Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

resumebuilder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#71

Post by ClumsyPilot »

q-big wrote: post #64
phpisthebest wrote: post #12

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

> I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.

Thanks to this attitude birth rates have collapsed in most of developed world and we have 2 pensioners for every child.

Does that sound like a good plan, great for economy?

Between this and climate catastrophy, neoliberals are creating a self-destructive civilisation

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#72

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #12

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

But you don't need as much money as your co-worker with multiple kids. This is true.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#73

Post by Closi »

robertlagrant wrote: post #34
jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work assignment does not equal ability. A phd can be assigned lowly management work, lets say tracking stuff, creating excel sheets and powerpoint presentations. That decision is made by the company and department. Does that mean they should not be compensated for the skills they posess? Surely not. Lets not even start with the metrics used to gauge someone's results. If they even exist, they are consistently useless…

Ability doesn't equal value to the company. If you have Einstein in and all he does is sweep your floors, you pay him a floor sweeper's wage. You pay for value.

Ability and opportunity also doesn't equal output - There are plenty of 'high ability' people that will do the bare minimum, and plenty of 'lower ability' people that will push, work hard and deliver more.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#75

Post by lotsofpulp »

wslh wrote: post #39
phpisthebest wrote: post #12

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

I had this discussion as a boss and in favor of offering extra benefits with someone with kids with the same role and experience of someone without them. Interesting to discuss it further here in HN. I argue that at the same professional level it is not the same to have a full family that being solo.

This comment has few small typos that make it hard to understand.

But in the US, if an employer offers subsidized health/dental/vision insurance for partners/dependents, then the employer is already offering extra benefits to someone with spouse/kids.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#76

Post by candiodari »

q-big wrote: post #64
phpisthebest wrote: post #12

I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... I noped out of that employment quickly

> I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids... Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.

Because kids are good for essentially everything and we don't want to disadvantage people for having children?

I mean the saying goes they are the future, and it a very literal sense, they are.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#77

Post by lotsofpulp »

bheadmaster wrote: post #69
notimetorelax wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. It’s a flawed argument and pay should be for performance. This doesn’t meant that there shouldn’t be accommodations to everyone’s needs. But those are not tied to pay.

> You may not know if a single person is supporting a relative or a grandma with cancer. Nor should you. I see this as the core of the argument - paying people based on their needs requires you to invade their privacy in order to find out their needs. And not wanting your employer to invade your privacy would mean getting some baseline low pay because "you don't have any needs".

I think the core of the argument is that prices are not a function of the seller’s wants or needs.

If I go to the grocery store, I do not pay more for an apple from a farm owned by a family that has a sick grandma than from a farm owned by a family that does not have a sick grandma.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#78

Post by [deleted] »

bheadmaster wrote: post #19
teekert wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

Assuming an employer is the proper authority for deciding how much workers "need", and completely ignoring the conflict of interest.

[deleted]

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#79

Post by highwaylights »

jl6 wrote: post #7

> If they find out their co-workers are making more money to do the same job, they are likely to take action. Here’s the rub: “same job”. Sure, this is a reasonable attitude to take if it’s genuinely the same job and each worker is creating genuinely the same value. But everywhere I’ve worked, comparable jobs are defined as graded job families, and it has been very obvious that there is a diverse range of work being…

Capitalism gonna capitalism regardless.

If you're upset that one or more of your peers is earning more than you you'll probably ask for more. Then you'll decide whether or not to walk depending on what happens, where walking means taking your chances in the open market. Same as it ever was.

Post reply on HN