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

131–140 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#131

Post by abruzzi »

boole1854 wrote: post #55
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #33

I always wonder if the world would be a better or worse place if all salaries where forced to be made public by law. Lots of pros and cons, but it would be very interesting.

Many government and academic institutions do in fact publicly publish all salaries, so the question of what the effect would be is not entirely theoretical. Here's one place that aggregates this data: https://www.openthebooks.com/ https://www.openthebooks.com/virginia-state-employees/

yup. my salary and everyone else at my organization is published every year by the local newspaper. We aren't required to publish it ourselves, but if anyone asks, we are required to reveal it, so the local paper files a request every year and publishes it.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#132

Post by sfe22 »

boole1854 wrote: post #55
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #33

I always wonder if the world would be a better or worse place if all salaries where forced to be made public by law. Lots of pros and cons, but it would be very interesting.

Many government and academic institutions do in fact publicly publish all salaries, so the question of what the effect would be is not entirely theoretical. Here's one place that aggregates this data: https://www.openthebooks.com/ https://www.openthebooks.com/virginia-state-employees/

Governments and most education institutions are not part of the free market. Their income also does not depend on their efficiency or value they create so its not the same comparison.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#133

Post by hiq »

a4a4a4a4 wrote: post #98
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of free market is that information is avaliable. I dont understand how people that declare they believe in free market, want information to be hidden and the market to be less free. Additionally most of them are employees. It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve.

> It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve. I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more. "Sorry, we know you did XYZ, but we can't give you a further raise because you're already 4% ahead of your colleagues." And of course, everyone thinks they're a high-performer, so this policy would be unpopular wi…

> I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more.

This is already used as an excuse, except that right now you can't easily check whether that's even true, so I think transparency would actually be better. If you're a high performer, switch to a company where you feel rewarded suitably, which is easier to do with transparency.

> everyone thinks they're a high-performer

That's again a problem with less information: nobody really knows so they just assume.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#134

Post by ajsnigrutin »

medo-bear wrote: post #112
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country (slovenia, former yugoslavia) owning homes destroyed the housing market in the long run... The government owned a huge percentage of homes and rented them out to people who needed them, and moved them around too (if they got a kid, they got a larger apartment). Then after the breakup, the government didn't want to deal with that, and sold all those apartments to renters living there for peanuts.. so 'ev…

boomers is a largely american concept. i doubt eastern european people of same generation can be called boomers: having lived in a completely different system. anyway you seem to say that owning houses resulted in a problem of not owning houses? seems to me a more simple explanation would be that slovenia became a capitalist society, and for-profit housing doesnt quite accomodate as many people as the socialist one.…

There was a (after war) baby boom here too. We didn't call them by that name, but there was a huge population rise in the late 40s and 50s.

In yugoslavia, you didn't own an apartment, but you rented it (from the government)... so almost noone had more than one apartment, noone had a too-large apartment, and if you got a job in trbovlje the government would get you an apartment in trbovlje (a city in the middle of nowehere). If you died, the apartment went back to the "pool", and someone else could get it. If you got a kid, you got a bigger apartment, and someone else got the smaller one.

But still, nobody owned those apartments, they just rented them.

The high ownership (the colored map from a post above) came only after they sold all those apartments to renters, and people started hoarding them, because they got them for very cheap and the prices could only go up. For "normal people" it would be better to have lower ownership and more renting from the government (if it was handled properly by the government.. a big if).. but then the colored would show different ownage percentages.

The biggest problem now is, that you're not allowed to build anymore, due to regulations and a lack of buildable land (in a legal sense... there is a lot of land, but the government doesn't allow building there, also in A LOT of areas, you can build a two apartment two story building max, instead of large apartment buildings that we need). "Back then", the government decided they needed more apartments, they took a piece of land and started building.. didn't matter if it was a pasture [0], a field, what the neighbors though (again, government buildings next door), they just built.

Now we have areas where we could build [1], but the government doesn't allow it... sometimes, if you're friendly with the mayor, you buy a farmland somewhere, and it suddenly becomes buildable, but this isn't true for "normal people". It seems a lot of people have invested interests to keep realestate prices high, and those people are in positions of power and can decide where we can or cannot build.

[0] https://i.imgur.com/zjfRsuw.png

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/ZVvHQmwzuX4VhLZ99 https://goo.gl/maps/dCoroKjHYs45dU8T8

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#135

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ruairidhc wrote: post #115
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of free market is that information is avaliable. I dont understand how people that declare they believe in free market, want information to be hidden and the market to be less free. Additionally most of them are employees. It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve.

>The definition of free market is that information is avaliable. [citation needed]

Do I also need to provide proof you that free market presumes no fraud, and no murders of competitors?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#136

Post by JofArnold »

tl_donson wrote: post #118
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #96

As a manager I get visibility on my direct reports’ salaries and they all earn more than I do :) and I haven’t quit in over a decade. My salary is sufficient for me, why would the fact that a coworker earns more motivate me to rage-quit.

if i found out i made less than my manager i’d rage quit.

I'm curious: is that in issue with your particular manager or managers in general?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#137

Post by mclightning »

FactoryReboot wrote: post #107
0xRusty wrote: post #102

It's not easy for people promoted into manager roles either. I'm a new manager who the first time is now exposed to salary details of my, now direct reports, former co-workers. For the past couple of weeks I've been walking around thinking "how the hell does he make that much?! When I was at that level of experience I was paid $40k less". It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and…

If you really hate it that much is management for you? I’d learn to get more comfortable with it. Also it’s not fair to be mad at your coworkers cause you were underpaid. Be mad at the company or your bosses if anything.

this. really. I wouldn't want an envious manager.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#138

Post by digitalsushi »

I'm getting really old cause I am starting to see this from both sides

If you found out your cube neighbor is out-earning you and you do the same work, you (probably) are safer when the next wave of layoffs comes around.

That little disparity can feel like a giant shield.

This is the most anti-worker thing I have ever typed. I hate myself for sharing how I rationalize this.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#139

Post by ajsnigrutin »

medo-bear wrote: post #130
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So.. basically the same as any other landlord in EU now? You signed a contract, and while it lasted, if you paid, they couldn't throw you out for the duration of the contract.

vastly different. you pay off your apartment as you work. the apartment is owned by the state corporation you work for. the corporation has very little power to let you go. its more like a very favourable home loan

> you pay off your apartment as you work

You do, if you buy the apartment and get a loan/mortgage. If you're renting from the government, you're just renting... you didn't become an owner of the apartment here, until the end of socialism, a new capitalist government, and politicians not wanting to deal with the upkeep of those buildings.

Before 1991, you were renting as you are renting now in any other (capitalist) country (although with proper rules and protections.. so like in eg. austria, germany, etc). You didn't get to keep it.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#140

Post by wongarsu »

medo-bear wrote: post #41
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country

also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png

Housing and public transport are among the success stories of the Soviet Union. At least until the early 1970s, after that there was a lot of stagnation and decline.
Post reply on HN