Is it standard practice for a large company to raise starting pay for new hires but not raise current employees' pay to match?

Unfortunately, it does seem that way sometimes. There is always a difference between starting salaries and pay for experienced employees, but sometimes the former rises more quickly than the latter. This is called salary compression, and it happens.

Is it standard practice? Look at it this way: Companies try to make a profit. This means selling for the highest possible price while keeping expenses as low as possible.

Employee pay is an expense, and companies try to keep it down. So they don't pay you what you would like to earn, or what you think you're worth. They pay you the minimum amount to keep you, or to keep someone with your skills.

That's the free market, like it or not. If you think your pay is too low, you can quit and take a job where the pay is better. If the pay isn't better anywhere else, then I guess you stay.

The problem with this supposedly free-market system is that most large companies set their pay by surveying the competition, i.e. Other companies that employ people like you, and setting pay scales to match. When this is done with sales prices, it's called a cartel or monopolistic practices and it's illegal in many countries.

When it's done on the expense side with employee salaries, it's considered a normal way of doing business and you're trapped. Sorry.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.