3 ms·

I have to admit I don't understand why companies are so opposed to this. Companies I've worked at have ranges of salary internally, which presumably they could

by notJim 5y ago

I have to admit I don't understand why companies are so opposed to this. Companies I've worked at have ranges of salary internally, which presumably they could share. The ranges are large enough that I think employees would struggle to use them to negotiate very well. And employees talk salary to each other and have other ways of getting that info anyway. Edit: someone else pointed out that Accenture does this in one of their listings: "For the state of Colorado only, the range of starting pay for this role is $58,700 - $94,1999" https://www.accenture.com/us-en/careers/jobdetails?id=9641867_en https://www.accenture.com/us-en/careers/jobdetails?id=964186... Here we see there's even a benefit: Accenture will save time interviewing people who don't want to work for these horrible low wages.

Mertax 5y ago
I'm not an economist, but I imagine it's similar to disclosing any product margin or cost of goods. It's probably more about what it does to the perception of the producer vs. the consumer. It may lead to increased cost (paying higher salaries) if the market is not competitive and companies are leveraging the obscurity. But it may decrease cost if things are over valued. The question is, is the labor market over or under valued? If it's over-valued then disclosing may actually cause salaries to equilibrate/come down -- which would be to the company's advantage. Does it imply that companies think the market is over-valued and aren't wanting to increase competition (both internally amongst current employees and externally with new hires)?