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

141–150 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#141

Post by kaashif »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #72
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.

Paying people based on need rather than performance incentivises people to "need" more and stop focusing on performance.

Paying on performance and taxing high earners seems like a better system than paying directly based on need.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#142

Post by shapefrog »

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 was being let go as I didnt "need" to be employed as much as a co-worker with multiple kids...

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#143

Post by knorker »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #72
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.

How do you know? Maybe I have a gambling debt to the mob. If I do then I need that money MUCH more than the co-worker with multiple kids.

In both scenarios we put ourselves in that position.

Maybe I have a health problem, and live in the US.

Maybe I'm taking care of aging parents.

Maybe I have a crippling mortgage. Too big a house. Live downtown, etc… etc…

"You have no dependents and responsibilities so I'll pay you less" is basically age discrimination in addition to discrimination based on parental status. Both often illegal, and for good reason.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#144

Post by shapefrog »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #72
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.

I have a gambling, hooker and coke problem. Does that mean I get the co-workers bonus next year?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#145

Post by Ekaros »

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 wonder if this should be extended to married childless couples. As surely they need lot less money than single people. They housing is cheaper. They can buy in bulk, they can share so many things from cars to clothing and entertainment.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#146

Post by mjburgess »

zarzavat wrote: post #103
mjburgess wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could pay someone in CapitalCity as much as SmallTown, a business would. It doesnt pay more because of some middle-manager's sense of fairness. Rather, no one would work for you in CapitalCity at SmallTown salaries. (One of the reasons is the higher cost of living, but that isnt what keeps the salary high, it's that there's no labour supply at SmallTown salaries.)

This is all a distinction without a difference. Salaries follow the labor market, which follows the cost of living. The cost of living is different in different places, because of differences in the labor market (demand side) or because of geographical reasons (supply side).

It's not, because "location-based" pay will change if the market price of labour at that location changes. Location is a proxy variable; a distinction which makes all the difference, see for example, Detroit

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#147

Post by shapefrog »

refurb wrote: post #116
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 a boss tell a coworker "It's better to be lower in the pay band for your role because your raises are bigger". Can you imagine how stupid that comment is?

That is middle management tier thinking, unless you are one of the real deep thinkers at their level, you wouldnt understand.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#148

Post by lo_zamoyski »

DoItToMe81 wrote: post #86
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.

1. It is good to have children per se.

2. Demographic decline per se is not in the interest of the state or society.

3. It is in the interest of the state to create incentives for marrying and having children and to support or defend a culture that is at least not hostile to family life and its flourishing.

Does it follows that companies are obligated to pay a higher salary to someone with a family over someone who is single for the same work? If labor is the source of economic value, then it would seem that they are not since the married person with children is creating the same value.

Of course, when employers do compete for employees, such candidates will have a greater need and incentive to choose the employer who does pay more, and companies, realizing that such people will find better offers more attractive, may provide benefits that specifically target such people (e.g., free daycare or whatever). Whether companies do this will depend on market conditions, for example.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#150

Post by moralestapia »

endisneigh wrote: post #129
wirrbel wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you didn’t negotiate hard enough on your behalf (or others negotiated at the right time). The question you should ask yourself as a manager now is not the question whether you expect others to negotiate like you did, but how can you reach a pay level across the team that is somewhat balanced . The company I am working in has fairly strict guidance based on competences and experience which I do like. It makes…

This is a meme but it’s not really how it works, not entirely anyway. Take meta. If you joined today vs a year ago and everything else was the same you’d be making over 30% as much. Companies generally don’t pay tenured people as much as new hires across the board. It’s not about negotiating.

Negotiation works when some company specifically wants you.

If you're one of the other 99% of hires you're going to be placed at some salary which has been already budgeted and approved for your position. There's some leeway there but it's not more than a single digit percentage, although I agree with patio11 and others saying that an extra 5-10K/year just for asking politely is not a bad deal.

Post reply on HN