4 ms·

Yes, and excellence is not rewarded in such societies. Edit: Look at how pay works in countries where such information is public (i.e. Scandinavia). My underst

Yes, and excellence is not rewarded in such societies. Edit: Look at how pay works in countries where such information is public (i.e. Scandinavia). My understanding is that within a given line of work, everyone makes just about the same amount, adjusted for seniority, regardless of performance.

Karunamon 9y ago
Could you elaborate? This looks like a very throw-away, pithy comment. Edit: Thanks
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  See my edit.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    That's a bit different than "excellence not being rewarded" isn't it? Salaries in general seem to be very non-meritocratic, and there are other ways of compensating exceptional people that don't wind up in the check.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      I want money for my work, thank you very much. And if I provide more value to my employer, I expect more money than the guy who provides less. Yes, it's up to me to make sure I'm getting my fair share. If I'm too insecure to get what I'm worth, that seems like my problem, not anyone else's.
conanbatt 9y ago
This happens also in germany and spain and europe in general. Its just america that pays so damn much for developers, because of the competing capital. Price transparency is definitely not harming employees, and its also not harming companies in the long run.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  And doctors and lawyers, and everyone else on average too. And while average pay is higher in America than in any other large (i.e. necessarily general purpose) economy, I'm specifically pointing out that performance/merit reward is greater in America.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    I'll disregard the use of merit, but how do you measure performance to make this claim? Im sure there are less performant lawyers in america that have a higher pay than performant lawyers in europe. AFAIK high salaries in the U.S. dont come at the expense of low salaries of the low performing. Doctors have constrained supply. Lawyers have a sort of costrained supply (your degree will determine your employment). U.S. has a peculiar law system and company sizes that allow payouts not possible in other countries which affect pay(corporate lawyers make the most money). But again, almost surely, this is not due to information asymmetry in favor of the employer. Public wage data would almost unequivocally increase wages. The question would be how much. Greenspan talks about how in a desire to punish high salary CEO's, they forced their salaries to be public, and they ended up exploding up because of it.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      I think people would find disparate outcomes among gender/race/etc. and claim discrimination. This will lead to more uniformity as employers try to avoid legal and political liability, however unfounded the claims of discrimination are. The not-so-subtle point that unequal outcomes don't mean discrimination seems to be totally lost in political discourse. You're right that doctors and lawyers are not great examples for the reasons you state. If everyone knows what everyone makes, it becomes much harder to give an excellent employee more money. Everyone thinks they deserve a raise, so now a manager has to confront the rest of the team when he gives one person a raise. Envy is a very powerful force. Performance for this purpose doesn't need to be measured in OneTrueWay, the market provides a better solution: at what point your employer is willing to see you walk to another job instead of paying you more. (They may have their own formal performance ranking system, but if it's not very good they'll lose the battle for talent.) This has the side effect that assertive people are at an advantage, but I don't think that's a bad thing. As for CEOs, that's a very interesting point. My intuition is that it's a totally different kind of market. The CEO is the boss, not one among many equals. And you can't deny that the information has stirred up animosity and resentment toward the CEO class, however ill- or well-founded that sentiment is.
astura 9y ago
salary is highly tied to performance for professional athletes and salary information is public information.

Karunamon 9y ago

Could you elaborate? This looks like a very throw-away, pithy comment. Edit: Thanks

marcoperaza 9y ago
See my edit.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  That's a bit different than "excellence not being rewarded" isn't it? Salaries in general seem to be very non-meritocratic, and there are other ways of compensating exceptional people that don't wind up in the check.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    I want money for my work, thank you very much. And if I provide more value to my employer, I expect more money than the guy who provides less. Yes, it's up to me to make sure I'm getting my fair share. If I'm too insecure to get what I'm worth, that seems like my problem, not anyone else's.

conanbatt 9y ago

This happens also in germany and spain and europe in general. Its just america that pays so damn much for developers, because of the competing capital. Price transparency is definitely not harming employees, and its also not harming companies in the long run.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
marcoperaza 9y ago
And doctors and lawyers, and everyone else on average too. And while average pay is higher in America than in any other large (i.e. necessarily general purpose) economy, I'm specifically pointing out that performance/merit reward is greater in America.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I'll disregard the use of merit, but how do you measure performance to make this claim? Im sure there are less performant lawyers in america that have a higher pay than performant lawyers in europe. AFAIK high salaries in the U.S. dont come at the expense of low salaries of the low performing. Doctors have constrained supply. Lawyers have a sort of costrained supply (your degree will determine your employment). U.S. has a peculiar law system and company sizes that allow payouts not possible in other countries which affect pay(corporate lawyers make the most money). But again, almost surely, this is not due to information asymmetry in favor of the employer. Public wage data would almost unequivocally increase wages. The question would be how much. Greenspan talks about how in a desire to punish high salary CEO's, they forced their salaries to be public, and they ended up exploding up because of it.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    I think people would find disparate outcomes among gender/race/etc. and claim discrimination. This will lead to more uniformity as employers try to avoid legal and political liability, however unfounded the claims of discrimination are. The not-so-subtle point that unequal outcomes don't mean discrimination seems to be totally lost in political discourse. You're right that doctors and lawyers are not great examples for the reasons you state. If everyone knows what everyone makes, it becomes much harder to give an excellent employee more money. Everyone thinks they deserve a raise, so now a manager has to confront the rest of the team when he gives one person a raise. Envy is a very powerful force. Performance for this purpose doesn't need to be measured in OneTrueWay, the market provides a better solution: at what point your employer is willing to see you walk to another job instead of paying you more. (They may have their own formal performance ranking system, but if it's not very good they'll lose the battle for talent.) This has the side effect that assertive people are at an advantage, but I don't think that's a bad thing. As for CEOs, that's a very interesting point. My intuition is that it's a totally different kind of market. The CEO is the boss, not one among many equals. And you can't deny that the information has stirred up animosity and resentment toward the CEO class, however ill- or well-founded that sentiment is.

astura 9y ago

salary is highly tied to performance for professional athletes and salary information is public information.