4 ms·

So the basic premise of the article and this movement is that people assume that the default is for virtually everybody to be underpaid. So since there is obvio

by xt00 10y ago

So the basic premise of the article and this movement is that people assume that the default is for virtually everybody to be underpaid. So since there is obviously a Gaussian or poission distribution in salaries, then obviously some people will be above what "everybody gets paid". So unless the author solved the somewhat old emotion of ya know jealousy, then this is guaranteed to be a recipe for disaster for most companies. Especially the high performers would feel constantly like their peers would be saying under their breath "and he gets paid so much more for what??".. So yea likely they would be less likely to want to show even the smallest amount of weakness to those people and would likely try to work in a more cautious manner. My thinking is that the problem people are trying to solve is noble but it turns a creative industry into a trade industry like electricians with various levels of seniority and levels of advancement. I think it's better to simply rely upon the glass door type stuff and if you feel like you are underpaid, change your job. Asking for raises I honestly think is a bad way to increase your salary.

crdoconnor 10y ago
"So the basic premise of the article and this movement is that people assume that the default is for virtually everybody to be underpaid. So since there is obviously a Gaussian or poission distribution in salaries, then obviously some people will be above what "everybody gets paid"." Except labor/capital share doesn't follow a gaussian distribution within a company. It's a ratio. It's perfectly plausible (probably likely, in fact) that salary transparency will increase wages for all employees.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  The parent was not comparing labor vs. capital, but rather labor vs. labor e.g. the set of all software engineers at a company. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the salary distribution to fit a bell curve. And I disagree with your conclusion that this would likely increase wages for all employees. In the least, it's very likely to penalize high performers by redistributing their wealth to low performers, so employers can maintain the appearance of "fairness". It's equally likely that this would decrease wages for all employees. If the incentive to perform well is diminished (e.g. "why work harder if you won't be rewarded?"), then it will lower the bar for quality across the board, providing less value to employers, ultimately pushing the price (i.e. wage) downward.
  - spoonie 10y ago
    it's very likely to penalize high performers by redistributing their wealth to low performers Seems to me that the problem here is that company isn't able to convince the low performers that they are low performing. If the high performers are paid more due to some objective metric, the low performers should be able to see their own path to higher performance. If not, then it's the company's problem for having a pay scale that rewards negotiating skills or nepotism over objective performance evaluations.
    - unholiness 10y ago
      Any attempt to "objectively" measure performance to influence salary will actively harm company culture. Unless your company is literally an assembly line, Godhart's law takes over so quickly and your employees are going to spend their time abusing the metric. Just paying employees the market rate, while imperfect, is overwhelmingly preferable.

by xt00 10y ago

crdoconnor 10y ago

"So the basic premise of the article and this movement is that people assume that the default is for virtually everybody to be underpaid. So since there is obviously a Gaussian or poission distribution in salaries, then obviously some people will be above what "everybody gets paid"." Except labor/capital share doesn't follow a gaussian distribution within a company. It's a ratio. It's perfectly plausible (probably likely, in fact) that salary transparency will increase wages for all employees.

programmarchy 10y ago
The parent was not comparing labor vs. capital, but rather labor vs. labor e.g. the set of all software engineers at a company. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the salary distribution to fit a bell curve. And I disagree with your conclusion that this would likely increase wages for all employees. In the least, it's very likely to penalize high performers by redistributing their wealth to low performers, so employers can maintain the appearance of "fairness". It's equally likely that this would decrease wages for all employees. If the incentive to perform well is diminished (e.g. "why work harder if you won't be rewarded?"), then it will lower the bar for quality across the board, providing less value to employers, ultimately pushing the price (i.e. wage) downward.
- spoonie 10y ago
  it's very likely to penalize high performers by redistributing their wealth to low performers Seems to me that the problem here is that company isn't able to convince the low performers that they are low performing. If the high performers are paid more due to some objective metric, the low performers should be able to see their own path to higher performance. If not, then it's the company's problem for having a pay scale that rewards negotiating skills or nepotism over objective performance evaluations.
  - unholiness 10y ago
    Any attempt to "objectively" measure performance to influence salary will actively harm company culture. Unless your company is literally an assembly line, Godhart's law takes over so quickly and your employees are going to spend their time abusing the metric. Just paying employees the market rate, while imperfect, is overwhelmingly preferable.