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

231–240 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#231

Post by butterNaN »

joenot443 wrote: post #191
butterNaN wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "of course" a third party at all. Socialism is not "when the government does stuff".

In any real-world application of socialism I've seen, it is indeed the government deciding how much one is given. I can't think of any implementation where the government asks the citizen how large of a slice of the pie they'd like. I'm happy to be proved wrong, and maybe someday there'll be a successful communist state, but until then I look to history.

Right. I suppose I can't fault you to equate all of socialist ideas with what you have seen.

There are socialists who are anti-state, for example. Check out Anarcho Communism, who very much use the "...according to their needs" ethos.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#232

Post by ryandrake »

moralestapia wrote: post #150
endisneigh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, basically what you're saying is that the "Negotiate harder, bro" advice only really works for 1% of the world. So why is it always trotted out as the solution?

I know HN is full of these Captains of Industry who merely glance at their bosses with an upturned eyebrow, and get $100K of RSUs thrown at them, but for the rest of the workforce, here's what negotiation looks like:

[Me] Hi, I'd like a raise.

[Co] Nope.

[Me] OK, here are examples of the value I'm providing and how it's increased over time.

[Co] Your current salary accounts for this.

[Me] Other companies offer 20% more and I'm only asking for 10%.

[Co] ...

[Me] OK, I have an offer from the other company. Last chance.

[Co] Well... Bye?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#233

Post by least »

O__________O wrote: post #208
least wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Military in my experience... What sort of experience do you have with the military? As someone who has served in the U.S. military, loyalty is absolutely drilled into you; it's integral to battle readiness, which is ultimately the military's goal. They instill the value of loyalty as far as it serves to make soldiers that are willing to fight and die for each other and for their country. That doesn't extend to any…

Loyalty would not require enlistment contracts that generally last eight years as an active duty member, a reservist, or individual ready reservist — which if broken might result in jail time. Just imagine how “loyal” employees, marriages, etc would be if there only choice was to sign similar contracts. As for the battlefield, there is not duty to country, only those you’re in direct line of command with. Better hope…

I'll take this response as a "No, I've never served in the military." You've also not substantiated your claims about how the military cultivates a culture of 'cheating.' At least give an example of what loyalty means to you, because it's certainly not going along with the actual definition of it, which does not require any sort of just cause or rational thought attached to it.

> The “drilling” you referred to is more comparable to brain washing than loyalty bound to reasoning.

Yes, and? It's training soldiers to be loyal to each other and to their superiors which are both important factors in battle readiness. You need to be able to follow orders in extreme situations and you need to have each other's back. This is taught to all SMs going through any training in practically any military in the world.

> Yes, loyalty is an [ideal] frequently never found, but to call someone loyal because they signed a contract or because they know what will happen if the report those willfully breaking the law, to me is not loyalty.

There's a thing called "unlawful orders" in the military. If a superior officer/NCO issues one, it is your duty to disobey it. This is easier said than done, of course. In either case, this is tangential to my point. What even is loyalty to you?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#234

Post by kcplate »

valdiorn wrote: post #160
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…

> Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get. Wow, what an immature attitude YOU have. Of course everyone "wants wants wants". You're displaying that attitude right now. You're feeling hurt about not getting more, because you want more. That's normal. That's OK. If someone offered to bump my salary to a million pounds for no reason, of course I'd take it. You should probably try asking…

I am pretty sure you missed the entire point of their comment. The commenter was not speaking about their own current comp, but the current comp vs quality vs entitlement within their direct reports. It’s hard to look at low quality employees making large salaries as a leader and not be dismayed, disappointed, and discouraged when the entitlement and whining happens. A lot of employees act like children and that is not ok or justified. That is what is immature, not pointing out that people commanding six figure salaries should maybe act like adults and actually provide six figures of value for their compensation.

After a couple of decades managing developers and engineers I specifically left management and now refuse to take on any role that requires direct reports just because the entitlement attitude in tech is so bad nowadays. “Management” gets a bad rap here on HN, but to me, they are real hero’s and doing a shit job.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#235

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

knorker wrote: post #143
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think its obvious that not all needs are equal, but some in your list are legit, imo.

Taking care of elderly parents -> you probably should get more money

Health problem in the US -> you probably should get more money

Crippling mortgage. This one depends a bit. Does your job require you to work at a specific location, and the location has a high cost of living. Then yes, you should get more money.

Think of the "no dependents and responsibilities" as the base rate. And you get extra depending on your needs (as listed above).

If you think this really crazy, consider that in the US, all of these things are tax deductible. Which means that its already normalized for people with such needs get more money (in the sense of more after-tax money). So why would getting a salary bonus be so wrong?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#236

Post by scarface74 »

ryandrake wrote: post #230
scarface74 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t negotiate. I’ve found it’s usually a waste of time and I’m still negotiating around the margins. It has been much easier to just get another job.

I also resent on principle that the primary driver of one's salary must be something that's at best tangentially related to the job: Negotiating skills. Let's say someone taught himself programming, went to university for computer engineering, got decades of experience in the trenches. A programmer geek through and through. And then someone fresh out of school starts at double that guy's comp because... ... New guy i…

And I also don’t do meaningless coding interviews - ever.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#237

Post by luckylion »

wslh wrote: post #228
luckylion wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> How would you? Are you running an intelligence agency and it's part of your job as a boss to constantly monitor your employees? No, I live in a culture where this matters arise. There are many discussions in this thread based on culture experience. I see for example privacy discussions, in some cultures/countries privacy is a must but at the same time contradictory with the private information that is flowing unreg…

So you wouldn't "know", you just assume that they'd be open about it and told you. But if they weren't (for a multitude of reasons), you'd make assumptions about their needs.

It seems like it's not the needs that matter, it's your assumptions about them.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#238

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #163
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> wages should be set Solely and Exclusively to the value we bring to the organization

This isn't true now and has never been true. Otherwise frontline workers would make a lot more and CEOs would make a lot less. Wages already have skewed dynamics based on a bunch of arbitrary reasons. Saying that people with kids should get a bit more salary I don't think is that much more controversial than saying a permanent employee should get paid more than a someone from a temp agency that does the exact same work (and hence the same value to the organization).

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#239

Post by dpkirchner »

lbreakjai wrote: post #59
wslh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm exchanging my work for money, and for equal work I'd expect equal money. I'm saying this as a parent. Are you also willing to pay more for someone living alone and that therefore can't split the costs with a significant other?

And would I get a pay or benefit cut if my kids die? Oof.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#240

Post by loloquwowndueo »

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.

Lol good one :) to be fair, when I’m meeting with the team I’m definitely the dumbest person in the room ;)
Post reply on HN