3 ms·

> posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects I agree. I'm just not sure if I agree that it particularly benefits underprivileged groups. I don

> posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects I agree. I'm just not sure if I agree that it particularly benefits underprivileged groups. I don't see a compelling argument being made by the author that the system of negotiation specifically is biased. Whether a salary range is posted or not everyone has to negotiate and engage the market. There is no way to get around this and if you aren't willing to do it you are going to be taken advantage of. A salary range posted by the company who is trying to hire you is not going to tell you how much you should be making there. They are going to try to pay you less. It seems like what people really want is for employers to magically pay everyone exactly what they should be making without negotiating, which is simply not possible, because nobody knows what they should be making until the market sets a price. > The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less. I'm not assuming this. In my experience whether someone negotiates more or not at all has more to do with their experience around the process in general. More junior candidates or candidates who haven't switched jobs more than once or twice are more likely to be underpaid. I personally screwed this up about 4 times before learning my lesson. > minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money I don't disagree with this. I don't see how posting a salary range changes this. If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not. > There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay. There is no other way to do it. For someone looking for a job you should try to get multiple offers, negotiate them, and see how much you end up with. That number is as close to your market value as you are going to get. > this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other group I guess I really just don't buy this argument as it pertains to this topic. Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing. If you can't become comfortable doing this, you are going to make less.

antasvara 5y ago
> If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not. A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system. > The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay. I don't see how posting salary ranges is any different from negotiation. If a company posts a salary range and gets no qualified candidates, they now know that the offer was too low. Instead of putting the onus on the prospective employee, why not put it on the corporations? I think it probably makes more sense to have companies competing against each other in a transparent and open market, instead of requiring employees to do that work for themselves. > Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing. Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. If you go to the link related to the Howard and Heidi case study [1], you'd see that there is at least anecdotal evidence that women are seen as less likable and selfish if doing the same thing as men. It's not just about a matter of confidence, but how that confidence is perceived. Combine those two issues together and you can see how negotiation can negatively impact some groups.
- alex504 5y ago
  > Howard and Heidi case study This is the crux of the argument, and it is something that needs stronger evidence from the author. The Howard and Heidi case study is not related at all to how someone will be perceived negotiating a salary. It is a very weak piece of evidence. It also doesn't make any sense to me, and doesn't match up with my experience hiring or being part of the process. Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. If the employer wants to hire them, they will pay what they are willing to pay them. If someone wants to work for a company, they will take the amount they are willing to be paid. > A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system. Maybe salary ranges do help people that are being absolutely fleeced by their employers. Again, I do not buy that has anything to do with gender or race. This happens when people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise. It is true that many, many people do this and end up being underpaid. There is no barrier for someone in an underprivileged group from learning that they need to negotiate and shop around. As you said, a salary range might help a small amount for people who are being taken advantage of but they will still be underpaid. The only way to actually get what you are worth is to navigate the market. It is a very simple process. > Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are at your job. But it does have something to do with how much you get paid for doing your job. The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.

antasvara 5y ago

> If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not. A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system. > The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay. I don't see how posting salary ranges is any different from negotiation. If a company posts a salary range and gets no qualified candidates, they now know that the offer was too low. Instead of putting the onus on the prospective employee, why not put it on the corporations? I think it probably makes more sense to have companies competing against each other in a transparent and open market, instead of requiring employees to do that work for themselves. > Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing. Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. If you go to the link related to the Howard and Heidi case study [1], you'd see that there is at least anecdotal evidence that women are seen as less likable and selfish if doing the same thing as men. It's not just about a matter of confidence, but how that confidence is perceived. Combine those two issues together and you can see how negotiation can negatively impact some groups.

alex504 5y ago
> Howard and Heidi case study This is the crux of the argument, and it is something that needs stronger evidence from the author. The Howard and Heidi case study is not related at all to how someone will be perceived negotiating a salary. It is a very weak piece of evidence. It also doesn't make any sense to me, and doesn't match up with my experience hiring or being part of the process. Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. If the employer wants to hire them, they will pay what they are willing to pay them. If someone wants to work for a company, they will take the amount they are willing to be paid. > A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system. Maybe salary ranges do help people that are being absolutely fleeced by their employers. Again, I do not buy that has anything to do with gender or race. This happens when people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise. It is true that many, many people do this and end up being underpaid. There is no barrier for someone in an underprivileged group from learning that they need to negotiate and shop around. As you said, a salary range might help a small amount for people who are being taken advantage of but they will still be underpaid. The only way to actually get what you are worth is to navigate the market. It is a very simple process. > Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are at your job. But it does have something to do with how much you get paid for doing your job. The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.