4 ms·

> 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'v

> 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

>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.