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

161–170 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#161

Post by markuse »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #135
ruairidhc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Not the person you are replying to, but I agree with him/her. The definition of a free market has to do with it being free from regulation, not that information is free [0][1][2].

The same thing applies to the claims you made in this post, but maybe you mean that all of these things have to be true for a free market to work well, rather than for it to exist? Again, I still think this requires proof, especially with regards to information having to be free.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

[2] I'm just an armchair economist though, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#162

Post by yangez »

Apreche wrote: post #152
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.

Knowing what other people with the same title at current, and similar, employers will definitely improve people’s ability to negotiate. But that’s not the real information employees need. What is really secret is the true value of the labor the employee is producing to the company. Imagine salaries are completely public. A team of co-workers finds out that they are all being paid $200k each, and are happy with that.…

Let's say at your software company a sales rep brings in $2M in 2022 and demands a $1.8M commission. What do you say?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#163

Post by phpisthebest »

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.

You have no way of knowing that, nor does the employer.

Maybe I have health issues, maybe I want to go back to school myself to get a more advanced degree, maybe I need more for Retirement because I will not have any kids to take care of me when I am old, maybe 100000 other things

However NONE of that is relevant to my wages, my wages and my co-workers wages should be set Solely and Exclusively to the value we bring to the organization.

if I choose to have 5 kids, or choose to eat fast food for every meal meaning my cost of living is higher should have ZERO bearing on my wages.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#164

Post by lo_zamoyski »

digitalsushi wrote: post #138

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.

That's a good point. I've seen this myself during a layoff. The more senior staff (who, presumably, were earning more) were the first to go, save for a couple who were kept so that all the senior knowledge of the system wasn't lost.

This is just the application of basic economic principles to specific circumstances (sometimes, it makes more sense to cut junior staff because the senior staff too more valuable).

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#165

Post by phpisthebest »

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.

Maybe they should have thought about that before they based retirement on the Ponzi Scheme of income based taxation

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#166

Post by Sytten »

Apreche wrote: post #152
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.

Knowing what other people with the same title at current, and similar, employers will definitely improve people’s ability to negotiate. But that’s not the real information employees need. What is really secret is the true value of the labor the employee is producing to the company. Imagine salaries are completely public. A team of co-workers finds out that they are all being paid $200k each, and are happy with that.…

You literally described what capitalism is all about: extracting the most value out of what you pay for the labour...

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#167

Post by rocknor »

q-big wrote: post #89
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reducing the population by having a low birth rate is good. But mathematically it cannot be so forever. To maintain a non-decreasing population you need 2 children per woman on average, doesn't matter if your country has 10^4 or 10^8 people.

Immigration is only a temporary solution, it may not be a reliable solution by the end of the century. Global birth rates are falling and QoL is slowly improving, reducing the incentive to immigrate.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#168

Post by valdiorn »

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.

> Companies generally don’t pay tenured people as much as new hires across the board. It’s not about negotiating.

But that IS negotiating. If you show you're willing to stick around in the same role for an extended period of time, for the same pay, you have implicitly negotiated that deal for yourself. Why TF would your employer be incentivised to pay you more if you show yourself to be happy with the status quo?

Have you ever offered to pay more for your morning coffee because Starbucks hasn't raised their prices in 2 years? No? So why would your employer offer you more money when you've not raised the issue of comp for 2 years?

If you're unhappy about that, you inform your current employer you've found a now role with better pay, and walk. If your employer deems you worth it (rightly or wrongly), they might offer a counter. You can choose to accept that... or not.

Just like if Starbucks raises the price of their coffee, you can accept the higher price and keep going there, because you think their coffee is worth it, or you find a different cafe with lower prices.

We are to our employers what a cup of coffee is to us.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#169

Post by ajsnigrutin »

medo-bear wrote: post #154
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 now…

> In yugoslavia, you didn't own an apartment, but you rented it (from the government)... you paid it off to the corporation you worked for. it wasnt a lottery system. it was more like a generous homeloan https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2017.1... >so almost noone had more than one apartment, noone had a too-large apartment actually the apartments were reletively very good quality, and often build…

You didn't pay it off, the government (who also owned the corporation) was the owner of it. You could build your own house and own it though, but not the "social" apartments.

The option to buy the apartments from the government came only after the fall of socialism in 1991 (jazbinskov zakon/law)

> actually the apartments were reletively very good quality, and often buildings were made as part of a grander urban project

yes, the apartments were well built, but the aging reinforced concrete will be problematic very soon.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#170

Post by luckylion »

wslh wrote: post #119
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. In my role I know that and would also support that case as special. This kind of thinking varies depending of where you live (at lease for most people and less for remote workers). My takeaway is: if you live in a country/state where this help is "embedded" within the system we can focus more in salary equivalence for the same jo…

> In my role I know that

How would you? Are you running an intelligence agency and it's part of your job as a boss to constantly monitor your employees?

I don't see how the location matters, really. A single person might need more money because they want to save up to start a family. Now you factor that in, and you pay them more, but they never find the right partner and don't start a family. Are you now going to ask them to return the money?

I'm a terrible example, but if you offered me to work the same (or, let's face it, often more) than someone for less money because they're married with children, I'd rather work somewhere where I'm not a second class citizen.

Post reply on HN