4 ms·

> For same responsibilities same salary. Why is that? If there is someone who is willing to take on those responsibilities for less pay, well that's just fine f

> For same responsibilities same salary. Why is that? If there is someone who is willing to take on those responsibilities for less pay, well that's just fine for the company and I think that people tend to forget that Google (and many other IT companies) is a for-profit company. For me at least, I've always seen salary negotiations as somewhat of a "right person at the right moment". If you're very lucky and the company really needs they will be willing to pay you more than what you would make at a different company on the same role, maybe more than what others are doing on the same role, just because you were there, at that time, when they were most in need. It may not always be like that, but think of it as demand/offer relationship. So regardless of gender/race it's the need of the company that comes first. Because as a employee you fulfill a need that the company has and you are being paid for that.

jorgemf 9y ago
Throwaway account created one hour ago? So you say that some who is starving if Africa we shouldn't care because he wasn't at the right place at the right moment? If you answer is that it is not the same case where do you put the line? Because your argument for getting things is basically luck.
- throwaway9853 9y ago
  Yes and it's luck + skills. Because otherwise you wouldn't even be in that position in the first place. And what does Africa have to do with this? This was related to people working at Google and/or similar companies. So you're point is that we should give unqualified people jobs that they are clearly not meant for just because they are having a hard time? There are NGOs and state help for this. Of course if I'm having a hard time, I'd like someone to help me, but the first one to help me should be ME. I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others. Don't know if that is what you were asking, but please stay on the topic of the discussion next time.
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    I want to balance the world and given the people what they deserve (same job = same salary). Try to fix the luck issue (either if you are starving in Africa or your salary at google is lower than the rest). I never said given unqualified people better jobs, I said give people in the same jobs the same salary (don't accuse me of not staying in the point when you don't understand my argument and them make a claim of something I didn't say, please). > I'm having a hard time, I'd like someone to help me, but the first one to help me should be ME. I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others. You think everybody has the same opportunities in the world, which is not the case. Sometimes you need external help and you cannot do anything by yourself (maybe you are lucky and will never suffer this, but doesn't imply it doesn't happenn). I am asking the same question again, where do you put the line to take an action? For you it is clear the jobs are not an issue, if someone have a better salary with the same job position we shouldn't do anything. But when should we start taking action when the luck is harming people? I put the example of the person in africa starving as an extreme to try to help with my argument.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others. That's a seriously dangerous mindset and one of the main reasons why we are dealing with a burn-out epidemic and generally massive mental health issues. Some people are just really bad at asking for help, whether it's because they don't want to admit they ain't "perfect" and hurt their pride or because they simply don't realize they are in way over their head. The result is that many people set themselves up to fail as they refuse to ask for help even when there's plenty of it aviable and they are clearly in need of it because they fear it might devalue their achievements by not having it done "on their own".
- yellowapple 9y ago
  "Because your argument for getting things is basically luck." Luck is really what drives a successful career and life: - Lucky to have been born in the right place - Lucky to have the right skin color - Lucky to have the right sex/gender/orientation (and for those to match up in the "right" way) - Lucky to have the right family - Lucky to have an outgoing and/or extroverted personality - Lucky to have an interest in a skill that's in demand - Lucky to be in the workforce during a time when that skill is in demand - Lucky to be in a location where that skill is in demand - Lucky to have been hired amid the dozens or even hundreds of other candidates applying for your desired position (this is less of a problem now, but was a huge problem just a few years ago when labor demand was nowhere close to being higher than labor supply) - Lucky to have been hired by a company that actually wants to give out raises - Lucky to not have been laid off or otherwise terminated for circumstances beyond your control The list goes on and on and on. I certainly think we should care about the implications of personal success and well-being being driven heavily by luck rather than actual merit. The case where someone is starving in Africa is indeed a case of "wrong place and/or time", and we as a species really ought to be cognizant of that and try to work toward "wrong place and/or time" being less severe of a problem.
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    I agree with you. What I am saying is that we should try to make the world more balance and not let it be driven just by luck or discriminatory reasons.
  - rplst8 9y ago
    I'm not sure what you are arguing in favor of exactly. Say we do make actual individual merit the only factor in hiring and pay. Would those "unlucky" enough to have been born a starving child in Africa ever have a chance at getting a high paying IT job? Likely not, as they won't have the education or skills needed to do the work. I'd argue your use of "luck" in all these cases is wrong. It's more like fortune, and that hiring and pay is tied to both individual merit, and the merit of your ancestors. And when I say ancestors, this is usually as little as 2 or 3 generations. A vast majority of those in the US are descendants of a wave of poor immigrants in the mid and late 19th century. Going back 4 or 5 generations on all sides of my family tree, no wealth of any significance was transferred down, other than work ethic and usually trying to give offspring the best chance they can. It was not by any means perfect, but I was the first in my family to go to college, earn a degree, and be "successful". Note: I'm defining successful as "more assets than debt". I'm not wealthy by any sense of the word but I have a stable income and I'm able to save for retirement and own a home (via mortgage). If we take that merit out of the equation - what societal pressure or incentive is there to improve upon oneself, and make a better life for one's children?
nowo 9y ago
This is one of those arguments the grand parent was talking about. Unfortunately this argument is why someone has a larger salary than someone else, not why there are disparities between groups. Unless different groups unequally finds themselves being "right person at the right moment", it should statistically average over time. That said, I don't see a good reason to defend salaries that don't match performance. It's sometimes a reality, but still not desirable. Especially since many times being the "right person at the right moment" isn't luck. It's knowing the right people and having that matters more than your performance.

jorgemf 9y ago

Throwaway account created one hour ago? So you say that some who is starving if Africa we shouldn't care because he wasn't at the right place at the right moment? If you answer is that it is not the same case where do you put the line? Because your argument for getting things is basically luck.

throwaway9853 9y ago
Yes and it's luck + skills. Because otherwise you wouldn't even be in that position in the first place. And what does Africa have to do with this? This was related to people working at Google and/or similar companies. So you're point is that we should give unqualified people jobs that they are clearly not meant for just because they are having a hard time? There are NGOs and state help for this. Of course if I'm having a hard time, I'd like someone to help me, but the first one to help me should be ME. I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others. Don't know if that is what you were asking, but please stay on the topic of the discussion next time.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  I want to balance the world and given the people what they deserve (same job = same salary). Try to fix the luck issue (either if you are starving in Africa or your salary at google is lower than the rest). I never said given unqualified people better jobs, I said give people in the same jobs the same salary (don't accuse me of not staying in the point when you don't understand my argument and them make a claim of something I didn't say, please). > I'm having a hard time, I'd like someone to help me, but the first one to help me should be ME. I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others. You think everybody has the same opportunities in the world, which is not the case. Sometimes you need external help and you cannot do anything by yourself (maybe you are lucky and will never suffer this, but doesn't imply it doesn't happenn). I am asking the same question again, where do you put the line to take an action? For you it is clear the jobs are not an issue, if someone have a better salary with the same job position we shouldn't do anything. But when should we start taking action when the luck is harming people? I put the example of the person in africa starving as an extreme to try to help with my argument.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others. That's a seriously dangerous mindset and one of the main reasons why we are dealing with a burn-out epidemic and generally massive mental health issues. Some people are just really bad at asking for help, whether it's because they don't want to admit they ain't "perfect" and hurt their pride or because they simply don't realize they are in way over their head. The result is that many people set themselves up to fail as they refuse to ask for help even when there's plenty of it aviable and they are clearly in need of it because they fear it might devalue their achievements by not having it done "on their own".
yellowapple 9y ago
"Because your argument for getting things is basically luck." Luck is really what drives a successful career and life: - Lucky to have been born in the right place - Lucky to have the right skin color - Lucky to have the right sex/gender/orientation (and for those to match up in the "right" way) - Lucky to have the right family - Lucky to have an outgoing and/or extroverted personality - Lucky to have an interest in a skill that's in demand - Lucky to be in the workforce during a time when that skill is in demand - Lucky to be in a location where that skill is in demand - Lucky to have been hired amid the dozens or even hundreds of other candidates applying for your desired position (this is less of a problem now, but was a huge problem just a few years ago when labor demand was nowhere close to being higher than labor supply) - Lucky to have been hired by a company that actually wants to give out raises - Lucky to not have been laid off or otherwise terminated for circumstances beyond your control The list goes on and on and on. I certainly think we should care about the implications of personal success and well-being being driven heavily by luck rather than actual merit. The case where someone is starving in Africa is indeed a case of "wrong place and/or time", and we as a species really ought to be cognizant of that and try to work toward "wrong place and/or time" being less severe of a problem.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  I agree with you. What I am saying is that we should try to make the world more balance and not let it be driven just by luck or discriminatory reasons.
- rplst8 9y ago
  I'm not sure what you are arguing in favor of exactly. Say we do make actual individual merit the only factor in hiring and pay. Would those "unlucky" enough to have been born a starving child in Africa ever have a chance at getting a high paying IT job? Likely not, as they won't have the education or skills needed to do the work. I'd argue your use of "luck" in all these cases is wrong. It's more like fortune, and that hiring and pay is tied to both individual merit, and the merit of your ancestors. And when I say ancestors, this is usually as little as 2 or 3 generations. A vast majority of those in the US are descendants of a wave of poor immigrants in the mid and late 19th century. Going back 4 or 5 generations on all sides of my family tree, no wealth of any significance was transferred down, other than work ethic and usually trying to give offspring the best chance they can. It was not by any means perfect, but I was the first in my family to go to college, earn a degree, and be "successful". Note: I'm defining successful as "more assets than debt". I'm not wealthy by any sense of the word but I have a stable income and I'm able to save for retirement and own a home (via mortgage). If we take that merit out of the equation - what societal pressure or incentive is there to improve upon oneself, and make a better life for one's children?

nowo 9y ago

This is one of those arguments the grand parent was talking about. Unfortunately this argument is why someone has a larger salary than someone else, not why there are disparities between groups. Unless different groups unequally finds themselves being "right person at the right moment", it should statistically average over time. That said, I don't see a good reason to defend salaries that don't match performance. It's sometimes a reality, but still not desirable. Especially since many times being the "right person at the right moment" isn't luck. It's knowing the right people and having that matters more than your performance.