14 ms·

Of course salaries shouldn't be secret - everything like this should be in the open and you should be able to talk directly to your boss about contributions to

Of course salaries shouldn't be secret - everything like this should be in the open and you should be able to talk directly to your boss about contributions to the company that you have made over and above those who are earning more than you. This also helps when in most societies women are paid substantially and illegally less than men for the same job. This prudish idea of not wanting to talk about money is not a good enough one to stop people from being able to value themselves against their peers. After an initial period of concern everyone would eventually stop worrying about this system as disparities were corrected and fairer wages were introduced. Is there a reason not to have open salary information?

991281911 9y ago
> Is there a reason not to have open salary information? There is a school of thought that after childhood one should some degree of self control and agency. This entails the right to privacy. Freedoms like not being tagged like an animal (fingerprints in passports) and such have already been lost. I think your hypothesis that these lists can be used for better salary negotiation does not work. Look at the salaries in these countries and compare them to U.S. ones.
krona 9y ago
Is there a reason not to have open salary information? If any future employer or recruiter could see how much I'm currently paid (as in Norway) then that would place significant downward pressure on my salary over the long term. Thinking longer term again, I think public record salaries combined with dynamic pricing, facial recognition and a cashless society is a combination of things most people should be worried about.
- walshemj 9y ago
  And unfortunately the tabloid press would use this to attack people why they don't like or disagree with - Norway does not have a nasty tabloid press like some other countries. It could also be used by criminals scoping out targets for burglary
  - jpatokal 9y ago
    Finland has the same system as Norway, and Finnish tabloids are full of the incomes & taxes of the rich and famous every year once the tax records come out. Last year, one of them published the tax records of all Finns earning over 120k EUR/year: http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/ http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/ http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/top-kaikki.shtml http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/top-kaikki.shtml (the top 2000)
    - Sharlin 9y ago
      But there doesn't seem to be any nefarious agenda to that, simply that it sells papers.
      - walshemj 9y ago
        and you think the ends justify the means for news papers no matter what the human cost ?
        Sharlin 9y ago
        What human cost?
        walshemj 9y ago
        Lives destroyed dead girls phones hacked forced suicides take your pic
        Sleeep 9y ago
        What?
        Sharlin 9y ago
        Not sure what that has to do specifically with publishing the incomes of rich people. Also, in general, Finnish yellow press is really damn tame compared to "real" tabloids like those in the UK.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Not necessarily. Being able to see what everybody else at the future company earns could put upward pressure on your salary in the long term.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Can you elaborate on why do you think that it "would place significant downward pressure on my salary" ? I agree that in a particular single negotiation if it just so happens that they have this information then it could be a significant impact one way or the other (depending on what that history is) - especially since there's an information asymmetry since they know what you're making but you don't know what their other employees or the other applicants are making. However, if it's a policy so that this information is available for both sides in every negotiation for everyone then it doesn't seem that this should fundamentally change the average pay in any industry. The core supply/demand factors are the same, and for every instance that might lower the wage there's are many cases that would have an upward pressure, i.e., the underpaid people can now objectively see which other companies pay better, and such employers can't simply rely that long-term loyal employees will be ignorant about the market rates as they do now.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    "it seems" "should" The world doesn't work like that. > The underpaid people can now objectively see which other companies pay better You mean, the ignorant people who don't care about pay, can now demand more? If you are being underpaid, it is because you don't care enough to 1) figure out what market rate is and/or 2) negotiate better. Salaries being public or not. No one deserves anything in life and you often get what you negotiate -- there are plenty of people who don't understand this. Just because other companies (publicly) pay more, doesn't mean they will get the same pay as the other people are making.
    - Sleeep 9y ago
      How on Earth do I, personally, "figure out the market rate" for my job? The market gives me either no information or false information (at the very least unverifiable and untrustworthy information). I can ask my coworkers their salary I have no idea if they are being truthful if they answer (which they won't). I don't live in San Fransisco and I don't have any personal friends in the industry (and friends lie too). Software engineering jobs don't come up often here and when they do a salary range for the position isn't posted. If I am offered a new job my position in the salary negotiation is reduced since I still don't have any information about typical salaries, so we are at a catch 22. Additionally, I wouldn't want to actually negotiate salary for a job I'm not interested in because I'd like to not be known as the person who is constantly getting job offers then rejecting them, the market I small here.
js8 9y ago
> Is there a reason not to have open salary information? Well, I have a reason. My company (a mid-size publicly traded U.S. corporation) would be ashamed, if my salary was public (they don't actually pay that bad, but I guess it could be better). You see, my company is quite emotional, and I kinda like it, so I don't want to get it embarrassed. But I do fully support the right to count your own money in public, yes. Edit: I am just playing with framing here. You should have, at least, the right to publish your own salary (and perhaps start a movement of people who do that). And perhaps companies don't want you to have that right because it would make them look bad; although if it wouldn't, why the hell not?
patrickaljord 9y ago
> Is there a reason not to have open salary information? The right to privacy? The right for two consenting adults to contract privately without interference from the State?
- throwaway7645 9y ago
  Upvote...I don't see why that should be public. It ruins the incentive to work harder as I bet companies are far more likely to pay everyone the same [no sources on that].
  - gcb0 9y ago
    there is one real life example why your argument is as wrong as possible. professors in the UC system have public salaries, like any other public employee, and it isn't a linear communist apocalypse for salaries like you think. prof still work hard to move and create departments, etc. and the salaries vary wildly, not just with seniority. ...on the other hand, senate and congress does prove your point. ironically with people elected spewing the same liberal pipe dreams against the very way they get paid and accumulate retirements.
    - patrickaljord 9y ago
      > professors in the UC system have public salaries Professors have public salaries because their salaries are paid by the public. I don't think anyone here is arguing against being able to know how much your employees make, that's kind of a given.
      - urbanj 9y ago
        Customers of your organisation pay your salary so they should also be entitled to know your salary, right?
    - throwaway7645 9y ago
      If you own a business, you don't think you should be able to pay each employee whatever you want as long as above minimum wage? Besides taxes, I'm not sure how that's anyone's business besides the employer & employee.
rimliu 9y ago
> most societies women are paid substantially and illegally > less than men for the same job Source? Quite a bold claim about "most societies". And the danger of mixing up "women earn less" with "women are paid for the same job [and same amount of time spend doing it]".
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  Okay, well let's take the BBC as a microcosm shall we? One of the most liberal places you can possibly work and overwhelmingly all the top jobs go to men (2/3 men) and men are paid more for similar value of work. Here's a link: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40653383 http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40653383 The idea you could possibly be arguing other organisations than the BBC are fairer is absurd - they are most likely far worse!
  - 10918239111 9y ago
    AND THE SALARIES ARE APPARENTLY KNOWN, DEBUNKING YOUR THESIS THAT SALARY DISCLOSURE LEADS TO FAIRER WAGES.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    I would say that, while the BBC salary thing is obviously concerning, it’s also a bad example for the general case.
    - andy_ppp 9y ago
      It’s a datapoint clearly demonstrating that women aren’t paid the same as men for the same work. I’m not sure you couldn’t dismiss every example so trivially.
      - zimablue 9y ago
        The entertainment industry is one of the worst possible places to look to try and define "same work". You can easily have two people sat next to eachother where the audience wouldn't care if one was replaced but would leave if the other was. It's like saying musicians should all be paid the same. I'm left wing and feminist as they come but this gender pay gap narrative is so consistently misrepresented it drives me mad. We're slipping into a society where all professions have quotas because everyone is terrified of a false narrative.
samsonradu 9y ago
One reason against open salaries is that people would do a poor job in valuing other people's jobs and the whole idea of fair wages would be extremely subjective. It's not uncommon the case where an employee is frustrated with his manager earning X times more than them while doing 2h lunch meetings every day. The manager might bring tremendous business value though.
- walshemj 9y ago
  yes its I am poorly paid you got lucky and they are vastly overpaid, of course the person you think is over paid may well think the same about you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
woodpanel 9y ago
Reason not to have open salary? Disclaimer: I do think too, that eschewing to talk about their salaries hurts all of us most of the time. But... When I saw that at a job a real bully-like dickhead got consistently underpaid the last thing any of us well paid people would have done is to tell him our numbers. The only reason he told us his salary was to make us jealous...
TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
> This also helps when in most societies women are paid substantially and illegally less than men for the same job. Any sources to back up this claim? I've seen it a few times, but whenever I dig into the source, it's usually poorly done or playing with numbers. I'll admit I've only dug into the topic a little, and most of the reading I've done has been focused on the US. I remember reading a while back how some Google employees started sharing their salary, and I think they found there was potentially some degree of discrimination of women. I never dug deeply into it though, and I don't know the ultimate outcome. I don't deny that it could be accurate, I just haven't seen enough information to be convinced. FWIW, I think you should be able to abstain for providing any of this information, if you want. It should be up to the person to make the choice. Personally, I'd probably be fine with sharing my salary for my workplace, but not my full taxes, which might include other sources of income. One good reason to not want to share this information is that you might not want others to know that you're engaging in other activities. To give an example which I've seen affect others, I've read of women that have been harassed and ultimately fired upon finding out that they're "camwhores" outside of work; although I'll note that I can't verify the veracity of such claims, and I haven't read of it happening in the US. Ultimately, it comes down to being in control of the information being shared, and with whom. Ideally, I want as little information as possible to be publicly available, unless I choose otherwise. For example, I don't mind telling someone my height or weight, but I'd object to having it be publicly available. Whenever some piece of information of mine is publicly available, it's used in a way which I dislike. For example, credit card companies require you to fucking opt-out from their spam. The audacity of that is absurd. I think information should be controlled by a trusted party (i.e. government), and people should have to information to share it freely by opting in to different programs. I fundamentally disagree with anything that requires me to opt-out (maybe with a few minor exceptions, regarding certain communications coming from the government).
- petre 9y ago
  Women do get paid less after birth leave, mostly because skill rot, networking going down the drain etc. The ones that stick to their career and don't have kids are paid pretty much the same amount as men. The birth leave thing skews the statistics, as for the majority of women, children are more important than pay. It's not fair, especially for single mothers. No source whatsoever but I've read in an article linked from HN.
calafrax 9y ago
Ultimately people guess and judge each other based on what they think each other's salaries are even if they don't know. Hiding information only creates confusion and prevents markets from operating efficiently. There is no legitimate economic justification for salaries being secret. Only tradition and superstition.
charlesdm 9y ago
Sorry, don't agree. It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself. Unless you actually want everyone in a society to make close to the same amount of money (which is how they roll in Norway, and if you dare make more, they'll basically just tax it away), which I don't think is great, I'd much rather not have anything be public. In fact, I would never want to live in a country like that. The people that want to figure out how much others are making can figure it out. From a negotiating position, you're much better off not having your salary be public, than the other way around. Also, you want to have some inequality in western society (not crazy amounts -- basic needs of everyone should be met), because it motivates people to achieve things. If there's no reasonable reward waiting for you at the end, why even bother? Norway has high income taxes, high capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, crazy taxes on (luxury) cars, high VAT, high taxes on alcohol, etc. Where's the reward? The warm fuzzy feeling you get from working hard? Hell, where's the fun? I don't see how one could ever be an entrepreneur there. Even if you win, you eventually lose (wealth tax), unless you move away.
- user5994461 9y ago
  There is no reward in working hard. Better keep that time for you and your family.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    You can work hard for 5 years, make a killing, and never work again. You need to give the people that are interested in that at least the choice.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      A lottery ticket is still a lottery ticket, whether you acquire it at a gas station or though your options agreement. Don't advocate for damaging the fabric of society where everyone should struggle for some Libertarian fantasy that anyone can be fantastically wealthy with enough grit; it's mostly luck.
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
fpig 9y ago
I think the problem is that people value themselves in different ways (and often the criteria is skewed to be more favorable for themselves). For example, I tend to extremely highly value people to whom I go for advice/help. These usually end up being people who are extremely smart and have a both wide and deep technical knowledge. They have almost always been programming for a long time and have a huge interest in the field, and have written all kinds of applications in various technologies. At the same time, you have a lot of developers who started programming in college, read online about how to become a good developer, decided on technologies whey want to work with, read the staple books for that, wrote a bunch of applications in them, read some books on software architecture, on development process, etc, then got a job at a company which uses some of the technologies they are familiar with. Compared to group #1, they have a huge "knowledge debt" that will never disappear because they're focusing on learning things that are the most relevant to their current work. But this knowledge debt doesn't apply to everything that needs to get done at a company. People from group #2 often consider themselves just as good as group #1 because they believe a huge part of knowledge group #1 has and they don't is irrelevant for the job. And in some ways, they're right. But they're also wrong, because group #1 adds business value by being able to solve the hardest problems and being the guys you go to for help when you get stuck. At the same time, the people from group #1 often consider themselves much better than group #2. Which again, in a way might be right, but also wrong because group #2 might still do just fine in practice in most situations. Of course these are not distinct groups, in reality most people are somewhere in between, being better in some areas and weaker in others, and this makes it even harder to compare 2 individuals in such a way that both of them will agree with the result. Secret salaries allow the management to decide how much business value someone adds without having to explain themselves to 2 people who likely have skewed (each in their own favor) perspectives. It also prevents negative feelings between employees themselves. It is also good for the salaries of those that the company is willing to pay a lot, they don't have to worry about what others will say. It solves the "if I give it to you I have to give it to everyone" problem. The downsides are that 1) salaries are likely a bit lower overall due to information imbalance and 2) people who are bad at negotiating get unfairly screwed.
- mirko22 9y ago
  > 2) people who are bad at negotiating get unfairly screwed. I am bad at negotiating, but I always felt like this is a skill like any other. I feel that saying people who are bad at negotiating get paid less it is like saying people who are not as good at their job get paid less. Well, yes... Why would it be wrong if you are good negotiator and good worker to be paid more then if you are bad negotiator and good worker, or good negotiator and bad worker, or bad negotiator and bad worker... To me this seems perfectly fair. I don't go asking for raises as my negotiation skills are awful, I get them offered to me cos I work as much as I can with highest quality I can attain. Otherwise I totally agree with your comment.
gehwartzen 9y ago
The problem is the notion of same pay for "the same job". In order to judge if to people deserve the same pay you have to know if they are really doing the same job, have the same knowledge, and produce an equal economic output for the company. This might be easy if you are making widgets and the only important outputs are units produced and defect rates but near impossible with more complicated work that is highly variable or more cognitive in nature. Simply knowing pay and job title is not enough.

991281911 9y ago

> Is there a reason not to have open salary information? There is a school of thought that after childhood one should some degree of self control and agency. This entails the right to privacy. Freedoms like not being tagged like an animal (fingerprints in passports) and such have already been lost. I think your hypothesis that these lists can be used for better salary negotiation does not work. Look at the salaries in these countries and compare them to U.S. ones.

krona 9y ago

Is there a reason not to have open salary information? If any future employer or recruiter could see how much I'm currently paid (as in Norway) then that would place significant downward pressure on my salary over the long term. Thinking longer term again, I think public record salaries combined with dynamic pricing, facial recognition and a cashless society is a combination of things most people should be worried about.

walshemj 9y ago
And unfortunately the tabloid press would use this to attack people why they don't like or disagree with - Norway does not have a nasty tabloid press like some other countries. It could also be used by criminals scoping out targets for burglary
- jpatokal 9y ago
  Finland has the same system as Norway, and Finnish tabloids are full of the incomes & taxes of the rich and famous every year once the tax records come out. Last year, one of them published the tax records of all Finns earning over 120k EUR/year: http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/ http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/ http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/top-kaikki.shtml http://www.iltalehti.fi/verot-2016/tiedot/top-kaikki.shtml (the top 2000)
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    But there doesn't seem to be any nefarious agenda to that, simply that it sells papers.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      and you think the ends justify the means for news papers no matter what the human cost ?
      - Sharlin 9y ago
        What human cost?
        walshemj 9y ago
        Lives destroyed dead girls phones hacked forced suicides take your pic
        Sleeep 9y ago
        What?
        Sharlin 9y ago
        Not sure what that has to do specifically with publishing the incomes of rich people. Also, in general, Finnish yellow press is really damn tame compared to "real" tabloids like those in the UK.
crdoconnor 9y ago
Not necessarily. Being able to see what everybody else at the future company earns could put upward pressure on your salary in the long term.
PeterisP 9y ago
Can you elaborate on why do you think that it "would place significant downward pressure on my salary" ? I agree that in a particular single negotiation if it just so happens that they have this information then it could be a significant impact one way or the other (depending on what that history is) - especially since there's an information asymmetry since they know what you're making but you don't know what their other employees or the other applicants are making. However, if it's a policy so that this information is available for both sides in every negotiation for everyone then it doesn't seem that this should fundamentally change the average pay in any industry. The core supply/demand factors are the same, and for every instance that might lower the wage there's are many cases that would have an upward pressure, i.e., the underpaid people can now objectively see which other companies pay better, and such employers can't simply rely that long-term loyal employees will be ignorant about the market rates as they do now.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  "it seems" "should" The world doesn't work like that. > The underpaid people can now objectively see which other companies pay better You mean, the ignorant people who don't care about pay, can now demand more? If you are being underpaid, it is because you don't care enough to 1) figure out what market rate is and/or 2) negotiate better. Salaries being public or not. No one deserves anything in life and you often get what you negotiate -- there are plenty of people who don't understand this. Just because other companies (publicly) pay more, doesn't mean they will get the same pay as the other people are making.
  - Sleeep 9y ago
    How on Earth do I, personally, "figure out the market rate" for my job? The market gives me either no information or false information (at the very least unverifiable and untrustworthy information). I can ask my coworkers their salary I have no idea if they are being truthful if they answer (which they won't). I don't live in San Fransisco and I don't have any personal friends in the industry (and friends lie too). Software engineering jobs don't come up often here and when they do a salary range for the position isn't posted. If I am offered a new job my position in the salary negotiation is reduced since I still don't have any information about typical salaries, so we are at a catch 22. Additionally, I wouldn't want to actually negotiate salary for a job I'm not interested in because I'd like to not be known as the person who is constantly getting job offers then rejecting them, the market I small here.

js8 9y ago

> Is there a reason not to have open salary information? Well, I have a reason. My company (a mid-size publicly traded U.S. corporation) would be ashamed, if my salary was public (they don't actually pay that bad, but I guess it could be better). You see, my company is quite emotional, and I kinda like it, so I don't want to get it embarrassed. But I do fully support the right to count your own money in public, yes. Edit: I am just playing with framing here. You should have, at least, the right to publish your own salary (and perhaps start a movement of people who do that). And perhaps companies don't want you to have that right because it would make them look bad; although if it wouldn't, why the hell not?

patrickaljord 9y ago

> Is there a reason not to have open salary information? The right to privacy? The right for two consenting adults to contract privately without interference from the State?

throwaway7645 9y ago
Upvote...I don't see why that should be public. It ruins the incentive to work harder as I bet companies are far more likely to pay everyone the same [no sources on that].
- gcb0 9y ago
  there is one real life example why your argument is as wrong as possible. professors in the UC system have public salaries, like any other public employee, and it isn't a linear communist apocalypse for salaries like you think. prof still work hard to move and create departments, etc. and the salaries vary wildly, not just with seniority. ...on the other hand, senate and congress does prove your point. ironically with people elected spewing the same liberal pipe dreams against the very way they get paid and accumulate retirements.
  - patrickaljord 9y ago
    > professors in the UC system have public salaries Professors have public salaries because their salaries are paid by the public. I don't think anyone here is arguing against being able to know how much your employees make, that's kind of a given.
    - urbanj 9y ago
      Customers of your organisation pay your salary so they should also be entitled to know your salary, right?
  - throwaway7645 9y ago
    If you own a business, you don't think you should be able to pay each employee whatever you want as long as above minimum wage? Besides taxes, I'm not sure how that's anyone's business besides the employer & employee.

rimliu 9y ago

> most societies women are paid substantially and illegally > less than men for the same job Source? Quite a bold claim about "most societies". And the danger of mixing up "women earn less" with "women are paid for the same job [and same amount of time spend doing it]".

andy_ppp 9y ago
Okay, well let's take the BBC as a microcosm shall we? One of the most liberal places you can possibly work and overwhelmingly all the top jobs go to men (2/3 men) and men are paid more for similar value of work. Here's a link: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40653383 http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40653383 The idea you could possibly be arguing other organisations than the BBC are fairer is absurd - they are most likely far worse!
- 10918239111 9y ago
  AND THE SALARIES ARE APPARENTLY KNOWN, DEBUNKING YOUR THESIS THAT SALARY DISCLOSURE LEADS TO FAIRER WAGES.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  I would say that, while the BBC salary thing is obviously concerning, it’s also a bad example for the general case.
  - andy_ppp 9y ago
    It’s a datapoint clearly demonstrating that women aren’t paid the same as men for the same work. I’m not sure you couldn’t dismiss every example so trivially.
    - zimablue 9y ago
      The entertainment industry is one of the worst possible places to look to try and define "same work". You can easily have two people sat next to eachother where the audience wouldn't care if one was replaced but would leave if the other was. It's like saying musicians should all be paid the same. I'm left wing and feminist as they come but this gender pay gap narrative is so consistently misrepresented it drives me mad. We're slipping into a society where all professions have quotas because everyone is terrified of a false narrative.

samsonradu 9y ago

One reason against open salaries is that people would do a poor job in valuing other people's jobs and the whole idea of fair wages would be extremely subjective. It's not uncommon the case where an employee is frustrated with his manager earning X times more than them while doing 2h lunch meetings every day. The manager might bring tremendous business value though.

walshemj 9y ago
yes its I am poorly paid you got lucky and they are vastly overpaid, of course the person you think is over paid may well think the same about you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

woodpanel 9y ago

Reason not to have open salary? Disclaimer: I do think too, that eschewing to talk about their salaries hurts all of us most of the time. But... When I saw that at a job a real bully-like dickhead got consistently underpaid the last thing any of us well paid people would have done is to tell him our numbers. The only reason he told us his salary was to make us jealous...

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago

> This also helps when in most societies women are paid substantially and illegally less than men for the same job. Any sources to back up this claim? I've seen it a few times, but whenever I dig into the source, it's usually poorly done or playing with numbers. I'll admit I've only dug into the topic a little, and most of the reading I've done has been focused on the US. I remember reading a while back how some Google employees started sharing their salary, and I think they found there was potentially some degree of discrimination of women. I never dug deeply into it though, and I don't know the ultimate outcome. I don't deny that it could be accurate, I just haven't seen enough information to be convinced. FWIW, I think you should be able to abstain for providing any of this information, if you want. It should be up to the person to make the choice. Personally, I'd probably be fine with sharing my salary for my workplace, but not my full taxes, which might include other sources of income. One good reason to not want to share this information is that you might not want others to know that you're engaging in other activities. To give an example which I've seen affect others, I've read of women that have been harassed and ultimately fired upon finding out that they're "camwhores" outside of work; although I'll note that I can't verify the veracity of such claims, and I haven't read of it happening in the US. Ultimately, it comes down to being in control of the information being shared, and with whom. Ideally, I want as little information as possible to be publicly available, unless I choose otherwise. For example, I don't mind telling someone my height or weight, but I'd object to having it be publicly available. Whenever some piece of information of mine is publicly available, it's used in a way which I dislike. For example, credit card companies require you to fucking opt-out from their spam. The audacity of that is absurd. I think information should be controlled by a trusted party (i.e. government), and people should have to information to share it freely by opting in to different programs. I fundamentally disagree with anything that requires me to opt-out (maybe with a few minor exceptions, regarding certain communications coming from the government).

petre 9y ago
Women do get paid less after birth leave, mostly because skill rot, networking going down the drain etc. The ones that stick to their career and don't have kids are paid pretty much the same amount as men. The birth leave thing skews the statistics, as for the majority of women, children are more important than pay. It's not fair, especially for single mothers. No source whatsoever but I've read in an article linked from HN.

calafrax 9y ago

Ultimately people guess and judge each other based on what they think each other's salaries are even if they don't know. Hiding information only creates confusion and prevents markets from operating efficiently. There is no legitimate economic justification for salaries being secret. Only tradition and superstition.

charlesdm 9y ago

Sorry, don't agree. It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself. Unless you actually want everyone in a society to make close to the same amount of money (which is how they roll in Norway, and if you dare make more, they'll basically just tax it away), which I don't think is great, I'd much rather not have anything be public. In fact, I would never want to live in a country like that. The people that want to figure out how much others are making can figure it out. From a negotiating position, you're much better off not having your salary be public, than the other way around. Also, you want to have some inequality in western society (not crazy amounts -- basic needs of everyone should be met), because it motivates people to achieve things. If there's no reasonable reward waiting for you at the end, why even bother? Norway has high income taxes, high capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, crazy taxes on (luxury) cars, high VAT, high taxes on alcohol, etc. Where's the reward? The warm fuzzy feeling you get from working hard? Hell, where's the fun? I don't see how one could ever be an entrepreneur there. Even if you win, you eventually lose (wealth tax), unless you move away.

user5994461 9y ago
There is no reward in working hard. Better keep that time for you and your family.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  You can work hard for 5 years, make a killing, and never work again. You need to give the people that are interested in that at least the choice.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    A lottery ticket is still a lottery ticket, whether you acquire it at a gas station or though your options agreement. Don't advocate for damaging the fabric of society where everyone should struggle for some Libertarian fantasy that anyone can be fantastically wealthy with enough grit; it's mostly luck.
Hasknewbie 9y ago

fpig 9y ago

I think the problem is that people value themselves in different ways (and often the criteria is skewed to be more favorable for themselves). For example, I tend to extremely highly value people to whom I go for advice/help. These usually end up being people who are extremely smart and have a both wide and deep technical knowledge. They have almost always been programming for a long time and have a huge interest in the field, and have written all kinds of applications in various technologies. At the same time, you have a lot of developers who started programming in college, read online about how to become a good developer, decided on technologies whey want to work with, read the staple books for that, wrote a bunch of applications in them, read some books on software architecture, on development process, etc, then got a job at a company which uses some of the technologies they are familiar with. Compared to group #1, they have a huge "knowledge debt" that will never disappear because they're focusing on learning things that are the most relevant to their current work. But this knowledge debt doesn't apply to everything that needs to get done at a company. People from group #2 often consider themselves just as good as group #1 because they believe a huge part of knowledge group #1 has and they don't is irrelevant for the job. And in some ways, they're right. But they're also wrong, because group #1 adds business value by being able to solve the hardest problems and being the guys you go to for help when you get stuck. At the same time, the people from group #1 often consider themselves much better than group #2. Which again, in a way might be right, but also wrong because group #2 might still do just fine in practice in most situations. Of course these are not distinct groups, in reality most people are somewhere in between, being better in some areas and weaker in others, and this makes it even harder to compare 2 individuals in such a way that both of them will agree with the result. Secret salaries allow the management to decide how much business value someone adds without having to explain themselves to 2 people who likely have skewed (each in their own favor) perspectives. It also prevents negative feelings between employees themselves. It is also good for the salaries of those that the company is willing to pay a lot, they don't have to worry about what others will say. It solves the "if I give it to you I have to give it to everyone" problem. The downsides are that 1) salaries are likely a bit lower overall due to information imbalance and 2) people who are bad at negotiating get unfairly screwed.

mirko22 9y ago
> 2) people who are bad at negotiating get unfairly screwed. I am bad at negotiating, but I always felt like this is a skill like any other. I feel that saying people who are bad at negotiating get paid less it is like saying people who are not as good at their job get paid less. Well, yes... Why would it be wrong if you are good negotiator and good worker to be paid more then if you are bad negotiator and good worker, or good negotiator and bad worker, or bad negotiator and bad worker... To me this seems perfectly fair. I don't go asking for raises as my negotiation skills are awful, I get them offered to me cos I work as much as I can with highest quality I can attain. Otherwise I totally agree with your comment.

gehwartzen 9y ago

The problem is the notion of same pay for "the same job". In order to judge if to people deserve the same pay you have to know if they are really doing the same job, have the same knowledge, and produce an equal economic output for the company. This might be easy if you are making widgets and the only important outputs are units produced and defect rates but near impossible with more complicated work that is highly variable or more cognitive in nature. Simply knowing pay and job title is not enough.