Edit: Sorry, I didn't read all of your post before I reacted. I see you've said about the same as I have here.

Unedit: The best balance seems to be setting a lower bound. E.g. at my employer we have 25 days PTO minimum, and actually if we don't meet that and leave the company they've contractually obligated themselves to pay that back to you. So we're very much encouraged to hit that limit and it's very common to exceed it.

It really depends on the culture. My managers regularly disappear for a week or two at a time throughout the year. As a result most of us feel free to do do too. That being said I am almost always with laptop in hand to deal with the rare emergency but overall I have been pleased with the arrangement. I probably take 4 weeks or so a year and typically in the past have been limited to two...

13 weeks!? Can you at least give me a hint at which company you work at?

Well here's the rub, I work as a teacher, which is one of the most highly unionised workforces. I feel deeply sorry when I hear about the awful state of employment (in the US in particular). At will employment, 'unlimited' PTO, healthcare tied to employment etc. It's just so dehumanising and hostile. Doubly baffling is the average Joe's seeming distaste for unions.

Here's a sample of the conditions I can enjoy as a teacher here in Australia

$100k salary with guaranteed yearly increases that outpace inflation (this year was a 2.5% increase while inflation is at around 1.6%)

Guilt free, no questions asked sick leave.

Work-life balance. It was trivial for me to apply for part-time work. I now only work Mon-Thu.

Union-led, rolling negotiations for improved pay, working conditions, reductions to work hours etc.

It's the closest thing to a worker's paradise I can think of short of a post work, robot singularity.

Obviously not every profession is subsidized by the government like teaching and therefore can't, by extension, remain competitive while also being so worker friendly.

Even if you're not lucky enough to have such amazing conditions let's all at least call a spade a spade. Things like unlimited PTO are just ways to screw the little guy.

>$100k salary with guaranteed yearly increases that outpace inflation (this year was a 2.5% increase while inflation is at around 1.6%)

I find it hard to believe that people advocate for such fundamentally unsustainable arrangements. Guaranteed raises outpacing inflation that aren't tied to performance at all? Nobody should be surprised when the costs to support a workforce that trends towards mediocrity (why try when you're not rewarded) eventually reach a point that breaks the bank (see California).

It's great that you got a position like that, but an economy cannot survive with a workforce that has massive compensation guaranteed without regard to market forces (see Greece).

You seem unaware that "market forces" do exactly the same thing, with the difference that it's investors and not workers who demand eternal and infinite inflation-beating returns across the entire economy.

I've long suspected that one of the prime dysfunctions of US corporate culture is the projection of greed, puerility, incompetence, and worthlessness by management onto "lower" workers.

In reality the whole point of being a professional is that you get paid well, you produce good results, but it's not just about the money - because you have an ethic of personal pride in your work, and will over-deliver if you're allowed to.

The worst kinds of corporate management in the US spend an incredible amount of time trying to enforce this state in theory, while simultaneously undermining it in practice.

The best kinds of state ownership around the world prove that it can only flourish in a more mature, stable, and sane environment.

its not zero sum, world gdp has been increasing over time for thousands of years, investing can create value out of free things like thoughts, similarly education can create value by training people to think better than they otherwise could

> why try when you are not rewarded

When all are treated the same, regardless of performance, there are two possible situations - either all are rewarded as though underperforming (i.e. raise below inflation), or all are rewarded as though performing well (i.e. raise at or above inflation).

In the former case, my intuition is that your point is probably correct. If I know I'm going to be treated as though I'm the worst employee in the building, I might stop trying after a while.

In the latter case, my intuition is that you are probably wrong. Just because the worst employee is being rewarded as well as I am, it doesn't mean I'll sink to that level.

The intrinsic motivation to do well, improve, and learn all outweigh anything to with competition, and it's a pretty unhealthy culture that relies on the employees competing with their team mates to get them to do their jobs. However, that intrinsic motivation can only go so far when faced with an ever falling budget to maintain your lifestyle.

  >  support a workforce that trends towards mediocrity

This is not an absolute truth. Our standard of teaching is high here in AU, also look to Scandinavian countries to see a highly paid and respected profession with the world's highest educational standards.

  >  but an economy cannot survive with a workforce that has massive compensation guaranteed without regard to market forces

agreed, but surely the free market can find a middle ground between shafting their workforce to their face with 'perks' like 'unlimited' PTO and the admittedly amazing, but not generally applicable conditions that teachers and other public servants enjoy.