5 ms·

> It's a market transaction - if both the seller and the buyer are satisfied with the price then the deal goes through at that price. There is no magical essen

> It's a market transaction - if both the seller and the buyer are satisfied with the price then the deal goes through at that price. There is no magical essence to markets that justifies any agreed pricing point as the best price that ever could be. Especially under information asymmetry markets don't operate well i.e. they don't set prices as efficiently. > It does not matter. If you are not satisfied with the offer - ask for more or walk away. Sounds like it does matter in your argument because here you are constructing a satisfaction criteria that hinges on not knowing the other offers. If knowing other offers changes your satisfaction level, was it really an objectively satisfying offer in the first place? > Yeah, I gave an example in the post you replied to: the unskilled labor market I was thinking more of labor markets in some European countries, which are not at all exclusive to unskilled positions, e.g even includes managerial positions. I think there might be some sort of confirmation bias here preventing the acceptance of the possibility that some labor markets do have transparent compensation for even highly skilled positions and they work OK.

pandaman 6y ago
>There is no magical essence to markets that justifies any agreed pricing point as the best price that ever could be. True. Has anybody claimed the opposite? The only thing market ensures is that both sides agree with transaction. Which is the best you can get. >Sounds like it does matter in your argument because here you are constructing a satisfaction criteria that hinges on not knowing the other offers. I do not do such thing. Even more, I specifically ask why would it matter if you knew about other offers? If you are okay to work for 30K then why you are suddenly not okay if you learn that somebody else gets paid 50K at the same company? This makes no sense to me. Even considering opposite, you know in advance that other people got 50K for the similar position and you are offered 30K, what would be different? It's not like you are going to get 50K just because of your knowledge of other salaries. And you can always ask for 50K with or without such knowledge. >I was thinking more of labor markets in some European countries I get spammed with a lot of European jobs on LinkedIn (I have no idea why they would shop for programmers in the US to be honest), none of them have fixed salaries. UK,Netherlands, France, Norway,Sweden,Finland even Iceland - they have a wide range at best, most are "DOE".
- acituan 6y ago
  > True. Has anybody claimed the opposite? The only thing market ensures is that both sides agree with transaction. Which is the best you can get. I think you've just claimed it again? > I specifically ask why would it matter if you knew about other offers? If you are okay to work for 30K then why you are suddenly not okay if you learn that somebody else gets paid 50K at the same company? If you learned you were paid %30 less than everyone else at your level, wouldn't you go for a renegotiation with your manager or go back to the labor market? Would you internalize that difference as "I guess the company knows my worth exactly and I deserve it"? If you knew the average price for your level as a candidate, wouldn't you use that knowledge in your next negotiations? I mean, I thought this was common sense, self-explanatory game theory. You are claiming the knowledge of the competing price points to have zero value in price setting, and it is a strong claim that requires matching evidence. > I get spammed with a lot of European jobs on LinkedIn (I have no idea why they would shop for programmers in the US to be honest), none of them have fixed salaries Your personal sample is hardly representative because we are trying to establish existence of transparently priced positions that are not low-skilled. From the top of my head, if you have access to paper version of 'The Economist', you will see plenty of such ads. Granted, this might be my availability bias, but definitely there is no hard rule of concealed pricing for highly skilled jobs.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    >I think you've just claimed it again? I see. Not even trying to make an argument because you disrespect the conversation or because you are out of arguments? Either way it does not seem to be going anywhere. >If you learned you were paid %30 less than everyone else at your level, wouldn't you go for a renegotiation with your manager or go back to the labor market? I don't have "a level", my job is unique as well as other people in my org. Hence I get a salary and not a hourly rate because I do not produce a well measured labor at constant rate. But if I decide that my negotiated salary is not to my satisfaction anymore it's not going to be because I learned other people salary but because I feel that my value has increased. As I said above: your reasoning only applies to hourly laborers whose labor is already openly priced at "levels" and there is not much room for negotiation. > You are claiming the knowledge of the competing price points to have zero value in price setting, and it is a strong claim that requires matching evidence. Nope, you proposed that there is some strong relation between one's negotiated salary and other people's salary without any evidence and when I asked how this is supposed to work you claimed I made a strong claim. You are not even trying to defend your argument, are you? >Your personal sample is hardly representative because we are trying to establish existence of transparently priced positions that are not low-skilled I see where confusion is coming from: you think that positions that require some skills are not low-skilled. I used low-skilled in the sense that US DOL uses to distinguish between salaried and hourly workers.

pandaman 6y ago

>There is no magical essence to markets that justifies any agreed pricing point as the best price that ever could be. True. Has anybody claimed the opposite? The only thing market ensures is that both sides agree with transaction. Which is the best you can get. >Sounds like it does matter in your argument because here you are constructing a satisfaction criteria that hinges on not knowing the other offers. I do not do such thing. Even more, I specifically ask why would it matter if you knew about other offers? If you are okay to work for 30K then why you are suddenly not okay if you learn that somebody else gets paid 50K at the same company? This makes no sense to me. Even considering opposite, you know in advance that other people got 50K for the similar position and you are offered 30K, what would be different? It's not like you are going to get 50K just because of your knowledge of other salaries. And you can always ask for 50K with or without such knowledge. >I was thinking more of labor markets in some European countries I get spammed with a lot of European jobs on LinkedIn (I have no idea why they would shop for programmers in the US to be honest), none of them have fixed salaries. UK,Netherlands, France, Norway,Sweden,Finland even Iceland - they have a wide range at best, most are "DOE".

acituan 6y ago
> True. Has anybody claimed the opposite? The only thing market ensures is that both sides agree with transaction. Which is the best you can get. I think you've just claimed it again? > I specifically ask why would it matter if you knew about other offers? If you are okay to work for 30K then why you are suddenly not okay if you learn that somebody else gets paid 50K at the same company? If you learned you were paid %30 less than everyone else at your level, wouldn't you go for a renegotiation with your manager or go back to the labor market? Would you internalize that difference as "I guess the company knows my worth exactly and I deserve it"? If you knew the average price for your level as a candidate, wouldn't you use that knowledge in your next negotiations? I mean, I thought this was common sense, self-explanatory game theory. You are claiming the knowledge of the competing price points to have zero value in price setting, and it is a strong claim that requires matching evidence. > I get spammed with a lot of European jobs on LinkedIn (I have no idea why they would shop for programmers in the US to be honest), none of them have fixed salaries Your personal sample is hardly representative because we are trying to establish existence of transparently priced positions that are not low-skilled. From the top of my head, if you have access to paper version of 'The Economist', you will see plenty of such ads. Granted, this might be my availability bias, but definitely there is no hard rule of concealed pricing for highly skilled jobs.
- pandaman 6y ago
  >I think you've just claimed it again? I see. Not even trying to make an argument because you disrespect the conversation or because you are out of arguments? Either way it does not seem to be going anywhere. >If you learned you were paid %30 less than everyone else at your level, wouldn't you go for a renegotiation with your manager or go back to the labor market? I don't have "a level", my job is unique as well as other people in my org. Hence I get a salary and not a hourly rate because I do not produce a well measured labor at constant rate. But if I decide that my negotiated salary is not to my satisfaction anymore it's not going to be because I learned other people salary but because I feel that my value has increased. As I said above: your reasoning only applies to hourly laborers whose labor is already openly priced at "levels" and there is not much room for negotiation. > You are claiming the knowledge of the competing price points to have zero value in price setting, and it is a strong claim that requires matching evidence. Nope, you proposed that there is some strong relation between one's negotiated salary and other people's salary without any evidence and when I asked how this is supposed to work you claimed I made a strong claim. You are not even trying to defend your argument, are you? >Your personal sample is hardly representative because we are trying to establish existence of transparently priced positions that are not low-skilled I see where confusion is coming from: you think that positions that require some skills are not low-skilled. I used low-skilled in the sense that US DOL uses to distinguish between salaried and hourly workers.