3 ms·

I really wish that someone who is really opposed to salary-transparency would do a comprehensive pro- vs con- analysis of the issue, displaying that they truly

I really wish that someone who is really opposed to salary-transparency would do a comprehensive pro- vs con- analysis of the issue, displaying that they truly understand all the arguments for. A lot of the opposition seems so glib and content with the status quo, showing very little charity to the idea, often based on very contrived scenarios, or on the failure of isolated one-off efforts (one factory switched, this happened...). Yes, it's true, you lose some privacy and there's weird stalking scenarios that could occur. However, on a social level, the positive mass externalities seem huge: - Fundamentally hardcore pro-market: More information makes for better economic agents. Full stop. - Undermine the status arms-race to display wealth. - Immediate career education for all kids everywhere. No more "wow I didn't know x job paid y", it's all out there in the open. - Easier to negotiate against big entities like HR as a "little guy" because you have similar info to them (which they pay for). - Less race/sex/etc based discrimination. - Bosses cannot ask workers to tighten their belts without also tightening their own. - Allow people to tie vague concepts ("how are teachers valued by society?") to real, meaningful personal experiences ("George is a great teacher and making a pittance compared to Greg the salesman!") I don't know. I'm totally into the idea. It seems like a thing that both hardcore free-market libertarians and left-wing people pining for the proletariat or w/e could both readily agree upon and promote together. The bulk of the opposition seems to be a fear of what could be done with the information, but the information is basically all out there already, in the hands of the people who already have a lot of power. Your boss drives a nicer car than you, and his boss an even nicer one. This would just let you actually do math with the numbers and calculate whether you want to shop around for jobs, rather than stay stuck with a vague impression.

jomamaxx 10y ago
" Easier to negotiate against big entities like HR as a "little guy" because you have similar info to them (which they pay for)." This if upside down - in fact - it will reinforce class. Do you know why your employer may ask in an interview: 'How much did you earn before'? Because they know if they offer you a little bit more than before, you'll probably take it - even if it's 'under market wages'. Someone who earns very little can be held to that lower income, and there's also a social stigma to it: if you're a low-income earner - you will be judged as less valuable than high income earners. People will judge the value of people by how much they earn - making it very difficult for working class people or students to move up. Also - it's a deep transgression of human rights. Your finances are your private information, nobody should have the right to see them unless there is a case for 'public good' i.e. public officials etc. Also - your idea of libertarian in this case is a little upside down - this is the opposite of classical liberalism. It's massive government overreach. Classical liberals would be very weary of having the government interfere in one's private life. By your logic - your bank account, your investments, land holdings etc. etc. could feasibly be public knowledge. All of those supposed 'good things' are intangible - there's no evidence they will happen (or are good). It's classic socialist folly: a 'do gooder idea that really is just more state control. I have no doubt that in some cases, income could be public information - for example, state officials should have to publish certain kinds of information - especially stock ownership and business contracts so that we can ward off corruption. But in general, we should be deferring to privacy.

jomamaxx 10y ago

" Easier to negotiate against big entities like HR as a "little guy" because you have similar info to them (which they pay for)." This if upside down - in fact - it will reinforce class. Do you know why your employer may ask in an interview: 'How much did you earn before'? Because they know if they offer you a little bit more than before, you'll probably take it - even if it's 'under market wages'. Someone who earns very little can be held to that lower income, and there's also a social stigma to it: if you're a low-income earner - you will be judged as less valuable than high income earners. People will judge the value of people by how much they earn - making it very difficult for working class people or students to move up. Also - it's a deep transgression of human rights. Your finances are your private information, nobody should have the right to see them unless there is a case for 'public good' i.e. public officials etc. Also - your idea of libertarian in this case is a little upside down - this is the opposite of classical liberalism. It's massive government overreach. Classical liberals would be very weary of having the government interfere in one's private life. By your logic - your bank account, your investments, land holdings etc. etc. could feasibly be public knowledge. All of those supposed 'good things' are intangible - there's no evidence they will happen (or are good). It's classic socialist folly: a 'do gooder idea that really is just more state control. I have no doubt that in some cases, income could be public information - for example, state officials should have to publish certain kinds of information - especially stock ownership and business contracts so that we can ward off corruption. But in general, we should be deferring to privacy.