4 ms·

All Americans have a right to privacy. Their reason for privacy doesn't matter and doesn't need to make sense to you. Compensation is an important conversation

All Americans have a right to privacy. Their reason for privacy doesn't matter and doesn't need to make sense to you. Compensation is an important conversation to make sure a job is a win/win. I think "What would you like to be paid?" is the most relevant question anyway.

vilmosi 9y ago
[deleted]
- vilmosi 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - adventured 9y ago
    It should be private information so long as it's not considerably out of the ordinary (that could easily be a listing requirement established by an exchange). Just as in the case of eg acquisitions, which often will be or must be reported in specific financial terms if they're above a certain size. If an programmer makes $100,000 in a company where programmers regularly earn that, it should not be public information. If the programmer is earning $2 million, it may be material to the shareholders to know that depending on the size of the company. If the company is Google and the programmer is regarded as extraordinary for some reason, $2 million (vs Google's overall financial picture) isn't a huge sum. If the entire sales of the company are $30 million, it blatantly would be material.
    - vilmosi 9y ago
      [deleted]
      - adventured 9y ago
        As a shareholder of Google, you do not have access to every individual $100,000 expense they have across a given year (much less an explanation of exactly how it was spent, why it was spent, when it was spent). The most obvious argument against it, is that people aren't always rational (and are regularly irrational about things like money). I'd argue they frequently aren't able to accurately assess their own financial value (in either direction). It opens a pandora's box within corporations about why X person is worth $Z, while Joe or Jane thinks they should obviously be paid more vs X person. It's not easy to maintain harmony within organizations, that would make it far worse. What would be the value gained from making all individual employee salaries public (within a public corporation)? It would have to be immense to offset the friction it would cause.
danso 9y ago
> All Americans have a right to privacy. Their reason for privacy doesn't matter and doesn't need to make sense to you. Seeing how the right to privacy is not specifically enshrined, I would argue that the reasons for keeping some things private is very much at the heart of the matter. For instance, why does the government not think the benefits of transparency outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to individual reported income, versus say, divorce records (most of which will include income, among many many more private facts said in court).
- rangersanger 9y ago
  It's not specifically enshrined because it doesn't need to be. It's implied under the bill of rights: "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws," (Amendment 14 Section 1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
  - danso 9y ago
    Again, then it is a worthwhile argument to ask why certain things are enshrined when others are not, if it is indeed possible to base a legal system upon what reasonable minds agree is "implied". For example, most people today would agree that not enslaving humans is implied under the equal protection clause., and yet, we have a specific amendment that had to be ratified, stating "No person can hold another as a slave..." Like most implied rights, the right to privacy is weak specifically because it is not enshrined. Even the explicitly stated rights have limits, particularly when they butt into the other explicitly stated rights. When the implied "right to privacy" butts into the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of expression and a free press, on which side do you think the courts will err on, on a consistent basis?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    But salaries are not really private. The company has salaries. The state often makes their salaries public. The IRS has that information. Credit agencies do, etc. The state has gained an absolute right to know your wage, which one could argue that abolishes the private nature of that information, much like your gender, or your face.
jdavis703 9y ago
The price of your house is public, the value of your car is public, and most people can roughly guess what your salary is based on your job title, geography and experience level.
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  Not really, you can choose to spend your income on your car or house, or you can put it elsewhere. I know plenty of people with cars that cost 10x the price of mine, who earn far less than I do. And outside of their immediate industry most people don’t know other salaries, or how to look them up.
- sib 9y ago
  Only in certain (US) states are house prices public information.

vilmosi 9y ago

[deleted]

vilmosi 9y ago
[deleted]
- adventured 9y ago
  It should be private information so long as it's not considerably out of the ordinary (that could easily be a listing requirement established by an exchange). Just as in the case of eg acquisitions, which often will be or must be reported in specific financial terms if they're above a certain size. If an programmer makes $100,000 in a company where programmers regularly earn that, it should not be public information. If the programmer is earning $2 million, it may be material to the shareholders to know that depending on the size of the company. If the company is Google and the programmer is regarded as extraordinary for some reason, $2 million (vs Google's overall financial picture) isn't a huge sum. If the entire sales of the company are $30 million, it blatantly would be material.
  - vilmosi 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - adventured 9y ago
      As a shareholder of Google, you do not have access to every individual $100,000 expense they have across a given year (much less an explanation of exactly how it was spent, why it was spent, when it was spent). The most obvious argument against it, is that people aren't always rational (and are regularly irrational about things like money). I'd argue they frequently aren't able to accurately assess their own financial value (in either direction). It opens a pandora's box within corporations about why X person is worth $Z, while Joe or Jane thinks they should obviously be paid more vs X person. It's not easy to maintain harmony within organizations, that would make it far worse. What would be the value gained from making all individual employee salaries public (within a public corporation)? It would have to be immense to offset the friction it would cause.

danso 9y ago

> All Americans have a right to privacy. Their reason for privacy doesn't matter and doesn't need to make sense to you. Seeing how the right to privacy is not specifically enshrined, I would argue that the reasons for keeping some things private is very much at the heart of the matter. For instance, why does the government not think the benefits of transparency outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to individual reported income, versus say, divorce records (most of which will include income, among many many more private facts said in court).

rangersanger 9y ago
It's not specifically enshrined because it doesn't need to be. It's implied under the bill of rights: "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws," (Amendment 14 Section 1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
- danso 9y ago
  Again, then it is a worthwhile argument to ask why certain things are enshrined when others are not, if it is indeed possible to base a legal system upon what reasonable minds agree is "implied". For example, most people today would agree that not enslaving humans is implied under the equal protection clause., and yet, we have a specific amendment that had to be ratified, stating "No person can hold another as a slave..." Like most implied rights, the right to privacy is weak specifically because it is not enshrined. Even the explicitly stated rights have limits, particularly when they butt into the other explicitly stated rights. When the implied "right to privacy" butts into the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of expression and a free press, on which side do you think the courts will err on, on a consistent basis?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  But salaries are not really private. The company has salaries. The state often makes their salaries public. The IRS has that information. Credit agencies do, etc. The state has gained an absolute right to know your wage, which one could argue that abolishes the private nature of that information, much like your gender, or your face.

jdavis703 9y ago

The price of your house is public, the value of your car is public, and most people can roughly guess what your salary is based on your job title, geography and experience level.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago
Not really, you can choose to spend your income on your car or house, or you can put it elsewhere. I know plenty of people with cars that cost 10x the price of mine, who earn far less than I do. And outside of their immediate industry most people don’t know other salaries, or how to look them up.
sib 9y ago
Only in certain (US) states are house prices public information.