12 ms·

Here's the problem with non-deterministic conversations: everyone has an opinion (fair enough), and is willing to state it with the authority of a highly experi

Here's the problem with non-deterministic conversations: everyone has an opinion (fair enough), and is willing to state it with the authority of a highly experienced subject matter expert. In deterministic conversations, a naive opinion stated with a lot of authority would be shut down quite quickly (eg: many areas in programming where you can quickly prove something to be right or wrong). You can't do that in politics, business, and many other areas. As a result, we have about 8 billion politicians and business experts. The author is making the assumption that listing a salary is connected to being a progressive business. A bunch of other people take this a step further and state how not listing the salary is a part of some conspiracy (in YC's case, apparently this is an attempt to lower the payroll costs of their portfolio companies). The reality is that even the most transparent companies out there (eg: Gitlab) do not disclose individual salaries. No, it has nothing to do with some secret plan to underpay anyone or certain groups. It's simply a fact that people become incredibly irrational when it comes to compensation, and the minute you lay it out in the open, you open up a huge surface area for conflict. Last year we learned that encouraging political activism at work has a similar dynamic, and many companies have made that a no go zone as well. It's not because they are racist or don't care - it's because it takes a tiny minority of people to get the entire business derailed, and it's hard enough to keep that from happening in the best of times; once you add a catalyst like salaries or politics, it's like adding fuel to the fire. But rather than ask ourselves why the leaders at Gitlab and millions of others companies have made the decisions they did, it's a lot easier to just make assumptions - "it must be coming from a bad place, so let me brainstorm what some of those bad places could be." I'll take it a step further - Colorado State Senator Jessie Danielson would make you believe it's more likely that millions of companies are "bad actors" than that she just doesn't have the relevant experience in business to predict which way her bill was going to work out. Now that she's cost so many of her constituents lucrative remote jobs, it's too late to admit Mea Culpa, and instead it's everyone else's fault. If she was held a bit more accountable, the next time someone tries to bridge the gender pay gap they will hopefully spend some time interviewing and learning from people who have the relevant experience in hiring.

xg15 5y ago
And let me guess, unions are also discouraged solely because they'd disturb the workplace culture and nothing else?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yowzadave 5y ago
> It's simply a fact that people become incredibly irrational when it comes to compensation, and the minute you lay it out in the open, you open up a huge surface area for conflict. Finland makes every tax-paying citizen’s salary public, and their society hasn’t descended into chaos.
cosmodisk 5y ago
I live in a country, where historically there were very little data points on salaries. It was very common to go through 4-6 interview stages and then get told that the salary they offer is 1/3 of what the candidate is willing to join for. Eventually there was enough political will to change the laws and now it's mandatory to publish salaries under the job ads. It goes even further- for each company with more than 3 employees salary information is publicly available ( e.g. average salary paid, more details stats for bigger companies). Suddenly everyone could see the barrel scrapers and top payers. Granted, some still post things like €2000-8000/month, which just shows that a company is trying to hire everyone from a junior to an architect on the same job ad. The serious companies don't do it. The whole thing became 100 times better. Here's how it looks: https://rekvizitai.vz.lt/m/en/company/uber_lithuania_software_and_development/ https://rekvizitai.vz.lt/m/en/company/uber_lithuania_softwar...
newbie789 5y ago
eganist 5y ago
> Colorado State Senator Jessie Danielson would make you believe it's more likely that millions of companies are "bad actors" than that she just doesn't have the relevant experience in business to predict which way her bill was going to work out. I think this misses the point, and I think the idea of a "huge surface area for conflict" also misses the point. In the end, unless an entity is a public benefit corp or a not-for-profit, the literal sole goal is to profit. "Reducing surface area for conflict" is one of many steps on the way to the goal for profit, and if cutting out Colorado is less painful to profits than disclosing salaries and opening up that conflict surface, then that's naturally what will happen. Colorado doesn't really need to apologize. They made a bet that their state was relevant to remote work, and they lost that bet for some number of companies (I can think of plenty with no Colorado carve-outs and with specific disclosures due to Colorado despite not having a presence in the state, so clearly some firms think the talent pool is worthwhile), and that's to be expected given Colorado isn't one of the most populous states in the country. That calculus quickly changes for many more companies if it turns out the population of remote talent in Colorado is trending upward and worth tapping into, or if California etc pass similar legislation.

xg15 5y ago

And let me guess, unions are also discouraged solely because they'd disturb the workplace culture and nothing else?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

yowzadave 5y ago

> It's simply a fact that people become incredibly irrational when it comes to compensation, and the minute you lay it out in the open, you open up a huge surface area for conflict. Finland makes every tax-paying citizen’s salary public, and their society hasn’t descended into chaos.

cosmodisk 5y ago

I live in a country, where historically there were very little data points on salaries. It was very common to go through 4-6 interview stages and then get told that the salary they offer is 1/3 of what the candidate is willing to join for. Eventually there was enough political will to change the laws and now it's mandatory to publish salaries under the job ads. It goes even further- for each company with more than 3 employees salary information is publicly available ( e.g. average salary paid, more details stats for bigger companies). Suddenly everyone could see the barrel scrapers and top payers. Granted, some still post things like €2000-8000/month, which just shows that a company is trying to hire everyone from a junior to an architect on the same job ad. The serious companies don't do it. The whole thing became 100 times better. Here's how it looks: https://rekvizitai.vz.lt/m/en/company/uber_lithuania_software_and_development/ https://rekvizitai.vz.lt/m/en/company/uber_lithuania_softwar...

newbie789 5y ago

eganist 5y ago

> Colorado State Senator Jessie Danielson would make you believe it's more likely that millions of companies are "bad actors" than that she just doesn't have the relevant experience in business to predict which way her bill was going to work out. I think this misses the point, and I think the idea of a "huge surface area for conflict" also misses the point. In the end, unless an entity is a public benefit corp or a not-for-profit, the literal sole goal is to profit. "Reducing surface area for conflict" is one of many steps on the way to the goal for profit, and if cutting out Colorado is less painful to profits than disclosing salaries and opening up that conflict surface, then that's naturally what will happen. Colorado doesn't really need to apologize. They made a bet that their state was relevant to remote work, and they lost that bet for some number of companies (I can think of plenty with no Colorado carve-outs and with specific disclosures due to Colorado despite not having a presence in the state, so clearly some firms think the talent pool is worthwhile), and that's to be expected given Colorado isn't one of the most populous states in the country. That calculus quickly changes for many more companies if it turns out the population of remote talent in Colorado is trending upward and worth tapping into, or if California etc pass similar legislation.