7 ms·

Just posted this to the other discussion, but it bears just the same. This is just going to be a collection of anecdotes from people who self-select to report

Just posted this to the other discussion, but it bears just the same. This is just going to be a collection of anecdotes from people who self-select to report because they feel good about where they're at, or because they feel righteously justified in complaining about their situation. Self-selection ruins the data. The responses have to be random to be useful. And the silly thing is that most people who are involved in this business know this.

coldtea 11y ago
It's not actually that bad. First, even in your version, the "feel goods" (high salaries) and the "complainers" (low salaries) would cancel each other out, and (assuming equal numbers of them) will give us a usable median value. But in the real world is more complicated than "self-selection" in the basic mode you describe. Who might "feel good" and who might feel "justified in complaining" will not be so much based on the salary, but more on the person and their personality (which we can assume are evenly distributed among salaries). In other words, it won't only be actually great salaries that are reported from people "feeling good", nor only low salaries reported from people "justified in complaining". And then you'll also have people that regardless if they consider their salary high or low, they want transparency etc, and report their salaries. The end median result, given enough samples, would be a useful, if not 100% accurate, representation of the situation.
- nck4222 11y ago
  (which we can assume are evenly distributed among salaries). Why would you assume that? To me it seems the opposite, that they wouldn't be evenly distributed.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    I mean the personalities. I don't think being a "complainer" vs a "feel gooder" personality type changes much based on salary.
    - jessedhillon 11y ago
      Yes and no? In areas like SFBA where the job market is liquid, people will be less likely to be stuck in a job where offer basics like salary don't match their expectations -- so they'll be more likely to weight other factors like culture and mission when considering how happy they are at their current job. In less fluid markets, people can more easily find themselves in a position where they're disappointed with salary but unable to find a better opportunity. In those situations, you might be more likely to find people who are either satisfied or dissatisfied with culture, mission, growth etc but are also disappointed with salary.
- vehementi 11y ago
  > First, even in your version, the "feel goods" (high salaries) and the "complainers" (low salaries) would cancel each other out, and (assuming equal numbers of them) will give us a usable median value. Why would they cancel each other out? Why would there be equal numbers?
darkxanthos 11y ago
Salary.com, glassdoor and other resources are not random but they are useful.
- Gratsby 11y ago
  Comparing glassdoor and jobsintech (data.jobsintech.io), glassdoor seems to be on the low end for the few companies I reviewed. Jobsintech uses h1 visa filing data.
  - negrit 11y ago
    And Green Cards :)
    - Gratsby 11y ago
      True. At first glance, I didn't think that part of the data was relevant to me, but I found myself digging into companies that I had experience with and their h1/green card ratios and how many h1 were in place. There are definite cultural differences between companies that seem to come through in the numbers. I did find a few that have their numbers somewhat hidden - with different company names that you wouldn't search as an outsider. Thanks for putting that data together. It certainly was eye opening, and as a bit of a numbers junkie myself I appreciate having the raw data presented instead of just summary information. (well, sort of raw. much more raw than others I've found and not spammy at all)
      - negrit 11y ago
        Out of curiosity could you define spammy? People call Glassdoor spammy, is it because there is too much advertising or because they force user to register in order to see more data?
        Gratsby 11y ago
        The advertising I don't see (adblocker), but when you do provide them information they push for more and more and constantly harass you via email. Also, they force you to register after browsing the site a few times and do the hidden content thing pretending to have more content than they do. ("Register to read the full review", then when you register and go to the review it's like 4 words long). I understand wanting some more input and encouraging users to provide it, but they take it too far. The way you have it set up with a pretty easy way to search the data along with some posts that highlight some interesting aspects of the data appeals to me a good deal more. I should have known by the site name, but I didn't know there was an actual job board at jobsintech.com until the 3rd or 4th time I visited.
CydeWeys 11y ago
My company had a similar spreadsheet internally that was self-selected and it was incredibly useful. I found that I had come in at the low range for my pay band and got a $10K raise in the next annual salary review. It's anonymous. I'm not sure why you think it'd be so susceptible to bragging or complaining. A lot of people, me included, are data nerds, and will contribute to the dataset regardless of our personal situation simply because we want the data to be as accurate as possible.
- mpeg 11y ago
  I've pointed out some huge issues with the anonimity of this site in another comment. But apart from that, if a site has no privacy policy, you should have no expectation of privacy or anonimity. If they added an advertising tracking tag they could easily match the data you provide to your real name, your hobbies, your online shopping habits, your marital status...
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Maybe fill it out via Tor, and fuzz the postal code.
- LorenzoLlamas 11y ago
  That means you were 'bought' into thinking it was a good idea by a mere $10,000. Maybe you should have actually been paid $30k more all along - and still.
- golergka 11y ago
  > It's anonymous. I'm not sure why you think it'd be so susceptible to bragging or complaining. Because people are irrational by their nature, and it takes a lot of effort to eliminate such factors when you make a decision.
- vehementi 11y ago
  Since the data was just anecdotes, how did you determine that you were at the low end, compared to what parent comment pointed out - that people self report high?
RodericDay 11y ago
> Self-selection ruins the data. Exactly. This is the issue that people who say "doesn't Glassdoor already do this?" minimize, and miss the point of why public salaries would be amazing in terms of improving labor markets. I think for anyone who is big into "free markets", there is an unresolved tension between "it's better if we let things continue as they are" and "a market always operates better when it has more information". I don't understand why so many staunch advocates for free markets easily opt for the former.
- username223 11y ago
  > I don't understand why so many staunch advocates for free markets easily opt for the former. It's pretty obvious to me: this information asymmetry between employers and employees benefits employers, letting them lowball some hires. More information would make hiring more fair, but also hurt the bottom line, so they don't want it.
  - zdragnar 11y ago
    Companies generally don't hire at all if it's going to hurt the bottom line. There might be some exceptions around high profile positions (i.e. CEO) if there's an expectation that media attention and other factors might turn that loss into a profitable long-term investment, but it certainly isn't going to apply to your run-of-the-mill blue collar, middle manager or software developer position.
    - robrenaud 11y ago
      What hurts the bottom line is the company paying you the maximum that they would be willing to, rather than as minimum for which you'd still accept. Either way they come out ahead, they just come out more ahead in the latter case.
geofft 11y ago
The responses would be more useful with random / mandatory data, but this is perfectly useful. If I'm making $100K and someone in the same job role with the same qualifications/seniority is making $130K, I know that $130K is possible. I don't need to know if $130K is statistically within one standard deviation of the pay for my role; I can immediately go negotiate.
flowerpot 11y ago
I don't agree with that I don't feel like I'm underpaid or overpaid, however, I know of great unjust between gender and ethnicity and all I want is equality for all.

coldtea 11y ago

It's not actually that bad. First, even in your version, the "feel goods" (high salaries) and the "complainers" (low salaries) would cancel each other out, and (assuming equal numbers of them) will give us a usable median value. But in the real world is more complicated than "self-selection" in the basic mode you describe. Who might "feel good" and who might feel "justified in complaining" will not be so much based on the salary, but more on the person and their personality (which we can assume are evenly distributed among salaries). In other words, it won't only be actually great salaries that are reported from people "feeling good", nor only low salaries reported from people "justified in complaining". And then you'll also have people that regardless if they consider their salary high or low, they want transparency etc, and report their salaries. The end median result, given enough samples, would be a useful, if not 100% accurate, representation of the situation.

nck4222 11y ago
(which we can assume are evenly distributed among salaries). Why would you assume that? To me it seems the opposite, that they wouldn't be evenly distributed.
- coldtea 11y ago
  I mean the personalities. I don't think being a "complainer" vs a "feel gooder" personality type changes much based on salary.
  - jessedhillon 11y ago
    Yes and no? In areas like SFBA where the job market is liquid, people will be less likely to be stuck in a job where offer basics like salary don't match their expectations -- so they'll be more likely to weight other factors like culture and mission when considering how happy they are at their current job. In less fluid markets, people can more easily find themselves in a position where they're disappointed with salary but unable to find a better opportunity. In those situations, you might be more likely to find people who are either satisfied or dissatisfied with culture, mission, growth etc but are also disappointed with salary.
vehementi 11y ago
> First, even in your version, the "feel goods" (high salaries) and the "complainers" (low salaries) would cancel each other out, and (assuming equal numbers of them) will give us a usable median value. Why would they cancel each other out? Why would there be equal numbers?

darkxanthos 11y ago

Salary.com, glassdoor and other resources are not random but they are useful.

Gratsby 11y ago
Comparing glassdoor and jobsintech (data.jobsintech.io), glassdoor seems to be on the low end for the few companies I reviewed. Jobsintech uses h1 visa filing data.
- negrit 11y ago
  And Green Cards :)
  - Gratsby 11y ago
    True. At first glance, I didn't think that part of the data was relevant to me, but I found myself digging into companies that I had experience with and their h1/green card ratios and how many h1 were in place. There are definite cultural differences between companies that seem to come through in the numbers. I did find a few that have their numbers somewhat hidden - with different company names that you wouldn't search as an outsider. Thanks for putting that data together. It certainly was eye opening, and as a bit of a numbers junkie myself I appreciate having the raw data presented instead of just summary information. (well, sort of raw. much more raw than others I've found and not spammy at all)
    - negrit 11y ago
      Out of curiosity could you define spammy? People call Glassdoor spammy, is it because there is too much advertising or because they force user to register in order to see more data?
      - Gratsby 11y ago
        The advertising I don't see (adblocker), but when you do provide them information they push for more and more and constantly harass you via email. Also, they force you to register after browsing the site a few times and do the hidden content thing pretending to have more content than they do. ("Register to read the full review", then when you register and go to the review it's like 4 words long). I understand wanting some more input and encouraging users to provide it, but they take it too far. The way you have it set up with a pretty easy way to search the data along with some posts that highlight some interesting aspects of the data appeals to me a good deal more. I should have known by the site name, but I didn't know there was an actual job board at jobsintech.com until the 3rd or 4th time I visited.

CydeWeys 11y ago

My company had a similar spreadsheet internally that was self-selected and it was incredibly useful. I found that I had come in at the low range for my pay band and got a $10K raise in the next annual salary review. It's anonymous. I'm not sure why you think it'd be so susceptible to bragging or complaining. A lot of people, me included, are data nerds, and will contribute to the dataset regardless of our personal situation simply because we want the data to be as accurate as possible.

mpeg 11y ago
I've pointed out some huge issues with the anonimity of this site in another comment. But apart from that, if a site has no privacy policy, you should have no expectation of privacy or anonimity. If they added an advertising tracking tag they could easily match the data you provide to your real name, your hobbies, your online shopping habits, your marital status...
- mirimir 11y ago
  Maybe fill it out via Tor, and fuzz the postal code.
LorenzoLlamas 11y ago
That means you were 'bought' into thinking it was a good idea by a mere $10,000. Maybe you should have actually been paid $30k more all along - and still.
golergka 11y ago
> It's anonymous. I'm not sure why you think it'd be so susceptible to bragging or complaining. Because people are irrational by their nature, and it takes a lot of effort to eliminate such factors when you make a decision.
vehementi 11y ago
Since the data was just anecdotes, how did you determine that you were at the low end, compared to what parent comment pointed out - that people self report high?

RodericDay 11y ago

> Self-selection ruins the data. Exactly. This is the issue that people who say "doesn't Glassdoor already do this?" minimize, and miss the point of why public salaries would be amazing in terms of improving labor markets. I think for anyone who is big into "free markets", there is an unresolved tension between "it's better if we let things continue as they are" and "a market always operates better when it has more information". I don't understand why so many staunch advocates for free markets easily opt for the former.

username223 11y ago
> I don't understand why so many staunch advocates for free markets easily opt for the former. It's pretty obvious to me: this information asymmetry between employers and employees benefits employers, letting them lowball some hires. More information would make hiring more fair, but also hurt the bottom line, so they don't want it.
- zdragnar 11y ago
  Companies generally don't hire at all if it's going to hurt the bottom line. There might be some exceptions around high profile positions (i.e. CEO) if there's an expectation that media attention and other factors might turn that loss into a profitable long-term investment, but it certainly isn't going to apply to your run-of-the-mill blue collar, middle manager or software developer position.
  - robrenaud 11y ago
    What hurts the bottom line is the company paying you the maximum that they would be willing to, rather than as minimum for which you'd still accept. Either way they come out ahead, they just come out more ahead in the latter case.

geofft 11y ago

The responses would be more useful with random / mandatory data, but this is perfectly useful. If I'm making $100K and someone in the same job role with the same qualifications/seniority is making $130K, I know that $130K is possible. I don't need to know if $130K is statistically within one standard deviation of the pay for my role; I can immediately go negotiate.

flowerpot 11y ago

I don't agree with that I don't feel like I'm underpaid or overpaid, however, I know of great unjust between gender and ethnicity and all I want is equality for all.