5 ms·
> favorable to employees Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competiti
by commandlinefan 5y ago
> favorable to employees
Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.
- falcolas 5y agoIt worked for CEOs. Their salaries were disclosed due to a new law, and their salaries skyrocketed. Competition is good, not bad.
- ethbr0 5y agoCompetition is fairer, not so much good nor bad.
- HPsquared 5y agoFairness is an objective good to most people.
- ethbr0 5y agoI would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.
- falcolas 5y agoThe alternative also has a name: The "Tyranny of the Majority". Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?
- ethbr0 5y agoI would in the abstract. But then in the specific I would also tend to support policies that are good for me, even to the detriment of others. And since I'm a member of many majority classes... well, there you have my point.
- falcolas 5y agoThat stance is also known as, "Fuck you, I've got mine." I personally, despite also being in a number of majority classes, prefer to avoid being an asshole because of an accident of birth.
- ethbr0 5y agoBe that as it may in your case, are you arguing that most people will act contrary to their own best interests? That seems a shaky foundation to build policy on.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- HPsquared 5y agoThat depends on how 'fairness' is defined. Your definition of fairness appears to exclude a set of concepts which you see as unfair. It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".
- ethbr0 5y agoI would define fairness as equality of opportunity, for every person. Hence the previous comment's tautology that fairness will not be an objective good for most people, because (a) most people prefer their own self interest, (b) the status quo provides majorities advantages that minorities do not share, and (c) objective fairness will thus come at the expense of the majority (who are by definition more numerous than the minority). It's interesting most people are interpreting my comment as a preference, vs an observation.
- chii 5y agobut fairer is considered better, all things being equal.
- mywittyname 5y agoCan things that happen to CEOs be extrapolated and applied successfully to regular workers? Companies already buy salary information from brokers. So they already know what the competition is paying and generally try to keep in line with that. And that's pretty much a type of collusion. If everyone seeks to pay "market rates" based on these salary reports, then everyone will aim to pay about the same amount.
- pmoriarty 5y agoIf wages were going to be driven down by this then corporations would not only be all for it, but would probably lobby to make it a law everywhere.
- grumple 5y agoGood luck in a competitive field like tech. Companies might not advertise salary ranges at a few big tech companies, but the vast majority of recruiters tell you the salary range as soon as you talk to them (or you name your price and they say "that will work"). I already totally ignore the bottom 75% of salaries. The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals, and there are always new opportunities for them. If you pay enough, you benefit from them. If you don't, somebody else does, or worse, they become new competition.
- Clubber 5y ago>The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals I'm convinced a primary motivation for hiring in mega-tech companies is to keep people from making startups to dethrone them. You can't legally compete with Google, etc if you've signed a non-compete.
- mywittyname 5y agoNon-competes are unenforceable in a lot of places. And even if they weren't, the time scales for a startup to evolve into a serious market mover is longer than most non-compete contracts last anyway. A founder of a now-popular startup worked for Google eight years ago, so what? Let's say Google remembers and decides to pursue action. They'd spend another 3-4 years suing a person who has a mountain of plausible deniability to hide behind. And for what? There's no real gain to Google for this.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThe point is they go to and stay at Google instead of starting their own company.
- Mauricebranagh 5y agoYou can once you leave - just don't take the piss like the self driving car idiot did.
- 5y ago
- tyrust 5y agoThe existence of levels.fyi doesn't appear to have hurt Total Comp thus far.
- Clubber 5y agoThis already happens. If you look at most job postings, many will say "market value," for the salary. They are typically horrendously low.
- Taylor_OD 5y agoThen said remote employees could go work for companies in other states. Or the companies that are actually willing to pay above the market because they need the talent. Which will cause more people to pay and that level and then eventually we are in the same situation we are in now where swe salaries are very strong in general.
- ncallaway 5y agoCorporations (at least mid-size and large corporations) already have a pretty good idea of what their competition is offering. There are companies that survey employees for salary information, collect all that knowledge, and then sell it to corporations. Medium and large businesses already have a very good understanding of the job market and what a competitive salary range is.
- eecc 5y agoExactly, the problem is that they keep lowballing it because these ranges are somewhat not so much public knowledge
- Mauricebranagh 5y agoCartels are illegal ask the companies in SV that got caught.