6 ms·

There are two incentives at play here: A company obviously wants to pay as little as possible. So if there are employees that do not realize they are underpayed

There are two incentives at play here: A company obviously wants to pay as little as possible. So if there are employees that do not realize they are underpayed it benefits the company in the short term. On the other hand, employees who feel they receive a good salary or any other extraordinary benefits do not want to publicly talk about this fact to not alienate their colleagues (who they suspect earn less). Public salaries on the other hand reduce a company's flexibility: When negotiating a new contract, they cannot offer 10% more anymore. On the other hand, no one should apply if the salaries do not match their expectations... I guess it can work reasonably well, but individual cases would suffer somewhat.

clarry 7y ago
> Public salaries on the other hand reduce a company's flexibility: When negotiating a new contract, they cannot offer 10% more anymore. Why not?
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  Because then every other employee already working there would want that extra 10% the new guy got so the company's salary expenses would spiral out of control(or reaching their actual market value, as it rightfully should be). People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys. Not saying I like this but it's the current situation in Europe where the power lies with the company and the ones who loose are those that are too loyal to the company(most employees outside SW dev don't bother looking around every few years like we do).
  - watwut 7y ago
    The question is whether it is overall good system to punish people for staying asuming same quality of work.
    - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
      The current system of punishing people who stay long at a company is still in place because it works, and it works very well. Lots of employees here have bought into this company spread propaganda that job hopping like in the US will make you unemployable in the future. As the employees get older and get tied down with families and homes and also Job Stockholm Syndrome they're less likely to shop around for new jobs so the savings on salaries on seniors being paid below market are huge.
      - oAlbe 7y ago
        > Lots of employees here have bought into this company spread propaganda that job hopping like in the US will make you unemployable in the future. But is that ultimately true? It feels to me that the companies hold the power to make that true, regardless of the propaganda. So even if you try to job hop, after a certain age they have all the power to make you unemployable. Am I wrong? (I hope I am)
        jb775 7y ago
        I think it depends if the job is a "lifelong-learning" type of job or not. I don't think anyone would say a doctor is unemployable because they moved to a new hospital every 2 years. I think software development is a lifelong-learning type industry where job hopping can actually be beneficial - you get to re-hone your existing skillset from a new perspective and are forced to constantly learn new tools. I think constant job hopping is bad in 3 situations: 1) If you work a non lifelong-learning job. 2) If you work a job that is mostly industry-specific relationship based. 3) If you are jumping around to different job roles entirely, where you never really become exceptionally talented at any single role. My general rule of thumb for deciding when to job hop is when I feel as if I've stopped learning new things.
      - watwut 7y ago
        Is it working well? Average software projects, codebases and their management are messy almost disasters. For many reasons. But half a team being either new or right before leaving is definitely not helping. The fact that people leave before they can find the right match position in company or team, learn it well and spend some time there is not helping. And afaik, large companies and large successful projects tend to have more stable core team behind them.
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    1. If the new hire is worth 10% more, then the employer will be able to justify that. "He's got much more experience than you" or such. Put differently: you can only offer those extra 10% if you can actually justify it in a way that others agree with you. Might actually turn out to be a rationality corrective so to say. 2. If you don't want people to job-hop because they see what some new hire earns, then you're either overpaying the new one (and unnecessarily alienating your workers) or you're underpaying the current employees, and you should raise their salary or expect them to hop.
    - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
      1. Worth is relative. You can't know the performance of someone you've just interviewed for an hour to someone who's been working there for years. The new guy might just be good at whiteboarding and negotiating but could be a mediocre employee at best on your codebase. When you get a job your pay isn't dictated by your "worth", whatever that is, but by current market conditions. 2. That's how it should be in an ideal world but the reality is different and companies know through years of experience that the current system works better for them rather than the one you'd want.
      - madeofpalk 7y ago
        > Worth is relative. You can't know the performance of someone you've just interviewed for an hour to someone who's been working there for years Supposedly you can because you're offering them 10% more than the rest of your employees...
        ChuckNorris89 7y ago
        Like I said previously, you're offering them 10% more because of market conditions(you need some fresh meat on your project ASAP), not because of their (yet unknown) performance, and hedge your bets that the ones already working for you won't find out(here salaries are confidential) or are to tied down to be looking for new jobs so soon. I hate this approach, but for most companies in Europe it's the reality that works in their favor.
  - clarry 7y ago
    > People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys. This sounds like a massive win for all but the bottom of the barrel tier companies. Finding and training new people (while giving them 10% more) as the old guys who know their shit leave for a better job is super expensive.
    - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
      That's the thing, most "old" guys don't leave since they get too busy with their private life(building a house, having kids) or they pidgeonholed themselves into some company specific niche with few options around or they got Job Stockholm Syndrome and are less inclined to shop around for better gigs.
      - clarry 7y ago
        The current situation is that you get a raise if you change jobs. So anyone who wants a better salary is currently very much encouraged to hop jobs. If companies had pressure to give raises internally, this would give less reason to hop jobs. I think that's a good thing for mostly everyone (including their employers). Everyone except dirt cheap shops where nobody wants to work anyway if they have choices.
        ChuckNorris89 7y ago
        >So anyone who wants a better salary is currently very much encouraged to hop jobs But who is encouraging you? Since in Europe/Rest of the World(except US/UK) companies never mention how much they're willing to pay and even the recruiters they hire are sometimes not allowed to mention the upper range to their candidates. So nobody knows they're underpaid unless you're willing to take your free time and apply to jobs, contact recruiters and go interview at a few companies and go through some rounds of negotiations. And even then lots of companies will look at your application very suspiciously that you're applying to new jobs so soon and they'll expect something's wrong with your relationship with your current employer or with you so some might not even make you an offer. For most senior employees with families that's a lot of trouble to go through so they don't even bother unless a recruiter knocks on their door with the offer of a lifetime.
  - 101404 7y ago
    > use then every other employee already working there would want that extra 10% the new guy got Not if the new guy is 10% better at what they do. And if he's not, then maybe the others actually deserve that 10% more. Good thing.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      > Not if the new guy is 10% better at what they do. In most cases, this is not the case. In fact, it's often the case that the new person is really new and will require significant hand holding to be productive. They pay them 10% more because the new person has multiple offers, and most existing employees aren't seeking alternatives, so they have little leverage.
      - 101404 7y ago
        So, at the moment, loyalty is punished. Seems to be a good idea to change that.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    People want all sorts of things, it doesn’t mean they get them. The US doesn’t have organized labor anymore for the most part, and companies don’t give a shit about people’s feelings.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys. That sounds like a huge win for companies.
black_puppydog 7y ago
I always come at this from an "information == power" standpoint. If any one worker only knows the data points from their own (possibly non-existent) previous employments, they will be at a disadvantage against a company that has already negotiated hundreds of such contracts. So if you assume a more-or-less free market (kind of reasonable in professions far off minimum-wage regulation) then players with more information will statistically end up better off. Put like that, sharing your salary becomes a pretty basic act of solidarity, and should be reciprocated. By the way, there's at least one more incentive/mechanism at play here: since western society tends to confound fiscal achievement with value as a person, people hesitate (and with reason) to share their salary, in case it is too low. There's some nice discussion to be had there about Calvinism and the general relationship between religion and the attitude towards individual achievement. But I think that would just devolve into a flame-war so maybe let's not go there. :)
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  > people hesitate (and with reason) to share their salary, in case it is too low. Or in the case of Europe, if it's too high. Most youths here are very left leaning and don't like high earners so if you work in tech and want to make friends outside of tech you'd better not mention salaries.
  - cosmodisk 7y ago
    I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone who gets upset because of my income or title. My salary is modest in terms of what I do, however compared to many other fields, it's pretty darn good. So if'd talk to someone who works in tech, they'd puzzled why I don't try to get a better paying job,while people in other fields would tell me how lucky I am compared to them.
    - belval 7y ago
      From experience, it's not that they get upset as much as they will come back to it in random conversation about how they should earn a similar salary because "Do X and it's much harder!".
netcan 7y ago
There is an emotional day one, but at some point dust settles. I think the prevailing incentive for most employees would be to have that information, and break the information asymmetry. That said I don't think clear economic incentives are the only thing at play. Public salaries is, in old leftist terms, a material cultural change. Material meaning that salary dynamics will change as a results of it.
Spooky23 7y ago
I’ve spent most of my career in public sector gigs where my salary is listed on a website. Those arguments are bunk. Even in that type of system, there are ways to make high performers get compensated better, and there is very little of any alienation. You can also see this at play with corporate officers whose salaries vary dramatically.
Gustomaximus 7y ago
A third factor is: do you want to know? I worked some years in Norway where tax information is public making it fairly easy to estimate what people earn. I chose not to view this information given I was happy with my salary and work. I felt if I saw similar level people earnt more and I raised this but didn't get equalised it could hurt my sense of justice and how content I felt in the workplace. Given I enjoyed my work and company I didn't want to risk this as something that might bug me.
- aesyondu 7y ago
  I understand how you feel, and while I agree with you to a certain extent, I'm reminded of a particular behavior children make, which I will embody into a quote: "Just because you closed your eyes doesn't mean the monster is gone." Also "Ignorance is bliss." Which could be interpreted either way.
  - codingmess 7y ago
    Somebody else earning more than you is not a monster that will eat you, though.
  - Gustomaximus 7y ago
    I guess it's a combination of current position and what you value. I was already paid reasonably well which likely helps take this position. Once that threshold is met I value happiness over a bit more money. If I was frustrated with my income I'd likely be viewing the tax info and looking for negotation points, or knowing a company is a poor payer in general. No 'right' answer, only what is right for you.
- IkmoIkmo 7y ago
  > felt if I saw similar level people earnt more and I raised this but didn't get equalised it could hurt my sense of justice and how content I felt in the workplace. Shouldn't it, though? It's like saying your partner is cheating on you, but you don't want to know because it could 'hurt your sense of justice and how content I feel in the relationship'. I mean, I'll grant you that if you're happy in your job, and honestly don't care about pay, it's different. Just like if you're in an open relationship, and genuinely don't care if your partner sleeps with other people. That's fine. But by saying it could hurt you, you're implying it does matter. And if it matters, the first step to righting any wrong is to know about it and to be able to take adequate steps. Put differently, suppose other people knew they were worth more, took that information and asked more, got more, and you didn't, even though you could've. That doesn't sound right to me. What I think could be a useful tool is to take that raw Norwegian tax data, run a basic condition on it, and then spit out only results you find 'relevant', which can protect you from knowing things you don't want to know. e.g. input 10 names of your peers (who should be earning the same), and only show those salaries that are say 20% above your own. That prevents you from knowing Bob earns 5% more for reasons that may never be resolved, which could still annoy you. But if say Bob earns 20% more, that's something I'd want to know to see if I could take action. Or, perhaps even more conservative, to only get a sense of where you stand versus company average (for your function) and versus market average. That takes out a lot of the personal but tells you whether you should be happy where you are, or asking for a raise or another employer.
dang 7y ago
> A company obviously wants to pay as little as possible. I suppose I'm naive, but it seems obvious to me that a company should want to pay its employees as much as possible—that is, as much as is consistent with the value the employees deliver. When I say "should", I don't mean morally. It just seems obviously in the company's interest.
- paloaltokid 7y ago
  You're reminding me of the "Spanish Theory of Value" as explained in the book Peopleware (DeMarco & Lister). I highly recommend this book. From Chapter 3 of the book: "The Spanish Theory...held that only a fixed amount of value existed on earth, and therefore the path to the accumulation of wealth was to learn to extract it more efficiently from the soil or from people's back." I think that most folks, once they're a few years into their careers, have seen and understood that this theory of management and value extraction is alive and well in corporate America today. From the same chapter: "Productivity ought to mean achieving more in an hour of work, but all too often it has come to mean extracting more for an hour of pay. There is a large difference." So I agree with you. It seems obvious to me as well that companies should pay as much as possible. But they don't think that way, because they're coming from a different value set.
  - dang 7y ago
    Even the value set of greed should nudge them in that direction—though perhaps not short-term greed.
    - paloaltokid 7y ago
      Again, we agree. But it's that word should that is the delta between how we would like it to work and how it currently actually works.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    Said another way, people who work 80hrs a week cut their salaries in half.
- 7y ago

clarry 7y ago

> Public salaries on the other hand reduce a company's flexibility: When negotiating a new contract, they cannot offer 10% more anymore. Why not?

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
Because then every other employee already working there would want that extra 10% the new guy got so the company's salary expenses would spiral out of control(or reaching their actual market value, as it rightfully should be). People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys. Not saying I like this but it's the current situation in Europe where the power lies with the company and the ones who loose are those that are too loyal to the company(most employees outside SW dev don't bother looking around every few years like we do).
- watwut 7y ago
  The question is whether it is overall good system to punish people for staying asuming same quality of work.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    The current system of punishing people who stay long at a company is still in place because it works, and it works very well. Lots of employees here have bought into this company spread propaganda that job hopping like in the US will make you unemployable in the future. As the employees get older and get tied down with families and homes and also Job Stockholm Syndrome they're less likely to shop around for new jobs so the savings on salaries on seniors being paid below market are huge.
    - oAlbe 7y ago
      > Lots of employees here have bought into this company spread propaganda that job hopping like in the US will make you unemployable in the future. But is that ultimately true? It feels to me that the companies hold the power to make that true, regardless of the propaganda. So even if you try to job hop, after a certain age they have all the power to make you unemployable. Am I wrong? (I hope I am)
      - jb775 7y ago
        I think it depends if the job is a "lifelong-learning" type of job or not. I don't think anyone would say a doctor is unemployable because they moved to a new hospital every 2 years. I think software development is a lifelong-learning type industry where job hopping can actually be beneficial - you get to re-hone your existing skillset from a new perspective and are forced to constantly learn new tools. I think constant job hopping is bad in 3 situations: 1) If you work a non lifelong-learning job. 2) If you work a job that is mostly industry-specific relationship based. 3) If you are jumping around to different job roles entirely, where you never really become exceptionally talented at any single role. My general rule of thumb for deciding when to job hop is when I feel as if I've stopped learning new things.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Is it working well? Average software projects, codebases and their management are messy almost disasters. For many reasons. But half a team being either new or right before leaving is definitely not helping. The fact that people leave before they can find the right match position in company or team, learn it well and spend some time there is not helping. And afaik, large companies and large successful projects tend to have more stable core team behind them.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  1. If the new hire is worth 10% more, then the employer will be able to justify that. "He's got much more experience than you" or such. Put differently: you can only offer those extra 10% if you can actually justify it in a way that others agree with you. Might actually turn out to be a rationality corrective so to say. 2. If you don't want people to job-hop because they see what some new hire earns, then you're either overpaying the new one (and unnecessarily alienating your workers) or you're underpaying the current employees, and you should raise their salary or expect them to hop.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    1. Worth is relative. You can't know the performance of someone you've just interviewed for an hour to someone who's been working there for years. The new guy might just be good at whiteboarding and negotiating but could be a mediocre employee at best on your codebase. When you get a job your pay isn't dictated by your "worth", whatever that is, but by current market conditions. 2. That's how it should be in an ideal world but the reality is different and companies know through years of experience that the current system works better for them rather than the one you'd want.
    - madeofpalk 7y ago
      > Worth is relative. You can't know the performance of someone you've just interviewed for an hour to someone who's been working there for years Supposedly you can because you're offering them 10% more than the rest of your employees...
      - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
        Like I said previously, you're offering them 10% more because of market conditions(you need some fresh meat on your project ASAP), not because of their (yet unknown) performance, and hedge your bets that the ones already working for you won't find out(here salaries are confidential) or are to tied down to be looking for new jobs so soon. I hate this approach, but for most companies in Europe it's the reality that works in their favor.
- clarry 7y ago
  > People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys. This sounds like a massive win for all but the bottom of the barrel tier companies. Finding and training new people (while giving them 10% more) as the old guys who know their shit leave for a better job is super expensive.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    That's the thing, most "old" guys don't leave since they get too busy with their private life(building a house, having kids) or they pidgeonholed themselves into some company specific niche with few options around or they got Job Stockholm Syndrome and are less inclined to shop around for better gigs.
    - clarry 7y ago
      The current situation is that you get a raise if you change jobs. So anyone who wants a better salary is currently very much encouraged to hop jobs. If companies had pressure to give raises internally, this would give less reason to hop jobs. I think that's a good thing for mostly everyone (including their employers). Everyone except dirt cheap shops where nobody wants to work anyway if they have choices.
      - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
        >So anyone who wants a better salary is currently very much encouraged to hop jobs But who is encouraging you? Since in Europe/Rest of the World(except US/UK) companies never mention how much they're willing to pay and even the recruiters they hire are sometimes not allowed to mention the upper range to their candidates. So nobody knows they're underpaid unless you're willing to take your free time and apply to jobs, contact recruiters and go interview at a few companies and go through some rounds of negotiations. And even then lots of companies will look at your application very suspiciously that you're applying to new jobs so soon and they'll expect something's wrong with your relationship with your current employer or with you so some might not even make you an offer. For most senior employees with families that's a lot of trouble to go through so they don't even bother unless a recruiter knocks on their door with the offer of a lifetime.
- 101404 7y ago
  > use then every other employee already working there would want that extra 10% the new guy got Not if the new guy is 10% better at what they do. And if he's not, then maybe the others actually deserve that 10% more. Good thing.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    > Not if the new guy is 10% better at what they do. In most cases, this is not the case. In fact, it's often the case that the new person is really new and will require significant hand holding to be productive. They pay them 10% more because the new person has multiple offers, and most existing employees aren't seeking alternatives, so they have little leverage.
    - 101404 7y ago
      So, at the moment, loyalty is punished. Seems to be a good idea to change that.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  People want all sorts of things, it doesn’t mean they get them. The US doesn’t have organized labor anymore for the most part, and companies don’t give a shit about people’s feelings.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys. That sounds like a huge win for companies.

black_puppydog 7y ago

I always come at this from an "information == power" standpoint. If any one worker only knows the data points from their own (possibly non-existent) previous employments, they will be at a disadvantage against a company that has already negotiated hundreds of such contracts. So if you assume a more-or-less free market (kind of reasonable in professions far off minimum-wage regulation) then players with more information will statistically end up better off. Put like that, sharing your salary becomes a pretty basic act of solidarity, and should be reciprocated. By the way, there's at least one more incentive/mechanism at play here: since western society tends to confound fiscal achievement with value as a person, people hesitate (and with reason) to share their salary, in case it is too low. There's some nice discussion to be had there about Calvinism and the general relationship between religion and the attitude towards individual achievement. But I think that would just devolve into a flame-war so maybe let's not go there. :)

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
> people hesitate (and with reason) to share their salary, in case it is too low. Or in the case of Europe, if it's too high. Most youths here are very left leaning and don't like high earners so if you work in tech and want to make friends outside of tech you'd better not mention salaries.
- cosmodisk 7y ago
  I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone who gets upset because of my income or title. My salary is modest in terms of what I do, however compared to many other fields, it's pretty darn good. So if'd talk to someone who works in tech, they'd puzzled why I don't try to get a better paying job,while people in other fields would tell me how lucky I am compared to them.
  - belval 7y ago
    From experience, it's not that they get upset as much as they will come back to it in random conversation about how they should earn a similar salary because "Do X and it's much harder!".

netcan 7y ago

There is an emotional day one, but at some point dust settles. I think the prevailing incentive for most employees would be to have that information, and break the information asymmetry. That said I don't think clear economic incentives are the only thing at play. Public salaries is, in old leftist terms, a material cultural change. Material meaning that salary dynamics will change as a results of it.

Spooky23 7y ago

I’ve spent most of my career in public sector gigs where my salary is listed on a website. Those arguments are bunk. Even in that type of system, there are ways to make high performers get compensated better, and there is very little of any alienation. You can also see this at play with corporate officers whose salaries vary dramatically.

Gustomaximus 7y ago

A third factor is: do you want to know? I worked some years in Norway where tax information is public making it fairly easy to estimate what people earn. I chose not to view this information given I was happy with my salary and work. I felt if I saw similar level people earnt more and I raised this but didn't get equalised it could hurt my sense of justice and how content I felt in the workplace. Given I enjoyed my work and company I didn't want to risk this as something that might bug me.

aesyondu 7y ago
I understand how you feel, and while I agree with you to a certain extent, I'm reminded of a particular behavior children make, which I will embody into a quote: "Just because you closed your eyes doesn't mean the monster is gone." Also "Ignorance is bliss." Which could be interpreted either way.
- codingmess 7y ago
  Somebody else earning more than you is not a monster that will eat you, though.
- Gustomaximus 7y ago
  I guess it's a combination of current position and what you value. I was already paid reasonably well which likely helps take this position. Once that threshold is met I value happiness over a bit more money. If I was frustrated with my income I'd likely be viewing the tax info and looking for negotation points, or knowing a company is a poor payer in general. No 'right' answer, only what is right for you.
IkmoIkmo 7y ago
> felt if I saw similar level people earnt more and I raised this but didn't get equalised it could hurt my sense of justice and how content I felt in the workplace. Shouldn't it, though? It's like saying your partner is cheating on you, but you don't want to know because it could 'hurt your sense of justice and how content I feel in the relationship'. I mean, I'll grant you that if you're happy in your job, and honestly don't care about pay, it's different. Just like if you're in an open relationship, and genuinely don't care if your partner sleeps with other people. That's fine. But by saying it could hurt you, you're implying it does matter. And if it matters, the first step to righting any wrong is to know about it and to be able to take adequate steps. Put differently, suppose other people knew they were worth more, took that information and asked more, got more, and you didn't, even though you could've. That doesn't sound right to me. What I think could be a useful tool is to take that raw Norwegian tax data, run a basic condition on it, and then spit out only results you find 'relevant', which can protect you from knowing things you don't want to know. e.g. input 10 names of your peers (who should be earning the same), and only show those salaries that are say 20% above your own. That prevents you from knowing Bob earns 5% more for reasons that may never be resolved, which could still annoy you. But if say Bob earns 20% more, that's something I'd want to know to see if I could take action. Or, perhaps even more conservative, to only get a sense of where you stand versus company average (for your function) and versus market average. That takes out a lot of the personal but tells you whether you should be happy where you are, or asking for a raise or another employer.

dang 7y ago

> A company obviously wants to pay as little as possible. I suppose I'm naive, but it seems obvious to me that a company should want to pay its employees as much as possible—that is, as much as is consistent with the value the employees deliver. When I say "should", I don't mean morally. It just seems obviously in the company's interest.

paloaltokid 7y ago
You're reminding me of the "Spanish Theory of Value" as explained in the book Peopleware (DeMarco & Lister). I highly recommend this book. From Chapter 3 of the book: "The Spanish Theory...held that only a fixed amount of value existed on earth, and therefore the path to the accumulation of wealth was to learn to extract it more efficiently from the soil or from people's back." I think that most folks, once they're a few years into their careers, have seen and understood that this theory of management and value extraction is alive and well in corporate America today. From the same chapter: "Productivity ought to mean achieving more in an hour of work, but all too often it has come to mean extracting more for an hour of pay. There is a large difference." So I agree with you. It seems obvious to me as well that companies should pay as much as possible. But they don't think that way, because they're coming from a different value set.
- dang 7y ago
  Even the value set of greed should nudge them in that direction—though perhaps not short-term greed.
  - paloaltokid 7y ago
    Again, we agree. But it's that word should that is the delta between how we would like it to work and how it currently actually works.
- rhizome 7y ago
  Said another way, people who work 80hrs a week cut their salaries in half.
7y ago