> IMO salary secrecy is a weird fetish and probably counter productive.
Hidden salaries are why the job market is so extremely awful and costly. I have heard a million times that it is really hard to hire talent. But still, our approach to the job marketplace is akin to a bidding system, not a market. Imagine that each time that you go to the supermarket you need to negotiate the price of every item. It will be so hard to know where to buy your groceries.
Any company that is paying lip service to Diversity and Inclusion (DI in c-level speak) while at the same time requiring or even asking for historical pay is being extremely disingenuous.
By using historical salary, they are borrowing, leaning on and embracing someone else's bigotry. Offer the prospect a market wage, not what *ist system has decided they should get paid and you will suddenly see your workforce normalize in DI.
Google does both of these (paying lip service to diversity and asking for historical pay, even requiring it). I told them I thought this was suspect, and I almost laughed when they made an offer (which was somehow lower than what I was already making and disclosed to them).
I'm really interested to see how the whole wage gap DOJ thing goes, and how they will blame the gap on being "data driven".
I've read before that with "open companies" where they publish all salary data, it can, on occasion, be surprisingly counter productive. I haven't read extensively on the topic, but I believe there are examples of companies who started out making all employee salaries accessible to anyone in the company reverting this division. Famously Steve Jobs ended up doing largely this at Next. At any rate, I think that publishing salaries openly can have its own set of issues, even if on balance I agree it's probably a fairer approach. This is one of those problems that touches on cultural norms though, so what works for one person can offend another.
It's not difficult for me to imagine scenarios were certain employees may overvalue their worth, and take a great deal of offence to a perceived slight when viewing their colleague's remuneration. Humans often aren't good at looking at themselves purely as some kind of commodity to be priced by an open market, even if rationally that might make some sense in this context. People can get scared they will look over-paid, or embarrassed about being underpaid, even if neither of these things is true. There's the whole thorny issue of cost of living adjustments if your company operates in more than one location. The frequent debates I've seen on Gitlab's public salary calculator that tries to address cost of living illustrate how hard it is to get that right - you can get some pretty odd results from that thing just moving your zip code 5 miles in some regions. I imagine you're almost never going to convince everyone that the adjustment factor you choose is the right one.
It's not difficult for me to imagine scenarios were certain employees may overvalue their worth, and take a great deal of offence to a perceived slight when viewing their colleague's remuneration.
I agree that people may overvalue their worth, but in that case, wouldn't they look for another job that pays them what they are worth? Either they will find the job and get paid their worth or they won't and realize that they are paid what they are worth.
I am paid less than one of my peers who has a masters from a prestigious university. I am cool with this: they have more debt and a larger skill set than me. However, I am thankful that other people in the organization do not see the difference in our salaries, because I would certainly be treated differently by people outside the team. Salary gets used as a proxy for competence: why do you think people stupidly expensive luxury cars as daily drivers?
I'm fascinated by how cashflow (student loans, mortgage, family, etc) affects compensation. Given two equally skilled individuals (including ability to negotiate) but one has a bigger mortgage,y hypothesis is the the one with the bigger mortgage will get paid more.
I believe cashflow requirements make negotiating easier (provided there is room for negotiation). I'm not even going to entertain your offer for $120k. Not because I know my market value is greater than that, but because I cannot meet my financial obligations at that point. Even if I'm a clumsy negotiator, I'll get closer to my max compensation in that situation purely because I have a higher floor.
It makes sense, in a way. You base your pay on $MONTHLY_LIVING_EXPENSES + $DESIRED_MONETARY_GAIN. You can't really change your MLE by much (not in any short timeframe anyway), so your salary negotiation starts off depending on that. In which case two people with different MLEs will bargain for different salaries with the same DMG, in the end receiving equal gratification from their different salaries.
>why do you think people stupidly expensive luxury cars as daily drivers?
I think the expectation that you drive a car that is "reasonable for your income" doesn't really hold in the parts of the tech industry where I work; It's pretty normal for highly paid people to drive junkers or not have cars at all, at least in my area and industry; Even sales people don't seem too surprised.
alloy wheel and so many other items from performance cars now only bought for aesthetics make rides less smooth but people with your rationalization never skips on them.
So someone with low salary who goes into debt buying luxuries is perceived as being more successful and gets promoted as a result? What you point out is that without real knowledge people are forced to rely on less accurate proxies.
In many jobs, there is a wide spread of productivity.
The best programmer is worth quite a bit more to the company than an average programmer. The best salesperson is the same way.
The best major league pitcher or quarterback is worth quite a bit more to their franchise than the average or the best minor league/second string replacement.
Why should someone producing more value for their company be paid the same as someone producing less?
He said his colleague has a masters degree and it's from a prestigious university and has more skills. He very specifically said there was a difference in merit.
You can't focus on just the prestigious adjective and decide that it's unfair when the person involved has considered it and appears to believe that it's fair.
This assumes that compensation should be directly tied to value created.
In practice, value created is merely the ceiling for compensation. The floor is the best alternative for the employee. People get paid somewhere in between. Neither the floor nor the ceiling can easily be generalized across multiple people.
Completely agree. It's not a perfect analogy but if you look at professional sports, the main driver behind higher salaries was publicizing them. Prior to that, owners could pay some star players much lower than their market value simply because they were bad at negotiating.
It's in our interest to have more publicity around salaries.
Ok, lets look at this another way. Say the average salary for a cashier is X at one store. However, Sally gets paid Y while Harry gets paid Z.
Turns out, they have similar qualifacations and background, along with salary history. Both accepted a raise when they took the job at this store, but for whatever reason Sally gets paid more - and has since the beginning. Similar differences are found between other employees. As one of the reforms, the company starts publishing every employees' salary.
A few folks, like Harry, are understandably upset. To help remedy this, the company raises the pay of some folks to make things more fair between folks with similar qualifacations, and make company-wide standards for getting paid more. After a while, that average wage, "X", gets higher because folks are getting paid more.
That is to a point. In a way, it is a cost of doing business if you weren't doing it before. Sometimes it can make it difficult for places with a low margin (restaurants). But I think the overall effect - more folks having more spending money - is positive, even for the shareholders. It just takes some time for those to recover the initial loss.
Part of the problem, I suppose, is that it's very hard to figure out what value an employee contributes with. Making salaries transparent is perhaps rational, but it only gets you that far. If the other half was a solved issue, I don't think there would be much in the way of making salaries open, but as it stands, doing so just makes it painfully clear how broken our ability to measure worth is.
There are countries where it is common to hire without having wage negotiations. Look at all Russian IT job sites: more than half of all job posts look like "senior computer programmer - $2000k ± $10 per month", and there will be few job posts with 3000 and higher montly wages, but the application counter for each of them will go from few hundreds to 65535
Russians don't like to bargain mostly. I suspect (but please correct me if this sounds too wrong/offensive), that it's a vestige of the planned economy they had - all salaries and prices set by the state, no bargaining allowed. It's a simpler system and removes not only a layer of stress, but also a layer of conflict between you and the employer.
Though, if I were offered $2000k/mo, I wouldn't feel the need to bargain at all ;)
I lived for a while in a post-Soviet country, and bargaining was a regular part of every day. At the bazaar, in private cabs, even at black-market money changers if you were brave/stupid enough to use them.
My brother-in-law is Russian, too, and I've seen him haggle over cars, electronics, home appliances, any "major" purchase.
Not sure about the US, but here in socialist Europe, that's pretty much how the entire public sector works. You have very fixed salary-steps, based on education, job function and seniority and there is little to no room for negotiation.
Perhaps initially, but since there's a limit to how high total compensation can go for all employees put together... the effect will be to compress compensation differences. The same is true if it should initially lead to deflation (e.g., if total compensation is already at the limit, then some of the more highly compensated employees will have to see their compensation cut in order for less-generously compensated employees to see theirs improved).
Ignoring macroeconomic effects, this should just lead to compression of compensation deltas regardless of whether it also leads to inflation or deflation. Now, if every State did this suddenly, and if transparency were required of the private sector as well, then there might be macroeconomic effects as well, such as higher inflation (or faster deflation), and I won't hazard a guess as to which.
This paper has presented evidence that making wages public compresses the top of the
public sector wage distribution. The evidence assembled is more in line with a “populist”
response to visibility of top salaries than the effect of making public officials more accountable:
salaries are cut because they appear excessive, regardless of whether or not they actually are.
I did not spend enough time on the paper to comment on the measurement details, however I would rather trust the public's opinion on what is excessive.
Also I find it a bit ill posed to study the effects of making public wages transparent. They should be by default.
no need. they compare California (high competition from private sector) with other states without such competition.
they could manipulate it to proove any point. with the same data I could say that with sunnier days lead to more employee attrition. any point that California differs from the other state can be blamed, after the author ignored the private sector salaries, and he chose to pick a competing state without salary transparency to make their point.
If the differences between employee salaries are not economically defensible then they should not exist.
If employees cannot accept the way that their employers have measured their relative value then they should get a different job.