3 ms·

> 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

> 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 6y 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 6y ago
  > 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. You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job. Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1]. > Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified. > 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. I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process. [1] https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases/ahold-delhaize-q4-and-full-year-2019-results/ https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases... [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001 [3] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectation https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...
  - 6y ago

alex504 6y 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 6y ago
> 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. You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job. Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1]. > Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified. > 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. I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process. [1] https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases/ahold-delhaize-q4-and-full-year-2019-results/ https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases... [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001 [3] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectation https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...
- 6y ago