> If you've worked in development you likely know that difference in value of developers can be massive, but the ones with less value usually don't perceive themselves as being THAT much less valuable and would have a problem with someone they consider a peer being paid 2x their salary, that's just how things are.
This is a great comment. Pro sports is an example where knowing salaries is fine because there are a lot of objective measures of talent. People generally know where they fall in the order.
> Pro sports is an example where knowing salaries is fine because there are a lot of objective measures of talent.
I would argue that although recent advances have made this possible, it is generally not the dominant mechanism.
Simply I think even with the hard data showing exactly what each team member did, it is still a long leap to valuation. Contribution is still hard to identify in any team sport, even if you know what everyone actually did.
When it does come to valuation, there's a major problem. New entrants have some data to support their value, but they have not been tried in the same pool as veterans. This will most likely lead to the new entrants coming at a discount, as managers will be risk-averse. Or call it model-conservative, since they objectively don't have the data.
Good points. I guess I was thinking along the lines of a Kerr and Jordan. In no world would Kerr argue that Jordan should not have been paid more than he does. Jordan is clearly the player who carries the team.
But, I could see it become more challenging at the mid-level or when on teams with a 1a, 1b type of dynamic.
This is a great comment. Pro sports is an example where knowing salaries is fine because there are a lot of objective measures of talent. People generally know where they fall in the order.