>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?

>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.