4 ms·

There are arguments on both sides. We want to make sure that companies don't offer lower salaries to immigrants, blacks, women etc. On the other hand, productiv

There are arguments on both sides. We want to make sure that companies don't offer lower salaries to immigrants, blacks, women etc. On the other hand, productivity varies wildly among different people doing the same job.

enriquto 7y ago
> On the other hand, productivity varies wildly among different people doing the same job. But then they are not doing the same job, and it is reasonable that they earn more. In a grocery store, the prices are public and visible to all clients and other stores. You are reasonably sure that the seller is not reaching a "private agreement" with most other clients. This kind of public information is a basic tenet of a market economy. Otherwise the whole thing is taken over by arbiters (aka "negotiators") instead of productive people. I honestly do not understand why such an important part of the economy (the actual salaries!) is not bound by the same rule.
- hirako2000 7y ago
  It costs less capital hence increase profit (or competitiveness) to keep this private. Retailers would do the same with their price if it was practical. Actually, with b2b sales it is exactly the case, prices are most often kept confidential. I'm not supporting the practice, I just don't see how it could be any different,unless you start forcing key actors in this system to disclose.
  - enriquto 7y ago
    > I'm not supporting the practice, I just don't see how it could be any different,unless you start forcing key actors in this system to disclose. Lest the workers unionize and make it stop.
- swsieber 7y ago
  > But then they are not doing the same job, and it is reasonable that they earn more The issue is wether everybody realizes they aren't doing the same job. > In a grocery store Comparing performance of people is a lot more subjective than comparing food. Your comparing apples to oranges here. If performance was easy to compare, it'd be a lot easier to push for transparent salary information.
  - enriquto 7y ago
    > If performance was easy to compare, it'd be a lot easier to push for transparent salary information. If performance is not easy to compare, what is the point of assigning different salaries to people?
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Because people’s performance is different, even if it’s hard to reduce that to a numeric score in a totally objective way. When I look back over my career, I know which 20 or so engineers I’d want to hire for a startup where engineering mattered. Even if I can’t assign an exact percentage how much better they were, I sure know who they are.
- yibg 7y ago
  The problem is very few people do the same job in software. You're not writing the same code, in the same domain etc. Looking back to jobs I've had in the past, my job was always different even from people on the same team. We specialized in different parts of the code base, or using different technologies or just gravitated towards different focuses. e.g. I was the data guy, we had someone else that was really good at debugging hard problems and someone we'd always consult for API design.
moralestapia 7y ago
>We want to make sure that companies don't offer lower salaries to immigrants, blacks, women etc. What? If anything, that would be an argument IN FAVOR of public salaries ...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fastball 7y ago
  Right. The first part of the comment is a reason in favor, the latter portion is a reason against. > "There are arguments on both sides"
  - moralestapia 7y ago
    You're right. I kind of messed up the message.
jawns 7y ago
My job is "software engineer." I work with many other software engineers. Some have 1-2 years of experience. Some have 10+ or 20+. It's possible to create strata -- junior, mid-level, senior, etc. -- and say that for a particular open role, you are hiring for only mid-level engineers. But there's always going to be some wiggle room. Maybe you'll get one applicant with 3 years of experience applying for a mid-level role, and you see a lot of promise in them, but you realize they'll need a higher level of training. And maybe you'll get another applicant with 10 years of experience applying for the same role, and you know they're solid and will need very little ramp-up time or hand-holding. So it makes perfect sense to offer the latter candidate more than the former candidate, even if you're willing to hire them both. (And chances are, the latter candidate will expect more than the former candidate.)

enriquto 7y ago

> On the other hand, productivity varies wildly among different people doing the same job. But then they are not doing the same job, and it is reasonable that they earn more. In a grocery store, the prices are public and visible to all clients and other stores. You are reasonably sure that the seller is not reaching a "private agreement" with most other clients. This kind of public information is a basic tenet of a market economy. Otherwise the whole thing is taken over by arbiters (aka "negotiators") instead of productive people. I honestly do not understand why such an important part of the economy (the actual salaries!) is not bound by the same rule.

hirako2000 7y ago
It costs less capital hence increase profit (or competitiveness) to keep this private. Retailers would do the same with their price if it was practical. Actually, with b2b sales it is exactly the case, prices are most often kept confidential. I'm not supporting the practice, I just don't see how it could be any different,unless you start forcing key actors in this system to disclose.
- enriquto 7y ago
  > I'm not supporting the practice, I just don't see how it could be any different,unless you start forcing key actors in this system to disclose. Lest the workers unionize and make it stop.
swsieber 7y ago
> But then they are not doing the same job, and it is reasonable that they earn more The issue is wether everybody realizes they aren't doing the same job. > In a grocery store Comparing performance of people is a lot more subjective than comparing food. Your comparing apples to oranges here. If performance was easy to compare, it'd be a lot easier to push for transparent salary information.
- enriquto 7y ago
  > If performance was easy to compare, it'd be a lot easier to push for transparent salary information. If performance is not easy to compare, what is the point of assigning different salaries to people?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Because people’s performance is different, even if it’s hard to reduce that to a numeric score in a totally objective way. When I look back over my career, I know which 20 or so engineers I’d want to hire for a startup where engineering mattered. Even if I can’t assign an exact percentage how much better they were, I sure know who they are.
yibg 7y ago
The problem is very few people do the same job in software. You're not writing the same code, in the same domain etc. Looking back to jobs I've had in the past, my job was always different even from people on the same team. We specialized in different parts of the code base, or using different technologies or just gravitated towards different focuses. e.g. I was the data guy, we had someone else that was really good at debugging hard problems and someone we'd always consult for API design.

moralestapia 7y ago

>We want to make sure that companies don't offer lower salaries to immigrants, blacks, women etc. What? If anything, that would be an argument IN FAVOR of public salaries ...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fastball 7y ago
Right. The first part of the comment is a reason in favor, the latter portion is a reason against. > "There are arguments on both sides"
- moralestapia 7y ago
  You're right. I kind of messed up the message.

jawns 7y ago

My job is "software engineer." I work with many other software engineers. Some have 1-2 years of experience. Some have 10+ or 20+. It's possible to create strata -- junior, mid-level, senior, etc. -- and say that for a particular open role, you are hiring for only mid-level engineers. But there's always going to be some wiggle room. Maybe you'll get one applicant with 3 years of experience applying for a mid-level role, and you see a lot of promise in them, but you realize they'll need a higher level of training. And maybe you'll get another applicant with 10 years of experience applying for the same role, and you know they're solid and will need very little ramp-up time or hand-holding. So it makes perfect sense to offer the latter candidate more than the former candidate, even if you're willing to hire them both. (And chances are, the latter candidate will expect more than the former candidate.)