Transparency always shows the ugly unfair side of things when the sheets are first lifted... That's the whole point. People adjust and systems adjust, and we figure out how to better work together.
Salaries are a reflection of the value you're supposedly contributing to society. Isn't that on principle public?
Salaries are a reflection of your supply and demand. Two people with equal demand but unequal supply (one has financial obligations that make them unavailable below a certain salary level) will result in unequal pay.
The notion that salary is meant to be directly tied to productivity does not and has not ever reflected reality.
It is absolutely convenient to be able to retain talent for as cheap as possible. Just like it is convenient to pit two suppliers against each other to drive costs down.
Quitting because you don't get a raise doesn't change anything unless you have an alternative that will pay you more. In which case, that alternative is a negotiating piece independent of a coworkers salary.
If you leave, even if you are leaving to a worse salary, you are hurting the former company. If that company considers you to be worth whatever they're paying you (read: they can't find someone better for less) than they will give you the raise rather than let you go. All you need to know is the maximum amount they are willing to pay you, which you can then negotiate for.
Salaries are a proxy for value, but how we measure that value in a capitalist society, is most certainly driven by supply and demand. We should be careful not to project the inadequacies of the measuring device onto what's being measured.
Salary cannot exceed the value provided, but otherwise it often does not reflect value. Take for example cleaners, without whom no company could exist (i.e. they provide a lot of value), and yet, because of s&d, they're paid minimum wage.
Salaries are at best weakly correlated to contribution to society. Somebody raising their own children is contributing to society, for example, usually without salary. And producing food is probably a more valuable contribution than arguing in court about patents on round corners and such.
> producing food is probably a more valuable contribution...
This is a commonly held belief, but I wonder if it's actually true? The important things produced in the United States are largely possible because of intellectual property rights, and we pay people to not make food.
Salaries are a reflection of the value you're supposedly contributing to society. Isn't that on principle public?