3 ms·

Anytime two people compare salaries, at least one person gets angry. Sometimes two.

exclusiv 10y ago
So true. Most people can't handle it. It's all relative to them and it's not usually logical. I worked for a small startup some time ago where the owner was paying me more than she paid herself but eventually we only had 2 employees left and everything became transparent. My friend (in sales) became all upset about his salary in relation to mine and they gave him a bump. I was eventually the last one left though. That was my first professional job and it's ironic my buddy in sales couldn't negotiate a rate he thought was fair. He's actually quite good. People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. And then they don't even offer a compelling reason for why they think they are worth more, which is really why they weren't being paid what they think they should have gotten in the first place. It's every employee's responsibility to know their value and to be able to articulate it. That's a very important dynamic of the workforce whether people like it or not. My favorite collegiate course of all time had only one agenda - to teach us to think differently in a way to be compelling and persuade. Every project was related to that premise. We don't have enough of these types of courses and that shifts more power to the employers.
- sgift 10y ago
  > People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. Is that an argument? If yes, I don't see it. If people believe that they couldn't earn more they are probably "perfectly fine" due to this missing information. Then they learn what their peers make and think - rightfully* - "just a moment, I do the same job, to the same quality, why is my peer earning more than I am?" which in itself is already a compelling reason (so, your next point usually does not apply). > It's every employee's responsibility to know their value and to be able to articulate it. That's a very important dynamic of the workforce whether people like it or not. And open-salary makes this easier and harder to screw people over using information-asymmetry. * Yes, there are some people who just don't work as good as their peers and that's the reason they don't earn as much. From all I've seen over the years I am absolutely sure that this doesn't count for a significant part of the workforce compared to the part of the workforce that does a job comparable to their peers but still earns less income.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. Social status and "saving face" is very important, and open salaries essentially force some people to be publicly downranked - either by having salaries reflecting their worth (showing some people as not equal to others) or by having mostly salaries (downplaying people who do deserve more). Often, ignorance actually is bliss; as the lower paid people can keep believing that they're equally valued - opening the salaries can't make them equally valued, they're still be low-paid, but now they'll be angry about it.
    - sgift 10y ago
      > Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. Then our experiences differ (which is sad but okay) - I have seen, multiple times, the situation that not only the person who uttered it thought it was true but the better paid peers agreed (and yes, they agreed in private, not only in public where they had to fear to be judged if they said "well no, he is not as good as he thinks").
    - mathattack 10y ago
      Performance is also very hard to measure quantitatively, so everyone allows bias to creep in. There are fields where this is less true (Sales) but even then a lot is based on the hand you're dealt.
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      > I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. So true. I actually had to have a very candid conversation with my business partner and explain to him that my time is more valuable than his based on how and where I contribute and market value, I can't put in time in direct proportion to the time he puts in. It was a tough thing to discuss but he understood and it was a very good conversation to have so we could move forward with a better understanding. This wasn't a salary conversation but a value conversation which forced him to really think of both of us and the company. There are also intangibles that people overlook. If someone is more pleasant to collaborate with and adds more value culturally, that could be why they are paid more. Most companies aren't running an assembly line where doing the same job may be more likely. When salary "discrepancies" are found out, employees won't learn a lesson and take ownership for their situation. They'll spend time investing in their skill-set but they won't spend a little time here and there to do market research or go interview a few times each year or every other year. There's also specialists who can tell you what market rate is for your position if you need help. If you don't accept this as part of the workforce, be prepared to be earn less. That's on you.

So true. Most people can't handle it. It's all relative to them and it's not usually logical. I worked for a small startup some time ago where the owner was paying me more than she paid herself but eventually we only had 2 employees left and everything became transparent. My friend (in sales) became all upset about his salary in relation to mine and they gave him a bump. I was eventually the last one left though. That was my first professional job and it's ironic my buddy in sales couldn't negotiate a rate he thought was fair. He's actually quite good. People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. And then they don't even offer a compelling reason for why they think they are worth more, which is really why they weren't being paid what they think they should have gotten in the first place. It's every employee's responsibility to know their value and to be able to articulate it. That's a very important dynamic of the workforce whether people like it or not. My favorite collegiate course of all time had only one agenda - to teach us to think differently in a way to be compelling and persuade. Every project was related to that premise. We don't have enough of these types of courses and that shifts more power to the employers.

sgift 10y ago
> People are perfectly fine working for YEARS with their own valuation and then all of a sudden they think they're worth more because someone else is making more. Is that an argument? If yes, I don't see it. If people believe that they couldn't earn more they are probably "perfectly fine" due to this missing information. Then they learn what their peers make and think - rightfully* - "just a moment, I do the same job, to the same quality, why is my peer earning more than I am?" which in itself is already a compelling reason (so, your next point usually does not apply). > It's every employee's responsibility to know their value and to be able to articulate it. That's a very important dynamic of the workforce whether people like it or not. And open-salary makes this easier and harder to screw people over using information-asymmetry. * Yes, there are some people who just don't work as good as their peers and that's the reason they don't earn as much. From all I've seen over the years I am absolutely sure that this doesn't count for a significant part of the workforce compared to the part of the workforce that does a job comparable to their peers but still earns less income.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. Social status and "saving face" is very important, and open salaries essentially force some people to be publicly downranked - either by having salaries reflecting their worth (showing some people as not equal to others) or by having mostly salaries (downplaying people who do deserve more). Often, ignorance actually is bliss; as the lower paid people can keep believing that they're equally valued - opening the salaries can't make them equally valued, they're still be low-paid, but now they'll be angry about it.
  - sgift 10y ago
    > Every time someone I know professionally has uttered something like "I do the same job to the same quality", it simply wasn't true. Then our experiences differ (which is sad but okay) - I have seen, multiple times, the situation that not only the person who uttered it thought it was true but the better paid peers agreed (and yes, they agreed in private, not only in public where they had to fear to be judged if they said "well no, he is not as good as he thinks").
  - mathattack 10y ago
    Performance is also very hard to measure quantitatively, so everyone allows bias to creep in. There are fields where this is less true (Sales) but even then a lot is based on the hand you're dealt.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    > I'd rather say that the main discomfort coming from salary discussions is not caused by money, but about having some people acknowledge that they're not as "good" or valuable (in that setting) as they'd like to think. So true. I actually had to have a very candid conversation with my business partner and explain to him that my time is more valuable than his based on how and where I contribute and market value, I can't put in time in direct proportion to the time he puts in. It was a tough thing to discuss but he understood and it was a very good conversation to have so we could move forward with a better understanding. This wasn't a salary conversation but a value conversation which forced him to really think of both of us and the company. There are also intangibles that people overlook. If someone is more pleasant to collaborate with and adds more value culturally, that could be why they are paid more. Most companies aren't running an assembly line where doing the same job may be more likely. When salary "discrepancies" are found out, employees won't learn a lesson and take ownership for their situation. They'll spend time investing in their skill-set but they won't spend a little time here and there to do market research or go interview a few times each year or every other year. There's also specialists who can tell you what market rate is for your position if you need help. If you don't accept this as part of the workforce, be prepared to be earn less. That's on you.