10 ms·

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

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
>> It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself Sooo, your main argument against this is not some privacy concern, but only the perception that it would somehow help your salary negotiation. When relying on a lack of data/information, the only one that gets increased leverage is your employer, not you and your smart argument of "you just don't need to tell the others, boss <wink>". >> which is how they roll in Norway, and if you dare make more, they'll basically just tax it away Norway's tax rate is on par with other Nordic countries: high but nothing exceptional, and you get plenty of benefits (basically you get what you paid for). It's not stopping anybody from trying to make it. As a matter of fact they have one of the highest rate of millionaires per inhabitant (close to 200k for 5M).
- charlesdm 9y ago
  >> When relying on a lack of data/information, the only one that gets increased leverage is your employer, not you and your smart argument of "you just don't need to tell the others, boss <wink>". This makes no sense. Why wouldn't you be able to figure out how much others are making? There's plenty of data you can gather, online and from talking to people. Just because data is not public doesn't mean no one is willing to share how much they're making. If I'm making $50k, and I tell a new company I want $100k at a new job, there is no way that will fly if they know you're making $50k. But with opacity on salary, proper arguments and decent negotiating skills that is definitely achievable. One example: as a consultant, I have (in the past) easily doubled and/or tripled my rate at times, just based on the setting and by negotiating well. That would never work if everything was public. And in the end, the client was extremely happy with the result + I was happy with the (way above average) increased rate. >> Norway's tax rate is on par with other Nordic countries: high but nothing exceptional, and you get plenty of benefits (basically you get what you paid for). It's not stopping anybody from trying to make it. As a matter of fact they have one of the highest rate of millionaires per inhabitant (close to 200k for 5M). Perhaps. But that's also because of the problematic real estate bubble in Norway and Oslo. In a country where everything is highly taxed, certain asset classes (in this case real estate) get distorted if they are taxed lower. Add to that the reserves in their sovereign wealth fund, and you end up with many millionaires. There's a reason why Tesla was selling a ton of cars in Denmark, and sales plummeted (down from a few hundred to 6 of 8 cars in 6 months?) when they got rid of the tax credit. Benefits and healthcare are great and important -- I'm not saying you need super low taxes. What I'm saying is, if you don't specifically need to be in Norway to build out your business, e.g. it's something internet based, there are better countries to base yourself. Norway is a great country to visit though. I (personally) just couldn't live there, because I don't think the model of such a society would work for me. It's great to be able to have a bottle of wine with friends in a restaurant, without having to pay €300 for your meal + drinks in an average restaurant.
p4bl0 9y ago
> It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself. This means that you believe that you are stronger by negotiating alone just for yourself rather than collectively negotiating as a group of people? How can this work without you winning being to the detriment of others? I know that a lot of people think like you, but I strongly believe that you are wrong. Historically, the individualization of the negotiations between employees and employers is always to the benefit of the employers, not the employees. The negotiation of one's salary is not an equal to equal negotiation, at least as long as there are unemployed people and the society we live in requires people to be employed to live decently. This is exactly why people in France were against the "loi travail" of the previous government, and still are against that of the current government: because one of the main objective of these laws is to inverse the hierarchy of norms. This hierarchy stipulates that the labor legal code is above sector/industry-specific agreements which are above individual contracts. This means that a contract can only be enforced if it is more favorable to the employee than their sector's agreements which in turn are only enforceable if they are more favorable to employees that the labor legal code. This is how you can enforce a nation-wide minimum salary for example, or any other social rights for that matter (good social security, good retirement plans, etc.). > I would never want to live in a country like that. Having some close family living in Norway I can assure you that you are very mislead about how people live there. You know, there are other incentive to work hard than money. Happiness is not measurable with money for everyone, and working hard is not necessarily one's life ideal :).
- fpig 9y ago
  What I believe he's saying is this (charlesdm correct me if I'm wrong): - Management values Alice 100 (by values I mean - we're willing to pay at most that much to keep her) - Management values Bob, Fob and Gob 50 each - Bob, Fob and Gob realize Alice is more valuable, but they don't think she is 2x more valuable If you've worked in development you likely know that difference in value of developers can be massive, but the ones with less value usually don't perceive themselves as being THAT much less valuable and would have a problem with someone they consider a peer being paid 2x their salary, that's just how things are. If they all negotiate separately in secret, Alice can get her 100. But if salaries are public, management knows Bob, Fob and Gob will be resentful if Alice gets 100. So a new effect is introduced: the cost of giving Alice 100 is no longer simply 100, it is 100 + the cost of making Bob, Fob and Gob unsatisfied, introducing drama and perhaps them not being willing to work for 50. So what might happen is: - They will pay Alice 85 - They will pay Bob, Fob and Gob 55 At first glance this might seem like it doesn't make sense, and that it would be economically irrational for the employer to pay Bob, Fob and Gob more than their perceived value. But this additional 3*5 is actually the price of giving Alice more money to keep her without causing drama. Alice is still effectively costing the employer 100, it just doesn't all go to her. Alice should be rationally paid at most the amount 100-3x at which the satisfaction of the other 3 employees with their pay being 50+x instead of 50 balances out their dissatisfaction with Alice being paid more at 100-3x. Alice is basically causing the cost of other employees to grow and has to pay for this. As long as the company is paying Alice 85, the cost of a 50-employee is raised to 55, making Alice effectively cost 100 with 3 other employees. In reality, 85 might be 90 and 55 might be 60 because the additional information the employees now have gives them a stronger overall negotiating position, so the average salary level would likely go up. But I believe Alice would still end up "subsidizing" Bob, Fob and Gob. It would be dishonest to claim that the effect I wrote in italics does not exist. I believe the effect of public salaries, all else equal, would be to move the average a bit up, but also greatly lower the variance. And just so that this isn't purely hypothetical: at my first job, they refused to pay me more than a certain amount because some employees who had been there much longer were being paid that amount. I was literally told this, and my boss even acted like I was somehow being a dick for not agreeing to that number and quitting over this. They had no problems giving me that number but let me quit rather than go over that number. So in reality, an even worse case happens than the one described above, because they either didn't consider the option of giving me less than I was worth and distributing the difference or they thought they couldn't afford me long-term anyway, and if they did what I described above they would just end up stuck with those raises they gave to others (these people were "lifers") after I eventually left. So in effect, to have any chance of being paid more in line with what I was worth, I had to quit and move to a different company, even though the first company did realize my value, it is just that because of the effect I described, the cost of paying me what I was worth would have been much higher than just the amount of my salary. They acted rationally in insisting on underpaying me. This issue doesn't exist with secret salaries.
namlem 9y ago
The reward is getting to spend time with your loved ones or hobbies because over there people work to live instead of living to work.
fergie 9y ago
No. Norway has extremely high salaries, and income tax that is pretty much equivalent to California (about 1/3 of your gross salary after deductions), in fact Norway is one of the easiest countries to become rich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU You could argue that radical financial transparency is what causes this.
- refurb 9y ago
  Income tax about what it is in CA? I'll take your word for it. What about all the other taxes? Car tax, VAT, etc? From what I've seen purchasing power is much lower in Norway. $50K would go much further in US, Canada, UK than Norway.
  - marvin 9y ago
    Summarizing the most important Norwegian taxes, which are in aggregate higher than California's: * 25% VAT on everything except food, which is 12%. Electric vehicles currently exempt * 40% income tax on average including 8% public pension contribution. Highest marginal tax on income is 47%, which applies to incomes greater than $116k. * Employer has to pay 14% of your salary as employment tax. Company profits are taxed at 24% (this is separate from the capital gains tax). Stock-based compensation is taxed as income, so no possibility of weaseling around the employment tax. You won't get stock-based compensation unless you're in a startup or a C-class executive at a (big) private company. The wealth tax does weird things to the valuation of stock options; they'll almost always be worthless unless your company is sold or goes public. * Net assets above ~$175k are taxed at 0.85% p.a, primary residence contributes only 25% of its market value to net assets * 29% capital gains tax, primary residence is exempt as is most tax income from renting out primary residence. Sell your home with $1 million profit? No tax. * On average ~$10k tax on all new motor vehicles, electric vehicles currently exempt * A tax of approximately 30% (~5 NOK per liter) is applied to gasoline, in addition to the 25% VAT. Annual tax of ~$1000 on all motor vehicles, increasing with how good the vehicle is. Electric vehicles currently exempt. * Various taxes on alcohol, tobacco, air travel. Some municipalities have a property tax on the order of ~$500 p.a. for an average residence. I've eyeballed most of the currency conversions.
flurdy 9y ago
> High tax. Where's the reward? The reward is being top of the budget per capita: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_budget_revenues_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_... The goverment has $48K to spend per capita, as opposed to e.g the UK which has $18K. Off course that means little if the gov does not spend it well. But from my experience, it was though not perfect. > I don't see how one could ever be an entrepreneur there. High salaries is an issue, as well as few VCs, especially angel investors. But one can also take risks with the safety net of a well funded wellfare to fall back on. > Even if you win, you eventually lose (wealth tax), unless you move away. Capital tax is far from losing, just an annoyance, that I wish they could forgo.
olavk 9y ago
Nevertheless, Norway have entrepreneurs and people getting rich, and overall it is a very wealthy country. I believe the social mobility is better then in the US. So I guess some of you assumptions must be wrong.

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

>> It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself Sooo, your main argument against this is not some privacy concern, but only the perception that it would somehow help your salary negotiation. When relying on a lack of data/information, the only one that gets increased leverage is your employer, not you and your smart argument of "you just don't need to tell the others, boss <wink>". >> which is how they roll in Norway, and if you dare make more, they'll basically just tax it away Norway's tax rate is on par with other Nordic countries: high but nothing exceptional, and you get plenty of benefits (basically you get what you paid for). It's not stopping anybody from trying to make it. As a matter of fact they have one of the highest rate of millionaires per inhabitant (close to 200k for 5M).

charlesdm 9y ago
>> When relying on a lack of data/information, the only one that gets increased leverage is your employer, not you and your smart argument of "you just don't need to tell the others, boss <wink>". This makes no sense. Why wouldn't you be able to figure out how much others are making? There's plenty of data you can gather, online and from talking to people. Just because data is not public doesn't mean no one is willing to share how much they're making. If I'm making $50k, and I tell a new company I want $100k at a new job, there is no way that will fly if they know you're making $50k. But with opacity on salary, proper arguments and decent negotiating skills that is definitely achievable. One example: as a consultant, I have (in the past) easily doubled and/or tripled my rate at times, just based on the setting and by negotiating well. That would never work if everything was public. And in the end, the client was extremely happy with the result + I was happy with the (way above average) increased rate. >> Norway's tax rate is on par with other Nordic countries: high but nothing exceptional, and you get plenty of benefits (basically you get what you paid for). It's not stopping anybody from trying to make it. As a matter of fact they have one of the highest rate of millionaires per inhabitant (close to 200k for 5M). Perhaps. But that's also because of the problematic real estate bubble in Norway and Oslo. In a country where everything is highly taxed, certain asset classes (in this case real estate) get distorted if they are taxed lower. Add to that the reserves in their sovereign wealth fund, and you end up with many millionaires. There's a reason why Tesla was selling a ton of cars in Denmark, and sales plummeted (down from a few hundred to 6 of 8 cars in 6 months?) when they got rid of the tax credit. Benefits and healthcare are great and important -- I'm not saying you need super low taxes. What I'm saying is, if you don't specifically need to be in Norway to build out your business, e.g. it's something internet based, there are better countries to base yourself. Norway is a great country to visit though. I (personally) just couldn't live there, because I don't think the model of such a society would work for me. It's great to be able to have a bottle of wine with friends in a restaurant, without having to pay €300 for your meal + drinks in an average restaurant.

p4bl0 9y ago

> It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself. This means that you believe that you are stronger by negotiating alone just for yourself rather than collectively negotiating as a group of people? How can this work without you winning being to the detriment of others? I know that a lot of people think like you, but I strongly believe that you are wrong. Historically, the individualization of the negotiations between employees and employers is always to the benefit of the employers, not the employees. The negotiation of one's salary is not an equal to equal negotiation, at least as long as there are unemployed people and the society we live in requires people to be employed to live decently. This is exactly why people in France were against the "loi travail" of the previous government, and still are against that of the current government: because one of the main objective of these laws is to inverse the hierarchy of norms. This hierarchy stipulates that the labor legal code is above sector/industry-specific agreements which are above individual contracts. This means that a contract can only be enforced if it is more favorable to the employee than their sector's agreements which in turn are only enforceable if they are more favorable to employees that the labor legal code. This is how you can enforce a nation-wide minimum salary for example, or any other social rights for that matter (good social security, good retirement plans, etc.). > I would never want to live in a country like that. Having some close family living in Norway I can assure you that you are very mislead about how people live there. You know, there are other incentive to work hard than money. Happiness is not measurable with money for everyone, and working hard is not necessarily one's life ideal :).

fpig 9y ago
What I believe he's saying is this (charlesdm correct me if I'm wrong): - Management values Alice 100 (by values I mean - we're willing to pay at most that much to keep her) - Management values Bob, Fob and Gob 50 each - Bob, Fob and Gob realize Alice is more valuable, but they don't think she is 2x more valuable If you've worked in development you likely know that difference in value of developers can be massive, but the ones with less value usually don't perceive themselves as being THAT much less valuable and would have a problem with someone they consider a peer being paid 2x their salary, that's just how things are. If they all negotiate separately in secret, Alice can get her 100. But if salaries are public, management knows Bob, Fob and Gob will be resentful if Alice gets 100. So a new effect is introduced: the cost of giving Alice 100 is no longer simply 100, it is 100 + the cost of making Bob, Fob and Gob unsatisfied, introducing drama and perhaps them not being willing to work for 50. So what might happen is: - They will pay Alice 85 - They will pay Bob, Fob and Gob 55 At first glance this might seem like it doesn't make sense, and that it would be economically irrational for the employer to pay Bob, Fob and Gob more than their perceived value. But this additional 3*5 is actually the price of giving Alice more money to keep her without causing drama. Alice is still effectively costing the employer 100, it just doesn't all go to her. Alice should be rationally paid at most the amount 100-3x at which the satisfaction of the other 3 employees with their pay being 50+x instead of 50 balances out their dissatisfaction with Alice being paid more at 100-3x. Alice is basically causing the cost of other employees to grow and has to pay for this. As long as the company is paying Alice 85, the cost of a 50-employee is raised to 55, making Alice effectively cost 100 with 3 other employees. In reality, 85 might be 90 and 55 might be 60 because the additional information the employees now have gives them a stronger overall negotiating position, so the average salary level would likely go up. But I believe Alice would still end up "subsidizing" Bob, Fob and Gob. It would be dishonest to claim that the effect I wrote in italics does not exist. I believe the effect of public salaries, all else equal, would be to move the average a bit up, but also greatly lower the variance. And just so that this isn't purely hypothetical: at my first job, they refused to pay me more than a certain amount because some employees who had been there much longer were being paid that amount. I was literally told this, and my boss even acted like I was somehow being a dick for not agreeing to that number and quitting over this. They had no problems giving me that number but let me quit rather than go over that number. So in reality, an even worse case happens than the one described above, because they either didn't consider the option of giving me less than I was worth and distributing the difference or they thought they couldn't afford me long-term anyway, and if they did what I described above they would just end up stuck with those raises they gave to others (these people were "lifers") after I eventually left. So in effect, to have any chance of being paid more in line with what I was worth, I had to quit and move to a different company, even though the first company did realize my value, it is just that because of the effect I described, the cost of paying me what I was worth would have been much higher than just the amount of my salary. They acted rationally in insisting on underpaying me. This issue doesn't exist with secret salaries.

namlem 9y ago

The reward is getting to spend time with your loved ones or hobbies because over there people work to live instead of living to work.

fergie 9y ago

No. Norway has extremely high salaries, and income tax that is pretty much equivalent to California (about 1/3 of your gross salary after deductions), in fact Norway is one of the easiest countries to become rich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU You could argue that radical financial transparency is what causes this.

refurb 9y ago
Income tax about what it is in CA? I'll take your word for it. What about all the other taxes? Car tax, VAT, etc? From what I've seen purchasing power is much lower in Norway. $50K would go much further in US, Canada, UK than Norway.
- marvin 9y ago
  Summarizing the most important Norwegian taxes, which are in aggregate higher than California's: * 25% VAT on everything except food, which is 12%. Electric vehicles currently exempt * 40% income tax on average including 8% public pension contribution. Highest marginal tax on income is 47%, which applies to incomes greater than $116k. * Employer has to pay 14% of your salary as employment tax. Company profits are taxed at 24% (this is separate from the capital gains tax). Stock-based compensation is taxed as income, so no possibility of weaseling around the employment tax. You won't get stock-based compensation unless you're in a startup or a C-class executive at a (big) private company. The wealth tax does weird things to the valuation of stock options; they'll almost always be worthless unless your company is sold or goes public. * Net assets above ~$175k are taxed at 0.85% p.a, primary residence contributes only 25% of its market value to net assets * 29% capital gains tax, primary residence is exempt as is most tax income from renting out primary residence. Sell your home with $1 million profit? No tax. * On average ~$10k tax on all new motor vehicles, electric vehicles currently exempt * A tax of approximately 30% (~5 NOK per liter) is applied to gasoline, in addition to the 25% VAT. Annual tax of ~$1000 on all motor vehicles, increasing with how good the vehicle is. Electric vehicles currently exempt. * Various taxes on alcohol, tobacco, air travel. Some municipalities have a property tax on the order of ~$500 p.a. for an average residence. I've eyeballed most of the currency conversions.

flurdy 9y ago

> High tax. Where's the reward? The reward is being top of the budget per capita: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_budget_revenues_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_... The goverment has $48K to spend per capita, as opposed to e.g the UK which has $18K. Off course that means little if the gov does not spend it well. But from my experience, it was though not perfect. > I don't see how one could ever be an entrepreneur there. High salaries is an issue, as well as few VCs, especially angel investors. But one can also take risks with the safety net of a well funded wellfare to fall back on. > Even if you win, you eventually lose (wealth tax), unless you move away. Capital tax is far from losing, just an annoyance, that I wish they could forgo.

olavk 9y ago

Nevertheless, Norway have entrepreneurs and people getting rich, and overall it is a very wealthy country. I believe the social mobility is better then in the US. So I guess some of you assumptions must be wrong.