If a person has no pride in what they do, they'll do a bad job regardless of the salary. If they take the starting salary, but demonstrate knowledge and talent, you give them a raise.
In theory, that's correct, but this isn't the same time as you or I came up through the business. Now in small market TV, the only way you advance is to move to another market. The difference is; that now you can't afford an apartment, so you live in your car.
Stations aren't taking the time, money, or effort to help new talent grow even if it benefits their station in the long haul. Good enough is good enough. Is the newscast on the air? Good enough. Did the anchor or reporters say something that will get us sued? No? Good enough.
This goes back to a discussion and lack of agreement you and I had about reporter cuts at a Seattle news radio station. Is running audio from a local TV station on the radio good enough? Cool. Is having the building engineer or an intern create online content for the app a good idea? Sure, if it saves money. It seems like you don't care about the degradation of quality or reputation, which is surprising to me.
And yes, this coming from a guy who's worked at the corporate level plus ownership and is cognizant of saving money in a tough economic climate. But at some point, I recognize there's a line of cost savings that ruins the product quality and reputation. It boils down to not doing it at all, rather than becoming a joke to your viewers and peers in the industry.
That's how things work outside of the union system. You take a union job, and you get raises based on seniority regardless of the quality of your work. That's why I left the union. I made more in management.
But you had to be qualified to manage people or processes. You do that by having mentors, and coaches, and growing in the roles while being able to maintain at least a basic lifestyle so you can concentrate on your craft. The best managers come from people who do/did well at the jobs they are eventually chosen to manage.