4 ms·

Absolutely. Try to imagine how much different the world would be if, for instance, job listings were required to post their compensation exactly.

by ouid 6y ago

ChrisLomont 6y ago
I've gotten multiple jobs in life where I was able to negotiate a much larger salary then they had intended to pay due to being of more worth to them once they interviewed me. So that would be done away with? No thanks. I'm happy that people have varying skillsets and that employers can pay more or less for a posting based on the person they choose.
- ouid 6y ago
  I think you're guilty of falling prey to the "decoy effect" here. The labor market is a carnival, and they're selling tokens to you. You can buy 25 tokens for 10 dollars or 15 tokens for 5 dollars. The latter strategy is locally optimal, and you are using that as an argument for it's global optimality. That's exactly the point of the con though. Companies DO NOT want to bid on labor, so they'll use whatever trick they can to avoid having to do it.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
    No, he's not. That's what gets lost in the shuffle in discussions like this. He is saying it works for him and like it or not, that's what the vast majority of people care about. What's In It For Me?
    - ouid 6y ago
      No, that's a mischaracterization of my argument. The decoy here is the lower salary that was the supposedly "market rate" salary for the work he does. That price wasn't advertised publicly in a central market for job listings, so it's an unrelated third option that is dominated by his current strategy that drives him to believe that his current strategy is globally optimal, despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. He would make more money if he could sort job listings by offered salary.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >Companies DO NOT want to bid on labor, so they'll use whatever trick they can to avoid having to do it. Workers also do not want to work cheaper than they can get, and last I checked, there's over 5 million companies in the US, and plenty of evidence that those companies are competing for labor. So they do bid on labor. If a company does not match it's competitors, employees move. And a company has every incentive to pay more than competitors, up to the break even point, since it gets them better employees. Even if a few companies collude, it open the door for a competitor to break ranks and steal employees. This breaking of ranks is prevalent in all sorts of cartels around the world - it's nearly impossible to make companies stick to an agreement when by breaking it they can gain advantage over rivals. The carnival metaphor makes little sense. Employees and employers are in a market trading goods, nothing more, nothing less.
codegeek 6y ago
I prefer ranges. Not all candidates are same even for the same job. If I hire an A player, I may give them a bit more to sweeten the deal. If I hire a B player (who is good enough for the role but is not an A player so far), I would negotiate the compensation a little early on as long as it is something the candidate B accepts. Range gives you the floor (if they are honest). Let's say the range is 65k-85K, then its fair game to say that the best candidate may get 85K but a good enough may only get 65K or say 70K. Also as a candidate if you are looking for 100K min, you know this position is not for you.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  I’ve never understood this logic, can’t you just create different roles?
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    What if the candidate applies to the wrong one, but would be suitable for a different one. At that point it's not much different to just having a range on their in the first place.
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      it's completely different - Google for example will down level you based on performance. if you have candidates that have the same job with wildly different salaries which just exacerbates arbitrary inequities. the range solution also creates problems when handling promotions the one who benefits the most from the "range" solution is the employer, really.
      - nicoburns 6y ago
        > if you have candidates that have the same job with wildly different salaries How do you classify something as the same job versus a different job though? Two developers may have roughly similar responsibilities but one may be much better than the other. And it would be reasonable to pay them more in those circumstances, but it's very hard to quantify that objectively. Also, Google is a huge company so they can advertise 5 jobs at different levels and fill them all. Whereas smaller companies may want someone and not be too sure about what level they need: it may depend more on who they can get. They can't afford to be too picky.

Absolutely. Try to imagine how much different the world would be if, for instance, job listings were required to post their compensation exactly.

by ouid 6y ago

Absolutely. Try to imagine how much different the world would be if, for instance, job listings were required to post their compensation exactly.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

I've gotten multiple jobs in life where I was able to negotiate a much larger salary then they had intended to pay due to being of more worth to them once they interviewed me. So that would be done away with? No thanks. I'm happy that people have varying skillsets and that employers can pay more or less for a posting based on the person they choose.

ouid 6y ago
I think you're guilty of falling prey to the "decoy effect" here. The labor market is a carnival, and they're selling tokens to you. You can buy 25 tokens for 10 dollars or 15 tokens for 5 dollars. The latter strategy is locally optimal, and you are using that as an argument for it's global optimality. That's exactly the point of the con though. Companies DO NOT want to bid on labor, so they'll use whatever trick they can to avoid having to do it.
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
  No, he's not. That's what gets lost in the shuffle in discussions like this. He is saying it works for him and like it or not, that's what the vast majority of people care about. What's In It For Me?
  - ouid 6y ago
    No, that's a mischaracterization of my argument. The decoy here is the lower salary that was the supposedly "market rate" salary for the work he does. That price wasn't advertised publicly in a central market for job listings, so it's an unrelated third option that is dominated by his current strategy that drives him to believe that his current strategy is globally optimal, despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. He would make more money if he could sort job listings by offered salary.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >Companies DO NOT want to bid on labor, so they'll use whatever trick they can to avoid having to do it. Workers also do not want to work cheaper than they can get, and last I checked, there's over 5 million companies in the US, and plenty of evidence that those companies are competing for labor. So they do bid on labor. If a company does not match it's competitors, employees move. And a company has every incentive to pay more than competitors, up to the break even point, since it gets them better employees. Even if a few companies collude, it open the door for a competitor to break ranks and steal employees. This breaking of ranks is prevalent in all sorts of cartels around the world - it's nearly impossible to make companies stick to an agreement when by breaking it they can gain advantage over rivals. The carnival metaphor makes little sense. Employees and employers are in a market trading goods, nothing more, nothing less.

codegeek 6y ago

I prefer ranges. Not all candidates are same even for the same job. If I hire an A player, I may give them a bit more to sweeten the deal. If I hire a B player (who is good enough for the role but is not an A player so far), I would negotiate the compensation a little early on as long as it is something the candidate B accepts. Range gives you the floor (if they are honest). Let's say the range is 65k-85K, then its fair game to say that the best candidate may get 85K but a good enough may only get 65K or say 70K. Also as a candidate if you are looking for 100K min, you know this position is not for you.

endisneigh 6y ago
I’ve never understood this logic, can’t you just create different roles?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  What if the candidate applies to the wrong one, but would be suitable for a different one. At that point it's not much different to just having a range on their in the first place.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    it's completely different - Google for example will down level you based on performance. if you have candidates that have the same job with wildly different salaries which just exacerbates arbitrary inequities. the range solution also creates problems when handling promotions the one who benefits the most from the "range" solution is the employer, really.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      > if you have candidates that have the same job with wildly different salaries How do you classify something as the same job versus a different job though? Two developers may have roughly similar responsibilities but one may be much better than the other. And it would be reasonable to pay them more in those circumstances, but it's very hard to quantify that objectively. Also, Google is a huge company so they can advertise 5 jobs at different levels and fill them all. Whereas smaller companies may want someone and not be too sure about what level they need: it may depend more on who they can get. They can't afford to be too picky.