Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities • Hacker News Board

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#281

Post by bdowling » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #276

bdowling wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most employment lawyers would be very reluctant to take a case like this for 5-10k. We don't know the actual value of the case. The defendants seemed to think that it was worth hiring "the most expensive defense firm in California".

You're right we know very little facts about the case, but gamemaster and his lawyer did and came to the conclusion it was a 5-10k case. So without any other evidence why should we assume that estimate is wrong?

> So without any other evidence why should we assume that estimate is wrong?

We shouldn't assume that the estimate was accurate either, for a couple of reasons:

First, the defendant definitely has more information (e.g., manager's employment records). More information usually leads to a more accurate valuation. And the defendant seems to have valued the case higher because it hired the expensive defense attorney.

Second, Gamemaster's attorney dropped the case, probably because they lacked the required experience with these types of employment cases. If they lacked the required experience to handle the case, then they probably weren't qualified to give an accurate valuation either.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#282

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #274

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to split hairs. “Acting rationally” and “acting in one’s own (rational) self-interest” are widely synonymous and it’s beyond unreasonable to expect readers to view them differently. My response to you was already treating them synonymously. It’s not acting in self-interest for executives to create unnecessary turnover due to withholding appropriate compensation. This leads to worse financial loss than…

'Rational self interest' is a fairly widely known economic principle. Everyone acts in their own rational self interest, including infants, cats, and horseflies. Infants, cats, and horseflies are certainly not logicians, but when they want something, they will generally take the steps necessary to try to achieve it. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/... A great way to think about this is vot…

Why do so many social science researchers publish research and write books on widespread ways in which people act against their own self-intetest?

Like topics from Predictably Irrational, Irrational Exuberance, The Winner’s Curse, Moral Mazes, Thinking Fast and Slow, countless articles on LessWrong sequence on cognitive biases and heuristics, research on Last Place aversion, etc.?

Your comment seems to presume a textbook definition of rational self interest actually describes the behavior of living organisms, but it profoundly does not.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#283

Post by missedthecue » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #282

missedthecue wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Rational self interest' is a fairly widely known economic principle. Everyone acts in their own rational self interest, including infants, cats, and horseflies. Infants, cats, and horseflies are certainly not logicians, but when they want something, they will generally take the steps necessary to try to achieve it. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/... A great way to think about this is vot…

Why do so many social science researchers publish research and write books on widespread ways in which people act against their own self-intetest? Like topics from Predictably Irrational, Irrational Exuberance, The Winner’s Curse, Moral Mazes, Thinking Fast and Slow, countless articles on LessWrong sequence on cognitive biases and heuristics, research on Last Place aversion, etc.? Your comment seems to presume a text…

Those are ways in which people acting in their own rational self interest create a situation in which they are all worse off as a result. This is called a market failure, and there are plenty of examples where this happens (for instance, why voting seldom produces the best possible candidate, or why armies run away).

Remember, someone acting in their own rational self interest does not mean they will never experience deleterious consequences. It simply means people will take actions they think will result in the best const/benefit for them.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#284

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #283

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do so many social science researchers publish research and write books on widespread ways in which people act against their own self-intetest? Like topics from Predictably Irrational, Irrational Exuberance, The Winner’s Curse, Moral Mazes, Thinking Fast and Slow, countless articles on LessWrong sequence on cognitive biases and heuristics, research on Last Place aversion, etc.? Your comment seems to presume a text…

Those are ways in which people acting in their own rational self interest create a situation in which they are all worse off as a result. This is called a market failure, and there are plenty of examples where this happens (for instance, why voting seldom produces the best possible candidate, or why armies run away). Remember, someone acting in their own rational self interest does not mean they will never experience…

I’m sorry but you are not engaging. You’re basically creating a No True Scotsman fallacy out of what “is” acting in self-interest, almost verging on a tautology.

The research is clear that even when confronted with proof their actions will not result in the outcome that people self-identify as the outcome they desire, they nonetheless knowingly engage in behavior that makes them worse off (under their own preferences and utility) than other options available to them.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#285

Post by tonitosou » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

galoisgirl wrote: post #271

tonitosou wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well i do the same work twice as fast and with twice as less bugs. people are not machines we don't have all the same output and don't all deserve same money

If you work as precisely as you answered my question, you don't deserve the twice bigger salary.

sure. make sense. if someones works twice as much and the output is twice as much he shouldn't get more than the other guy. You are right. Obviously once you all unemployed because you're competing against people who go beyond you'll blame the politicians

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#286

Post by xpe » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

Viliam1234 wrote: post #233

xpe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know what those top earners are going to do then? Quit. Maybe, maybe not. The opposite could be true: employees might more likely to quit a company that generally pays other employees poorly. There are lots of reasons why this might be the case. Here is one type of scenario where that may be true. Many people recognize that company performance is not a simple linear combination of individual employee performanc…

> employees might more likely to quit a company that generally pays other employees poorly For me, finding out that my more skilled colleagues make more money than me would be encouraging. It would mean that if I learn more, I could possibly get a raise. The bad news is to find out that the people whom I admire because of their god-like skills actually make the same money as I do. That means that I have most likely a…

> god-like skills

I recommend that you disabuse yourself of such a comparison.

Arthur Clarke is famous for saying "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." As you build your knowledge and skills over time, you may find that others are just as impressed by you as you were by this other person.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#287

Post by xpe » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

Viliam1234 wrote: post #233

xpe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know what those top earners are going to do then? Quit. Maybe, maybe not. The opposite could be true: employees might more likely to quit a company that generally pays other employees poorly. There are lots of reasons why this might be the case. Here is one type of scenario where that may be true. Many people recognize that company performance is not a simple linear combination of individual employee performanc…

> employees might more likely to quit a company that generally pays other employees poorly For me, finding out that my more skilled colleagues make more money than me would be encouraging. It would mean that if I learn more, I could possibly get a raise. The bad news is to find out that the people whom I admire because of their god-like skills actually make the same money as I do. That means that I have most likely a…

To be clear, my comment did not say nor imply that better individually-skilled or talented employees would make less money.

To elaborate on my comment: I'm suggesting that an employee's full value to the organization should be reflected in their pay. For example, someone with slightly less than average skill in some area (e.g. as indicated by project performance up to this point) may have other strengths.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#288

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

bdowling wrote: post #281

JamesBarney wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right we know very little facts about the case, but gamemaster and his lawyer did and came to the conclusion it was a 5-10k case. So without any other evidence why should we assume that estimate is wrong?

> So without any other evidence why should we assume that estimate is wrong? We shouldn't assume that the estimate was accurate either, for a couple of reasons: First, the defendant definitely has more information (e.g., manager's employment records). More information usually leads to a more accurate valuation. And the defendant seems to have valued the case higher because it hired the expensive defense attorney. Sec…

You're reading a lot into his comment and making a lot of assumptions.

1. Defendant had more information

2. The extra information was so important it would increase the value of the case 50x (there are not very many pieces of information in an employment suit that would increase a payout by 50x that an employee wouldn't know about)

3. They hired a very expensive attorney because of this reason.(as opposed to for intimidation reasons)

4. Gamemasters attorney was inexperienced.

5. Gamemaster's attorney's lack of experience caused him to drop the case.

6. Gamemaster's attorney's lack of experience also led him not be able to give an accurate valuation.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#289

Post by perl4ever » Fri, Aug 07, 2020, 12:19 AM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #80

manigandham wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you assuming a company that does that would not have evidence ready?

It depends what you mean by the company would have the evidence ready. I'm positive the company would have evidence that the terminated individuals were late by 1 minute on two separate occasions. But the company might also have evidence that other employees were also late and not terminated. You can pretty easily create an evidentiary trail that "Person X did thing Y, and was then terminated". What's harder is creat…

I think they simply don't do it quite that way. If halfway competent.

Instead, when someone wants to get rid of an employee for a reason that might not be legitimate, they write them up for about a dozen vague and contradictory things, and then present it as a "sign or be fired on the spot" thing, whereupon the employee signs, either because they convince themselves they can salvage the situation, or they just need more time to job hunt.

Then after a little while, they do it again, so it fits into the normal framework of someone being put on a PIP and failing to improve.

When they quit or are fired, it's essentially impossible to challenge, because it wasn't just one or two tiny things, it was a whole list of BS, and the employee signed their name to it to buy time. Or at least it's intimidating enough I think few people would consider suing.

Re: Blizzard workers share salaries in revolt over wage disparities

#290

Post by acituan » Fri, Aug 07, 2020, 6:52 AM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #258

acituan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't benefit top earners to share salary information Maybe one of the biggest myths is that we can appraise performance objectively and that pay is nothing but a function of that performance. In reality, this is nothing but price discrimination for the price of labor; just like it would be in an airline's best interest to squeeze the most individual dollar amounts out of every individual passenger for the sam…

The employer is buying labor and "price discrimination" is a seller 's strategy. Offering different salaries to different people is just regular shopping around . You are likely guilty of it yourself. Do you buy the first airline ticket to your destination you get in the search or do you choose among several alternatives with the pricing in mind? Do you ask businesses for quotes? Do you go to a particular store for s…

> The employer is buying labor and "price discrimination" is a seller's strategy

This doesn't matter at all, information asymmetry based extraction is still there.

The employer is buying labor in large quantities from many sellers, and because they don't appraise all units of labor individually (they can't), they are individually negotiating the least amount of money they can get away with. The fact that prices are concealed between these individual sellers (candidates/employers) is the only way this can work (information asymmetry).

When a buyer is shopping for a airplane ticket, they are shopping for the relatively same service from many providers, but they know these different prices and choose the cheapest (no information asymmetry). When, however, the airlines are using personalized pricing and the buyer doesn't know this (information asymmetry), the buyer is screwed over because they pay the maximum they would for the same flight, while the next guy is potentially getting a steep discount.

In both cases, if the information asymmetry is cured (as in sharing your salary or what money you paid for a ticket), the strategy no longer works because this changes the individual price points (people have huge loss aversion bias and they definitely react to the idea of being screwed over). The fact that they are buyers vs sellers in these transactions doesn't matter at all.

"Shopping for the best offer" depends on knowing what offers were available to you and the others to begin with.