6 ms·

The employees at tech firms I’ve worked at solved this by “anonymizing”. Basically a few folks maintained a big publicly readable spreadsheet with columns like

The employees at tech firms I’ve worked at solved this by “anonymizing”. Basically a few folks maintained a big publicly readable spreadsheet with columns like Title, Level, YOE, YOE at Company, Office Location, Gender, Base Comp, Total Comp. Technically the fields were sufficiently granular that some rows could in principle be de-anonymized, but that wasn’t really the point. N.b. This was just random employees collecting volunteered information, nothing HR-sanctioned.

darkerside 5y ago
The fact remains that this seems likely to increase the perception of unfairness, lower the level of individual happiness, and increase the time spent complaining and analyzing salary discrepancies. Things will never be exactly equal. Why focus time emphasizing the differences?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Things will never be exactly equal. Why focus time emphasizing the differences? Why remain ignornant, and potentially lose out on acertaining one's true market value, because it might hurt someone's feelings? Price discovery via markets can only work with transparency. Opaqueness leads to inefficiencies.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    If you want to optimize for everybody getting paid perfectly fairly, sure. If you believe there are diminishing returns to that and our time as people is better spent growing the pie, then that isn't information, it's noise.
    - squeaky-clean 5y ago
      As an individual, why would I care about growing the pie and not my own salary? It's not about optimizing everyone getting paid fairly. It's about optimizing your own pay.
      - sgtnoodle 5y ago
        "Growing the pie" means making the company more successful, and if you have any equity in it, then it's likely to make you more money long term than arguing for more cash. Also, if you happen to be at a good company with honest and responsible management, then your compensation will be accurately adjusted based on your business value. So, doing good useful work will optimize your own pay as well as benefit everyone else. If you're at a crappy company with crappy managers, then yeah maybe you just need to play politics until you're paid enough to justify not quitting. If you have the means to move on from a job you don't like, though, you should probably work toward fixing that regardless of the compensation.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        > if you have any equity in it, then it's likely to make you more money long term than arguing for more cash. It depends on how much equity. If you have a greater percentage of ownership than you do of total salary, that makes sense. (Unless it's publicly traded, because then you can buy more stock with the more money.) But that seems unlikely most of the time. So, yes, it's better for founders or major shareholders. I don't follow that asking for more money is "playing politics"
        sgtnoodle 5y ago
        Equity is a long term investment which ideally compounds exponentially over time (even if it only matches inflation) in a way that you, as an active participant, can positively or negatively influence. Salary is steady income that linearly accumulates (and loses value over time unless invested), so it's kind of apples to oranges. Undervaluing a modest amount of equity when you're young can lead to a large missed opportunity cost decades later. It's certainly hard work with an element of luck to get equity in a company that takes off like a rocket, but that's why high-risk high-reward is a saying. If your compensation doesn't accurately reflect your merit to the company, then it instead reflects arbitrary social power dynamics. If you stick around somewhere that you believe is taking advantage of you, and try to up your pay through leverage or non-merit based arguments, then that definitely seems like politics to me. Just asking for money if you think you deserve it isn't inherently politics, though. If you're genuinely being underpaid and think the company is dropping the ball but acting in good faith, then having an honest conversation with your manager is healthy, and should result in the situation being resolved favorably.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      If you feel that way, then don't participate. Others might feel differently about learning the truth instead of remaining ignorant of it.
      - darkerside 5y ago
        Just looking at it from what I think is a bigger picture perspective. I think it's worth considering of there is a point where there is TMI.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Don't limit yourself based on what others make. If you accept a job, wait a year, then start interviewing at least one interview every 6 months. You'll improve your interviewing skills and learn your market value. What your coworkers make at your current job is not a strong indicator of your market value. What actual employers are willing to pay you is much better data. Don't forget, a huge component in salaries is social skills.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- titanomachy 5y ago
  If it bothers you then don’t look at it.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  If it increases the "perception of unfairness" it's because things were already unfair and you just weren't aware of it.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Yes, they are, and they always will be. I don't disagree that we shouldn't make things fairer, but i believe there's a limit at which of becomes a meaningless exercise.
- f6v 5y ago
  I think it has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with negotiating your salary. The more you know about the market, the bigger your leverage is. And if it so happens that you earn less as a result of gaps in your skills, you should own it and work on yourself.
- ajuc 5y ago
  > Things will never be exactly equal. Why focus time emphasizing the differences? This line of thinking leads to interesting conclusions: - people will never live forever, why heal them - discrimination will always exist, why fighting it - efficiency will never be 100%, why improve it - universe will end with heat death, why do anything at all
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Yes, I agree. I'm providing another perspective that I think is missing, not arguing that we should always think this way. It's healthiest to consider multiple viewpoints.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Maybe the reason for the lower level of happiness, more time spent complaining... is different (unfair) pay for essentially the same job. How about treating the cause instead of blaming the messenger.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  The fact remains that there is literally no valid argument where being ignorant is better than being informed. Full stop. Simple math.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Finding out that your loving wife cheated on you early in your relationship after 40 years of marriage. Learning that people don't care about you as much you think they do. Knowing exactly how you will die.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      These are things you may personally emotionally prefer to be ignorant of, but in all cases you are more capable and armed with the knowledge than without.
      - darkerside 5y ago
        I don't know the answer and see where you are coming from, but I think there is a valid argument too be made that you are wrong

darkerside 5y ago

The fact remains that this seems likely to increase the perception of unfairness, lower the level of individual happiness, and increase the time spent complaining and analyzing salary discrepancies. Things will never be exactly equal. Why focus time emphasizing the differences?

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Things will never be exactly equal. Why focus time emphasizing the differences? Why remain ignornant, and potentially lose out on acertaining one's true market value, because it might hurt someone's feelings? Price discovery via markets can only work with transparency. Opaqueness leads to inefficiencies.
- darkerside 5y ago
  If you want to optimize for everybody getting paid perfectly fairly, sure. If you believe there are diminishing returns to that and our time as people is better spent growing the pie, then that isn't information, it's noise.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    As an individual, why would I care about growing the pie and not my own salary? It's not about optimizing everyone getting paid fairly. It's about optimizing your own pay.
    - sgtnoodle 5y ago
      "Growing the pie" means making the company more successful, and if you have any equity in it, then it's likely to make you more money long term than arguing for more cash. Also, if you happen to be at a good company with honest and responsible management, then your compensation will be accurately adjusted based on your business value. So, doing good useful work will optimize your own pay as well as benefit everyone else. If you're at a crappy company with crappy managers, then yeah maybe you just need to play politics until you're paid enough to justify not quitting. If you have the means to move on from a job you don't like, though, you should probably work toward fixing that regardless of the compensation.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        > if you have any equity in it, then it's likely to make you more money long term than arguing for more cash. It depends on how much equity. If you have a greater percentage of ownership than you do of total salary, that makes sense. (Unless it's publicly traded, because then you can buy more stock with the more money.) But that seems unlikely most of the time. So, yes, it's better for founders or major shareholders. I don't follow that asking for more money is "playing politics"
        sgtnoodle 5y ago
        Equity is a long term investment which ideally compounds exponentially over time (even if it only matches inflation) in a way that you, as an active participant, can positively or negatively influence. Salary is steady income that linearly accumulates (and loses value over time unless invested), so it's kind of apples to oranges. Undervaluing a modest amount of equity when you're young can lead to a large missed opportunity cost decades later. It's certainly hard work with an element of luck to get equity in a company that takes off like a rocket, but that's why high-risk high-reward is a saying. If your compensation doesn't accurately reflect your merit to the company, then it instead reflects arbitrary social power dynamics. If you stick around somewhere that you believe is taking advantage of you, and try to up your pay through leverage or non-merit based arguments, then that definitely seems like politics to me. Just asking for money if you think you deserve it isn't inherently politics, though. If you're genuinely being underpaid and think the company is dropping the ball but acting in good faith, then having an honest conversation with your manager is healthy, and should result in the situation being resolved favorably.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    If you feel that way, then don't participate. Others might feel differently about learning the truth instead of remaining ignorant of it.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      Just looking at it from what I think is a bigger picture perspective. I think it's worth considering of there is a point where there is TMI.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Don't limit yourself based on what others make. If you accept a job, wait a year, then start interviewing at least one interview every 6 months. You'll improve your interviewing skills and learn your market value. What your coworkers make at your current job is not a strong indicator of your market value. What actual employers are willing to pay you is much better data. Don't forget, a huge component in salaries is social skills.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
titanomachy 5y ago
If it bothers you then don’t look at it.
squeaky-clean 5y ago
If it increases the "perception of unfairness" it's because things were already unfair and you just weren't aware of it.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes, they are, and they always will be. I don't disagree that we shouldn't make things fairer, but i believe there's a limit at which of becomes a meaningless exercise.
f6v 5y ago
I think it has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with negotiating your salary. The more you know about the market, the bigger your leverage is. And if it so happens that you earn less as a result of gaps in your skills, you should own it and work on yourself.
ajuc 5y ago
> Things will never be exactly equal. Why focus time emphasizing the differences? This line of thinking leads to interesting conclusions: - people will never live forever, why heal them - discrimination will always exist, why fighting it - efficiency will never be 100%, why improve it - universe will end with heat death, why do anything at all
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes, I agree. I'm providing another perspective that I think is missing, not arguing that we should always think this way. It's healthiest to consider multiple viewpoints.
cycomanic 5y ago
Maybe the reason for the lower level of happiness, more time spent complaining... is different (unfair) pay for essentially the same job. How about treating the cause instead of blaming the messenger.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
The fact remains that there is literally no valid argument where being ignorant is better than being informed. Full stop. Simple math.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Finding out that your loving wife cheated on you early in your relationship after 40 years of marriage. Learning that people don't care about you as much you think they do. Knowing exactly how you will die.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    These are things you may personally emotionally prefer to be ignorant of, but in all cases you are more capable and armed with the knowledge than without.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      I don't know the answer and see where you are coming from, but I think there is a valid argument too be made that you are wrong