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

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#91

Post by ajsnigrutin »

bheadmaster wrote: post #88
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.

I know it's probably just a username, but you don't happen to be the real Ajs Nigrutin, do you?

No lol :D i just needed a throwaway to argue about something "back then", and guess what was on the radio :)

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#93

Post by q-big »

candiodari wrote: post #76
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.

Because kids are good for essentially everything and we don't want to disadvantage people for having children? I mean the saying goes they are the future, and it a very literal sense, they are.

> we don't want to disadvantage people for having children

Why do "we" want that?

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#94

Post by jermaustin1 »

O__________O wrote: post #85
jermaustin1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You marry for the benefits, you divorce because of the rampant adultery and loneliness. Every military couple I have known has divorced, and in each case it was adultery that lead to that. On either side of the marriage. I never went into the armed forces, but I had considered the US NAVY even got my ASVAB and was told I would be assigned Navy Nuke, but on the drive home from the processing facility, the recruiter wa…

What’s even more strange is people trust the military to be loyal, but the amount of cheating relative to the general population in my opinion literally creates a culture that values cheats. To be fair, not aware of any military that’s managed to avoid the pattern and would honestly be curious to know of how any have avoided it.

I've only known a single officer, but she said it was a lot less prevalent amongst officers than enlisted, still happens (she was in fact having an extramarital affair at the time - I found out later), but it is probably closer to the real world average. Maybe there is less need to marry before you are ready as an officer.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#95

Post by i_am_proteus »

least wrote: post #18
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

This is pretty much how it works in the military, except it's because you are single you don't need to get paid as much as people who are married, but since you're not married you also have plenty of time to stay later and do all the bullshit details. Oh, also if you're an E-5 or below you don't need to have your own home with real amenities like a stovetop. In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and…

If I had a dollar for every enlisted guy I knew who got married to get the extra $1000-2500[a] a month and permission to live off base (unmarried enlisted E-4 and below live in barracks, married enlisted get a housing allowance and live off base, or get private on-base housing in lieu of the housing allowance)...

...and then got divorced a few years later because he got married for the wrong reasons, well, I'd have a few more dollars.

[a]Housing allowances vary based on location and rank.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#97

Post by dagw »

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.

Kids are expensive, and people should rewarded, not penalized for raising them

If we, as a society, believe that then surely those rewards should be paid by the government and not private employers.

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#98

Post by a4a4a4a4 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #60
lr wrote: post #43

250,000 people (includes student employees) at the university of California can just go online and look up their co-worker’s salary, for the past 10 years! Yet, it doesn’t cause problems. In fact, salaries are public for all government workers in California (UC just makes it very easy to look someone up). The entire country of Finland posts all salaries of the entire population online! The angst over these laws is, I…

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.

> It should be obvious that freely knowing salaries will improve the employee's ability to negotiate the wage they deserve.

I would argue that for high performers, it could become an excuse not to pay more. "Sorry, we know you did XYZ, but we can't give you a further raise because you're already 4% ahead of your colleagues." And of course, everyone thinks they're a high-performer, so this policy would be unpopular with actual high-performers + the people that think they are (but aren't, and wouldn't be affected anyway).

Re: Survey of workers’ views on salary transparency

#100

Post by mcv »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #95
least wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much how it works in the military, except it's because you are single you don't need to get paid as much as people who are married, but since you're not married you also have plenty of time to stay later and do all the bullshit details. Oh, also if you're an E-5 or below you don't need to have your own home with real amenities like a stovetop. In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and…

If I had a dollar for every enlisted guy I knew who got married to get the extra $1000-2500[a] a month and permission to live off base (unmarried enlisted E-4 and below live in barracks, married enlisted get a housing allowance and live off base, or get private on-base housing in lieu of the housing allowance)... ...and then got divorced a few years later because he got married for the wrong reasons, well, I'd have a…

$2000 a month? That's a hefty dowry.
Post reply on HN