4 ms·
>and having precise figures available can be really destructive. How? It doesn't change anything with regard to this specific concern about family. They alread
by Sangermaine 9y ago
>and having precise figures available can be really destructive.
How? It doesn't change anything with regard to this specific concern about family. They already have an idea about how you live and how much you have from knowing you. They might not have a specific dollar amount, but they'll have a good idea.
- careersuicide 9y agoA bit of ambiguity about certain things is an important lubricant for almost all non-romantic relationships. My family has a good idea of my salary (as pointed out elsewhere: they can see my house and my car) but I keep the specific number to myself. They're left with just a vague notion rather than anything they could do math with. It's much the same as how they only have a vague notion about what I do in the bathroom. They can use their imagination if they'd like and infer it from various things. But I shut the door so the obvious isn't rendered so plain to see as to become a topic of awkward (and sometimes destructive) conversation.
- pgeorgi 9y agoPeople aren't rational. "Works a high paying job" feels different from "makes $120000 when even the most highly paid people in my long forgotten rural town make only $35000", and so the response will be different. That said, I don't think it should be necessary to defend privacy. The idea proposed up-thread is to publish all income data on everybody. Not merely to encourage people to share their income data so they can reduce the information differential with employers, or some central opt-in system to make it easier to compare the numbers. It's about fully _enforced_ transparency. A proposal for such forced loss of agency needs explanation and must be defensible against scrutiny, not the request to leave people alone just like they're used to.