Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency • Hacker News Board

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#271

Post by least » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 2:36 AM UTC

O__________O wrote: post #263

least wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, loyalty to reasoning regardless of outcome. You cannot use the word you're defining inside the definition of it. In my best effort to interpret what you mean, I'd assume you mean that people only be loyal to reason? That's a fine ideal to have but it's got nothing to do with loyalty, which has to do with a person's consistent allegiance towards something . A person can be loyal to one thing and not loyal to…

>> You cannot use the word you're defining inside the definition of it. Reasoning to me is a belief, as such, it’s possible to be loyal or for that matter, non-loyal to reasoning. For example, beliefs of religious fundamentalists in my opinion are based on the word of god, not reasoning. Further, even when it would be easier to bend my reasoning to fit narrative that’s better for myself, I strive to reason objectivel…

> Reasoning to me is a belief, as such, it’s possible to be loyal or for that matter, non-loyal to reasoning. For example, beliefs of religious fundamentalists in my opinion are based on the word of god, not reasoning. Further, even when it would be easier to bend my reasoning to fit narrative that’s better for myself, I strive to reason objectively regardless of its impact on myself. To me, that’s loyalty that’s not born of force, manipulative tactics, and is a valid example of loyalty without error. In the not to distant past, people were killed for their belief in reasoning over the word of god, even today it still happens.

You being "loyal to reason" is just describing your values and has nothing to do with loyalty. You can't redefine the word just because you want to say that the military is full of disloyal people.

> As I said in my original comment, in my experience these issues are common among all militaries, and I am not aware of a solution.

What experience are you speaking of? You don't seem to have any experience that's at all related to these issues; at least you've not shared any.

> That said, in my opinion, it is an issue, like the increased levels of suicide within military that if addressed would have a significant impact on a military being more fit for combat that those who have been unable to address these issues.

They are addressed in the U.S. military. Suicide prevention programs and Mental Health programs are very big things in the U.S. military. I also would not describe it as a "culture of suicide" just because it occurs at a higher rate.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#272

Post by tl_donson » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 4:01 AM UTC

JofArnold wrote: post #136

tl_donson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

it’s really just an observation about what the market conditions are for a specialised technical position compared to a general project/program manager. i have nothing against my manager specifically or managers in general.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#273

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 12:39 PM UTC

markuse wrote: post #161

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

so let me make sure I understand this -

Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence?

And you expect this to function and not decend into anarchy? Do I understand correctly that Somalia is the perfect free market?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#274

Post by zo1 » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 12:49 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #66

medo-bear wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

None of what you described is a consequence of capitalism and all a consequence or stupid government policies. Capitalism didn't force them to sell those properties for peanuts, nor did capitalism force onerous regulations to be put in place to prevent the market from building new supply after government messed up the situation.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#275

Post by broadwaylamb » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #223

broadwaylamb wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize companies are charities now. A couple makes a private and typically self-serving decision to have children, therefore we ought to pay them more regardless of performance.

It may be self-serving, but without those kids how does civilization keep happening? See comment above.

As if people won't continue to procreate unless their employer gives them more money.

The global population is increasing, so some form of civilization will carry on. The issue is that certain societies have lopsided demographics that will topple the fragile social structures they'd been relying on, a lot of that being the consequence of short-sided incentives like what you're suggesting.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#276

Post by broadwaylamb » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #220

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.

Alright I'll make the case then. People who have kids have to put a bunch of their resources towards those kids: money, time, lost sleep, lost interactions with friends, and so on on. Nothing controversial here so far. Some view this as a choice of those people because they simply want to have kids, raise a family, and so on. But regardless of their intentions, there is a positive outcome for society in that there no…

> So why not let them have a bit more salary then you?

One can agree that child-rearing and domestic work are productive activities while still disagreeing with your proposal to inflate salaries.

For instance, instead of what you're proposing, the state can treat these activities as an actual job and pay accordingly. This no longer conflates the issue by making other entities (private employers, tax code, etc) fill in the gaps on what society at large claims it values. Now, I'm not saying I endorse this solution, but rather that there's more to the discussion than how you're framing it.

I don't agree with your logic that childless adults are free riders, and you omit many of the upsides to raising kids that childless adults willingly forgo, or the fact that childless adults often play vital roles in their families and communities that regular parents often don't have the bandwidth for.

You also haven't really talked about the ecological impact of first-world nations having more kids and whether that's wise or sustainable. You act as if it's a priori a net good.

Last, I'd argue that one of the benefits to having a sufficiently advanced society is that people are granted more agency to live as they see fit.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#277

Post by markuse » Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 10:42 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #273

markuse wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

so let me make sure I understand this - Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence? And you expect this to function and not decend into anarchy? Do I understand correctly that Somalia is the perfect free market?

First, just to make sure we are on the same page, I am not some kind of free market radical, and I was not arguing for free markets, only arguing the definition.

> Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence?

Existence? Sure. The only thing I was pointing at here is your very non-standard definition of a free market.

For the fraud and violence, your original statement was "no fraud", not "rampant fraud". I think you would agree that there are very few markets without any fraud, no? Such a strong claim definitely requires proof.

To get back to your original claim about free information, I think some amount of regulation would be required for information to be freely availble. Otherwise, why should someone give away their competitive edge (ie. the information), without any gain? Would be interesting to hear you take on that.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#278

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 12:57 AM UTC

broadwaylamb wrote: post #276

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright I'll make the case then. People who have kids have to put a bunch of their resources towards those kids: money, time, lost sleep, lost interactions with friends, and so on on. Nothing controversial here so far. Some view this as a choice of those people because they simply want to have kids, raise a family, and so on. But regardless of their intentions, there is a positive outcome for society in that there no…

> So why not let them have a bit more salary then you? One can agree that child-rearing and domestic work are productive activities while still disagreeing with your proposal to inflate salaries. For instance, instead of what you're proposing, the state can treat these activities as an actual job and pay accordingly. This no longer conflates the issue by making other entities (private employers, tax code, etc) fill i…

These are thoughtful points and what I hear is agreement that child rearing (and I'd also add care for elderly parents and other activities) are beneficial and those that undertake should indeed be, for a lack of a better term, subsidized for that work. The disagreement is the source of that subsidy and that government should step in to fill the gap rather than the employer having to cover it. I'd be satisfied with that solution. I'd suggest health care should equally be covered by government and paid with taxes rather than the employer. The problem in the US is that there is a strong belief that government should not do any of these things. Since it has to come from somewhere, that leaves the only source of income of most people -- the employer to meet these needs.

The points about ecology and population are a whole other thing, interesting, but out of scope of the pay issue which is why I didn't mention them.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#279

Post by wirrbel » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 8:12 AM UTC

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.

It is all about negotiating.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#280

Post by Closi » Sun, Nov 13, 2022, 9:02 PM UTC

jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #179

Closi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability and opportunity also doesn't equal output - There are plenty of 'high ability' people that will do the bare minimum, and plenty of 'lower ability' people that will push, work hard and deliver more.

Agreed. Yet it seems insanely hard to measure output... If the bare minimum gets the job done the same as the overachiever grinding as if their life depended on it, fair judgement would rate the output the same, right?

Absolutely, assuming the inputs were the same (ie that you don’t have to chase the ‘bare minimum employee and don’t have to give more support to the ‘grinding’ one).

Personally i’ll take the grinding person any day though, they tend to be much easier to manage.