9 ms·

This. Negotiating a compensation package, in general, is asymmetric information warfare. Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate

This. Negotiating a compensation package, in general, is asymmetric information warfare. Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate. I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else?

lewisl9029 10y ago
> Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? I'd definitely be willing to pay for something like this. Make it commission based (pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated) and the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned.
- dsp1234 10y ago
  the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned. I'm not sure that this is the case when talking about such low amounts. Taking hints from a similar "agent with percentage", think real estate agents. Unless an agent is working with pretty high level homes, the 3% they are getting is not significantly effected by a something like 20k up or down on a $300k house. It's an extra $600, but often their time is better spent getting the deal closed as quickly as possible for as many people as possible. If that $20k for the client takes an extra few days the haggle, the agent could have been working with another client on another $300k house deal. In both cases, the thing that throws the agent and client out of alignment is the fact that the deals come through very infrequently, thus from the agent's perspective, they need to keep clients hustled through the door in order to be able to keep their own cash flow going, and working extra hard for a minimal gain isn't going to generally effect future gains. Most engineers would just use the same agent regardless unless the agent was spectacularly bad. (and there are way more rules for real estate agents than there would be for a hypothetical engineer's agent)
  - mindslight 10y ago
    A better compensation structure would take into account that the majority of the price is a given, and compensate say 30% of the price over $270k. But that would require realtors to give accurate and competitive assessments of property values, distracting from their primary hustle which is getting their client to sign an exclusive contract.
  - bryondowd 10y ago
    Could still be room for a win for people who are just exceptionally bad negotiators. Non-confrontationalists who can't bring themselves to ask for more and the like. Basically, a half-assed job by a professional, minus a significant cut, could still be significantly better than just taking a first offer or meekly saying 'Is that the best you can do?' and getting a token 1/2% bump. Not sure if that would pan out, or that's a large enough target audience. Just a thought.
- ghaff 10y ago
  And the agents for athletes take in the ballpark of 10% or so of their total compensation.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Total compensation is the important part here. Everyone talking about how great an agent would be are forgetting that under the current way every agent works, they'd be writing off 10% of their paychecks in perpetuity to that agent (or at least along a defined timeline).
- pc86 10y ago
  > pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated So many things wrong with this. Agents typically negotiate fixed-term contracts for athletes and entertainers. Agents take 10% of the entire pot, not "additional salary negotiated" whatever that means. You don't know what you would have been able to negotiate so there is no "additional" amount, only what they got you. Are you willing to give 10% of every paycheck to your agent?
  - lewisl9029 10y ago
    Not sure why you're assuming I wanted something analogous to agents for athletes and entertainers. Those work full time and have a lot more responsibilities and provide many more services than simply doing a one time negotiation for a higher salary, none of which I'm actually looking for. I'm looking to pay someone to negotiate a salary raise on my behalf in exchange for a cut of the additional salary negotiated. It's a one time deal, that should take a couple of emails and a couple of phone calls at most, not a full-time job. It has the potential to pay very well considering the minimum amount of effort required on the part of the "agent" as far as I can see. Of course, I'm not denying that there could be something I'm missing that could make this arrangement infeasible (in fact, other replies have already mentioned many such factors), but I'm not sure how your post about agents for athletes and entertainers was in any way relevant to the discussion.
ori_b 10y ago
> Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? Largely because the compensation changes are both rare enough and small enough that hiring someone to negotiate on your behalf isn't really worth the money for either side. Paying enough that the negotiator would be able to pocket a decent amount of money would probably not be viable.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? Because most other workers aren't, even with an agent, going to get paid enough more to make it worthwhile to pay a competent agent to negotiate on their behalf.
- bduerst 10y ago
  I agree, but smaller payscales means both sides are less willing to negotiate - i.e. an employer would be less willing to negotiate a programmer position as fiercely as an NBA team would for a starting slot.
  - function_seven 10y ago
    You're right. They would just pass on the candidate and go with someone who isn't represented by an agent.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Salary and benefits negotiation usually comes at a point where the decision to hire has already been made, meaning it's costly for the employer to not negotiate. That is why there is negotiation in the first place.
tombert 10y ago
Isn't that basically what a recruiter does? Every time I've dealt with a recruiter, they've done the salary haggling for me. EDIT: I should point out that that's what they do in regards to full-time W2 work, not contract.
- justinlardinois 10y ago
  I'm assuming you're talking about third party recruiters, not recruiters that are employees of the company you're negotiating with. Yes, they do commonly do that, but they're only going to be involved if they've been involved since the beginning of the application process.
- cheriot 10y ago
  Be careful about that. The recruiter's incentive is stronger to get more people into jobs that to get one person a little bit more money. It's much like the situation with real estate agents that freakonomics covered in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck
  - hibikir 10y ago
    A high quality third party recruiter has different incentives than a real estate agent, because they expect repeat business: Few people buy more than two houses in their life, but having a good relationship with a stable of good developers that change jobs every couple of years leads to a far easier and lucrative job in the long run. There are plenty of awful recruiters who will undervalue you, send you to gigs that don't fit you and such. But it's precisely how bad the field is that makes being a good recruiter such a strategically smart play. Being the rare recruiter that does their job well lands you top talent, that top talent means you can start asking for higher wages for people than the salary bands posted, which leads to more people coming to see you, because you can actually get higher rates than what someone could if they asked up front. I often ask recruiters what the salary is for the positions they offer. The right recruiter in my town, who I have a work relationship with, will often talk about a 20/hr premium. When compared to the worst (consulting firms that tell you a rate that has nothing to do with what they'll ask the employer, and will hide this) the difference can be huge. I have worked on the same team with another very comparable coworker, and I was getting paid almost triple! and he is an American, not an H1-B.
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
because an athlete giving up 20% for someone who will fight for millions of dollars more is a lot different than janice in accounting giving up 20% to get the bump from $52,000 to $70,000. you're all idiots.
patrickmay 10y ago
> Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? It's a simple matter of supply and demand: https://medium.freecodecamp.com/why-talent-agents-for-engineers-dont-exist-818743ef0081#.tghuev6zv https://medium.freecodecamp.com/why-talent-agents-for-engine...
- gohrt 10y ago
  That article is about a different topic that uses similar words.
gohrt 10y ago
> why not everyone else? because you haven't built a startup to do it yet, and Gayle McDowell hasn't figured out how do it yet.
IanDrake 10y ago
>Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate. Having to? It's not a requirement. I used to get asked this all the time. They want to know how much I made last gig? I tell them the rate I want, not the rate I got. That's right, if they ask me a question they have no business asking and can never confirm, I reserve the right to tell them what I want them to believe. I also think it's sexist to frame this as equal pay for women. That implies that women are predisposed to be bad negotiators.
- Kliment 10y ago
  not predisposed to be bad negotiators, but more likely to have a history of lower pay due to institutional sexism, which gets used as justification to offer lower pay down the line
- rogerdpack 10y ago
  I've heard similar advice, but instead of just making it up say "my current salary is confidential" (then, if press, "I hope to make XX at my next gig" or what not).
justinlardinois 10y ago
> Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? Because in your typical job you're trying to negotiate over a few thousand dollars in your annual salary. If you actually paid an agent enough for it to be worth it to them, you may as well have not negotiated at all because the money they won for you is just going in their pocket. Athletes and actors are haggling over several millions of dollars. They've got plenty of fuck you money in there to pay an agent.
- mbreese 10y ago
  They could make up for it in volume. There's only so many athletes and actors around. And their contracts will be a hell of a lot more complicated than an engineer, so it should be quicker to negotiate. Then again, in a different form, those compensation agents were simply known as unions.
fecak 10y ago
I wrote a post a few years ago about agents (https://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/17/disrupt/ https://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/17/disrupt/) and actually had some people from HN approach me to see if I'd started that service. At the time I hadn't but I'm reconsidering this right now. I wrote the article in response to the incentives for recruiters being typically seen as driven by the client (hiring firm). The main issue is that recruiters are paid by hiring firms, and agents would be paid by the employee/new hire. Job seekers seem less likely to pay for a service like this (negotiation). I've provided coaching to many, which usually includes mostly job search and resume advice, and may end with negotiation advice, but I'm typically not approached just for the sake of negotiation help. Maybe I should advertise that as a separate service.
- oillio 10y ago
  Personally, I would be interested in this service when I am job hunting. Having a trusted third party between myself and the prospective employer would help shift the power dynamic significantly. Also having a trained negotiator would take a lot of stress off of me. Any thoughts on a rough price range you would look for to provide this sort of service?
  - fecak 10y ago
    A pure hourly rate would seem easy to figure, but I dislike that there is no financial incentive for the negotiator to actually get results. The ideal situation would be for the negotiator to also benefit financially from the result, as he/she would likely be more inclined to push a bit harder. Perhaps a combination of an hourly rate and either (a) % of salary - which would be very small I assume or (b) % of difference between initial offer and final offer - which would be larger than the percentage in a. I'd have to think about it, but in the short-term I'd charge my standard hourly coach/consult rate to job seekers which is currently $60/hr.
- morgante 10y ago
  In my experience, the problem is that those most in need of such a service are those who are least likely to use it. In my peer group, there are some developers who treat their employment like a business and negotiate aggressively. They read up on tactics and practice them. I'm not sure agents would actually be that helpful to such people. Another whole group basically acts like they're paid "enough" and don't negotiate at all. They're unlikely to see the utility in professional negotiators since they're not even willing to read up on tactics themselves.
kls 10y ago
I actually went on an interview once in which they asked for my last pay stub as proof of income. I declined and they said they would have to pass on me. A good portion of my previous income was equity. Granted the equity did not pan out but I was making double that in straight income in the job before it. Anyways I doubled down on their attempt at making the information asymmetrical and told them that they have my asking price and that there would be no negotiations on salary, if I had to hand over that information. I submitted my last check, they came back 20% higher than my previous compensation, at which I doubled my salary requirements from my originally stated requirements to take the position and took a position with their competitor before they even responded. After notifying them I was no longer considering the position, they eventually came back and said they would match my original requirement as they where getting desperate, but honestly at that point the well was poisoned. Point being you are right it is asymmetric information warfare and they will use it against you, even if you offer them a poison pill like I did.
- sbov 10y ago
  "You can pay me the salary I made at my last job if you give me 5% ownership in every project I work on, like at my last job."
- Meegul 10y ago
  If a potential employer demands to know how much I made at my last/current job, then in order to maintain a fair, symmetrical conversation, I would need to know how much every one of their current engineers make. Anything less would be unfairly favoring the employer. Because they will likely never reveal such information, I think a ban on demanding pay history is completely justified. You should be paid what the company believes you are worth, not as little as they can trick you into accepting.
nsedlet 10y ago
I agree with this: employees are at a huge information disadvantage. However, I think a better (& admittedly more radical) solution to this problem would be to force employers to publicly post anonymized salaries by job title. That way prospective and current employees know exactly how much they ought to be paid. It makes salary negotiation almost trivial. Preventing employers from asking about previous salary does not prevent them from discriminating against women, which is the intention of the MA law. I can definitely see how this law might hasten a transition away from an era where salary was unfairly pegged to gender - but only to the degree that employers aren't still just blatantly discriminating by gender.
- throwaway201607 10y ago
  Except that its not unfairly pegged to gender: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-...
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    Maybe around 5% is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
- williamscales 10y ago
  How about we go one step further and make all salaries public information?
  - pc86 10y ago
    Because it's none of your business how much money I make.
    - randallsquared 10y ago
      What's that got to do with anything? It's none of their business what you look like, but you still go out in public, right?
blahshaw 10y ago
I don't know how much I would pay for this, but it would be more than zero dollars.

lewisl9029 10y ago

> Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? I'd definitely be willing to pay for something like this. Make it commission based (pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated) and the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned.

dsp1234 10y ago
the incentives between the negotiator and client will be perfectly aligned. I'm not sure that this is the case when talking about such low amounts. Taking hints from a similar "agent with percentage", think real estate agents. Unless an agent is working with pretty high level homes, the 3% they are getting is not significantly effected by a something like 20k up or down on a $300k house. It's an extra $600, but often their time is better spent getting the deal closed as quickly as possible for as many people as possible. If that $20k for the client takes an extra few days the haggle, the agent could have been working with another client on another $300k house deal. In both cases, the thing that throws the agent and client out of alignment is the fact that the deals come through very infrequently, thus from the agent's perspective, they need to keep clients hustled through the door in order to be able to keep their own cash flow going, and working extra hard for a minimal gain isn't going to generally effect future gains. Most engineers would just use the same agent regardless unless the agent was spectacularly bad. (and there are way more rules for real estate agents than there would be for a hypothetical engineer's agent)
- mindslight 10y ago
  A better compensation structure would take into account that the majority of the price is a given, and compensate say 30% of the price over $270k. But that would require realtors to give accurate and competitive assessments of property values, distracting from their primary hustle which is getting their client to sign an exclusive contract.
- bryondowd 10y ago
  Could still be room for a win for people who are just exceptionally bad negotiators. Non-confrontationalists who can't bring themselves to ask for more and the like. Basically, a half-assed job by a professional, minus a significant cut, could still be significantly better than just taking a first offer or meekly saying 'Is that the best you can do?' and getting a token 1/2% bump. Not sure if that would pan out, or that's a large enough target audience. Just a thought.
ghaff 10y ago
And the agents for athletes take in the ballpark of 10% or so of their total compensation.
- pc86 10y ago
  Total compensation is the important part here. Everyone talking about how great an agent would be are forgetting that under the current way every agent works, they'd be writing off 10% of their paychecks in perpetuity to that agent (or at least along a defined timeline).
pc86 10y ago
> pay as a percentage of additional salary negotiated So many things wrong with this. Agents typically negotiate fixed-term contracts for athletes and entertainers. Agents take 10% of the entire pot, not "additional salary negotiated" whatever that means. You don't know what you would have been able to negotiate so there is no "additional" amount, only what they got you. Are you willing to give 10% of every paycheck to your agent?
- lewisl9029 10y ago
  Not sure why you're assuming I wanted something analogous to agents for athletes and entertainers. Those work full time and have a lot more responsibilities and provide many more services than simply doing a one time negotiation for a higher salary, none of which I'm actually looking for. I'm looking to pay someone to negotiate a salary raise on my behalf in exchange for a cut of the additional salary negotiated. It's a one time deal, that should take a couple of emails and a couple of phone calls at most, not a full-time job. It has the potential to pay very well considering the minimum amount of effort required on the part of the "agent" as far as I can see. Of course, I'm not denying that there could be something I'm missing that could make this arrangement infeasible (in fact, other replies have already mentioned many such factors), but I'm not sure how your post about agents for athletes and entertainers was in any way relevant to the discussion.

ori_b 10y ago

> Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? Largely because the compensation changes are both rare enough and small enough that hiring someone to negotiate on your behalf isn't really worth the money for either side. Paying enough that the negotiator would be able to pocket a decent amount of money would probably not be viable.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I know so many women who are constantly bit by this and negotiating in general. Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? Because most other workers aren't, even with an agent, going to get paid enough more to make it worthwhile to pay a competent agent to negotiate on their behalf.

bduerst 10y ago
I agree, but smaller payscales means both sides are less willing to negotiate - i.e. an employer would be less willing to negotiate a programmer position as fiercely as an NBA team would for a starting slot.
- function_seven 10y ago
  You're right. They would just pass on the candidate and go with someone who isn't represented by an agent.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Salary and benefits negotiation usually comes at a point where the decision to hire has already been made, meaning it's costly for the employer to not negotiate. That is why there is negotiation in the first place.

tombert 10y ago

Isn't that basically what a recruiter does? Every time I've dealt with a recruiter, they've done the salary haggling for me. EDIT: I should point out that that's what they do in regards to full-time W2 work, not contract.

justinlardinois 10y ago
I'm assuming you're talking about third party recruiters, not recruiters that are employees of the company you're negotiating with. Yes, they do commonly do that, but they're only going to be involved if they've been involved since the beginning of the application process.
cheriot 10y ago
Be careful about that. The recruiter's incentive is stronger to get more people into jobs that to get one person a little bit more money. It's much like the situation with real estate agents that freakonomics covered in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck
- hibikir 10y ago
  A high quality third party recruiter has different incentives than a real estate agent, because they expect repeat business: Few people buy more than two houses in their life, but having a good relationship with a stable of good developers that change jobs every couple of years leads to a far easier and lucrative job in the long run. There are plenty of awful recruiters who will undervalue you, send you to gigs that don't fit you and such. But it's precisely how bad the field is that makes being a good recruiter such a strategically smart play. Being the rare recruiter that does their job well lands you top talent, that top talent means you can start asking for higher wages for people than the salary bands posted, which leads to more people coming to see you, because you can actually get higher rates than what someone could if they asked up front. I often ask recruiters what the salary is for the positions they offer. The right recruiter in my town, who I have a work relationship with, will often talk about a 20/hr premium. When compared to the worst (consulting firms that tell you a rate that has nothing to do with what they'll ask the employer, and will hide this) the difference can be huge. I have worked on the same team with another very comparable coworker, and I was getting paid almost triple! and he is an American, not an H1-B.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

because an athlete giving up 20% for someone who will fight for millions of dollars more is a lot different than janice in accounting giving up 20% to get the bump from $52,000 to $70,000. you're all idiots.

patrickmay 10y ago

> Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? It's a simple matter of supply and demand: https://medium.freecodecamp.com/why-talent-agents-for-engineers-dont-exist-818743ef0081#.tghuev6zv https://medium.freecodecamp.com/why-talent-agents-for-engine...

gohrt 10y ago
That article is about a different topic that uses similar words.

gohrt 10y ago

> why not everyone else? because you haven't built a startup to do it yet, and Gayle McDowell hasn't figured out how do it yet.

IanDrake 10y ago

>Having to reveal your salary history you may as well not even negotiate. Having to? It's not a requirement. I used to get asked this all the time. They want to know how much I made last gig? I tell them the rate I want, not the rate I got. That's right, if they ask me a question they have no business asking and can never confirm, I reserve the right to tell them what I want them to believe. I also think it's sexist to frame this as equal pay for women. That implies that women are predisposed to be bad negotiators.

Kliment 10y ago
not predisposed to be bad negotiators, but more likely to have a history of lower pay due to institutional sexism, which gets used as justification to offer lower pay down the line
rogerdpack 10y ago
I've heard similar advice, but instead of just making it up say "my current salary is confidential" (then, if press, "I hope to make XX at my next gig" or what not).

justinlardinois 10y ago

> Here's an idea: compensation agents who negotiate the compensation package on your behalf. Athletes and actors have them, why not everyone else? Because in your typical job you're trying to negotiate over a few thousand dollars in your annual salary. If you actually paid an agent enough for it to be worth it to them, you may as well have not negotiated at all because the money they won for you is just going in their pocket. Athletes and actors are haggling over several millions of dollars. They've got plenty of fuck you money in there to pay an agent.

mbreese 10y ago
They could make up for it in volume. There's only so many athletes and actors around. And their contracts will be a hell of a lot more complicated than an engineer, so it should be quicker to negotiate. Then again, in a different form, those compensation agents were simply known as unions.

fecak 10y ago

I wrote a post a few years ago about agents (https://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/17/disrupt/ https://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/17/disrupt/) and actually had some people from HN approach me to see if I'd started that service. At the time I hadn't but I'm reconsidering this right now. I wrote the article in response to the incentives for recruiters being typically seen as driven by the client (hiring firm). The main issue is that recruiters are paid by hiring firms, and agents would be paid by the employee/new hire. Job seekers seem less likely to pay for a service like this (negotiation). I've provided coaching to many, which usually includes mostly job search and resume advice, and may end with negotiation advice, but I'm typically not approached just for the sake of negotiation help. Maybe I should advertise that as a separate service.

oillio 10y ago
Personally, I would be interested in this service when I am job hunting. Having a trusted third party between myself and the prospective employer would help shift the power dynamic significantly. Also having a trained negotiator would take a lot of stress off of me. Any thoughts on a rough price range you would look for to provide this sort of service?
- fecak 10y ago
  A pure hourly rate would seem easy to figure, but I dislike that there is no financial incentive for the negotiator to actually get results. The ideal situation would be for the negotiator to also benefit financially from the result, as he/she would likely be more inclined to push a bit harder. Perhaps a combination of an hourly rate and either (a) % of salary - which would be very small I assume or (b) % of difference between initial offer and final offer - which would be larger than the percentage in a. I'd have to think about it, but in the short-term I'd charge my standard hourly coach/consult rate to job seekers which is currently $60/hr.
morgante 10y ago
In my experience, the problem is that those most in need of such a service are those who are least likely to use it. In my peer group, there are some developers who treat their employment like a business and negotiate aggressively. They read up on tactics and practice them. I'm not sure agents would actually be that helpful to such people. Another whole group basically acts like they're paid "enough" and don't negotiate at all. They're unlikely to see the utility in professional negotiators since they're not even willing to read up on tactics themselves.

kls 10y ago

I actually went on an interview once in which they asked for my last pay stub as proof of income. I declined and they said they would have to pass on me. A good portion of my previous income was equity. Granted the equity did not pan out but I was making double that in straight income in the job before it. Anyways I doubled down on their attempt at making the information asymmetrical and told them that they have my asking price and that there would be no negotiations on salary, if I had to hand over that information. I submitted my last check, they came back 20% higher than my previous compensation, at which I doubled my salary requirements from my originally stated requirements to take the position and took a position with their competitor before they even responded. After notifying them I was no longer considering the position, they eventually came back and said they would match my original requirement as they where getting desperate, but honestly at that point the well was poisoned. Point being you are right it is asymmetric information warfare and they will use it against you, even if you offer them a poison pill like I did.

sbov 10y ago
"You can pay me the salary I made at my last job if you give me 5% ownership in every project I work on, like at my last job."
Meegul 10y ago
If a potential employer demands to know how much I made at my last/current job, then in order to maintain a fair, symmetrical conversation, I would need to know how much every one of their current engineers make. Anything less would be unfairly favoring the employer. Because they will likely never reveal such information, I think a ban on demanding pay history is completely justified. You should be paid what the company believes you are worth, not as little as they can trick you into accepting.

nsedlet 10y ago

I agree with this: employees are at a huge information disadvantage. However, I think a better (& admittedly more radical) solution to this problem would be to force employers to publicly post anonymized salaries by job title. That way prospective and current employees know exactly how much they ought to be paid. It makes salary negotiation almost trivial. Preventing employers from asking about previous salary does not prevent them from discriminating against women, which is the intention of the MA law. I can definitely see how this law might hasten a transition away from an era where salary was unfairly pegged to gender - but only to the degree that employers aren't still just blatantly discriminating by gender.

throwaway201607 10y ago
Except that its not unfairly pegged to gender: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-...
- thomasahle 10y ago
  Maybe around 5% is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
williamscales 10y ago
How about we go one step further and make all salaries public information?
- pc86 10y ago
  Because it's none of your business how much money I make.
  - randallsquared 10y ago
    What's that got to do with anything? It's none of their business what you look like, but you still go out in public, right?

blahshaw 10y ago

I don't know how much I would pay for this, but it would be more than zero dollars.