employees are paid the same and know it but one spends the day on facebook, the other will demand a raise and the employer will either grant it or loose one of the workers. Any of those three outcomes is an improvement.
Put even more succinctly, a system with more open information (eg regarding salaries) will be more efficient than a more information closed system.