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

81–90 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#81

Post by luckylion »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #71
q-big wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Thanks to productivity gains in the last 100 years, that's not a problem. We have a solid amount of people not working, we don't have a shortage of workers in general, we're lacking high skill workers, and workers who are willing to do shitty jobs. We can solve the high skill issue with education, and the latter with better wages for e.g. elderly care and nursing.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#82

Post by candiodari »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #56
porphyra wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that to work, you first need an abundance of goods produced by an ideal communist society, which doesn't exist.

The idea that our society is purely a meritocracy is a myth that does not hold up to thw most rudamentary economic analysis.

How does that affect the argument that a society of plenty does not exist and therefore we have the problem that we need economic growth? A good way to get economic growth ... is to pay for it. We can argue about excesses, but not about the basic premise.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#83

Post by ruined »

teekert wrote: post #16
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

"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...

ah yes... the wage system, classic example of communism

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#84

Post by rroot »

4% quitting. But what effect does it have on the other 96%?

Quitting is an extreme response (not wrong, and I totally understand people who'd decide to quit).

But what's the response of the other 96%? No response? Lower productivity? Toxicity? Less helpful? Indifferent? Revenge? Destructive?

I doubt the 96% will have no response.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#85

Post by O__________O »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #35
least wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much how it works in the military, except it's because you are single you don't need to get paid as much as people who are married, but since you're not married you also have plenty of time to stay later and do all the bullshit details. Oh, also if you're an E-5 or below you don't need to have your own home with real amenities like a stovetop. In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and…

You marry for the benefits, you divorce because of the rampant adultery and loneliness. Every military couple I have known has divorced, and in each case it was adultery that lead to that. On either side of the marriage. I never went into the armed forces, but I had considered the US NAVY even got my ASVAB and was told I would be assigned Navy Nuke, but on the drive home from the processing facility, the recruiter wa…

What’s even more strange is people trust the military to be loyal, but the amount of cheating relative to the general population in my opinion literally creates a culture that values cheats. To be fair, not aware of any military that’s managed to avoid the pattern and would honestly be curious to know of how any have avoided it.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#86

Post by DoItToMe81 »

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

Seems completely reasonable. Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#87

Post by lotsofpulp »

candiodari wrote: post #76
q-big wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So the government should redistribute wealth via taxes to incentivize having kids. Why would an individual employer be expected to take on that burden? Not to mention the arbitrage opportunities it opens up.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#88

Post by bheadmaster »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #68
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will someone please think of the landlords?

Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.

I know it's probably just a username, but you don't happen to be the real Ajs Nigrutin, do you?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#89

Post by q-big »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #71
q-big wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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

Rather thank the politicians who sold you a pyramid scheme as a pension system.

> Between this and climate catastrophy,

If you argue with climate catastrophe, you should rather argue for decreasing the number of people (which includes avoiding having children) to decrease the CO2 footprint.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#90

Post by luckylion »

sokoloff wrote: post #44
meheleventyone wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this is the same as cost of living adjusted salaries. Same work, less pay just based on geographical location.

That’s the same as buying from Costco or using coupons or rebates. Same product, lower cost.

Next up: "I've seen you shop at costco and you used a coupon, you don't need that salary, so we'll cut it by 10%".
Post reply on HN