4 ms·

You're looking at this consistently through the lens of someone coming in with an existing high salary who can exploit that during negotiations. But someone com

You're looking at this consistently through the lens of someone coming in with an existing high salary who can exploit that during negotiations. But someone coming in from that perspective is likely already in a strong enough economic position to negate some of the leverage that the company starts with. > That someone else thought you were worth that much. No, it suggests that someone thought you were worth at least that much. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. If that floor is high, then it may be a valuable signal as long as others corroborate it. If it's low, however, that signal is effectively meaningless. And yet, employers start assuming that a low existing salary does imply a ceiling on - or even accurate measure of - worth, as you seem to be doing.

WalterBright 5y ago
> that signal is effectively meaningless No, it isn't. > or even accurate measure of I didn't say it was accurate. I said it wasn't meaningless. Nobody is dumb enough to think that it's exact. > employers start assuming You're doing a lot of assuming. But at least you kinda sorta agree now that it is a signal, so, progress!
- mlyle 5y ago
  The problem is, it's not just a signal of your economic value to companies. It's also a signal of: * Your past skill at negotiation * Any past economic disadvantaged background or discrimination It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any. What is going to help is making an effort to learn how to do it. A relatively small effort can yield lifetime benefits.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      Yes, but you're saying that even if someone improves, a rational actor will use the signal of the history of poor negotiation to collude with others to pay that person less.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        And you can demonstrate that you are worth a higher salary and not accept less.
        mlyle 5y ago
        Surely you understand the entire argument, including parts you glossed over: > It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field. I have done quite well for myself. But I am concerned that this is one more way that the field is tilted against disadvantaged groups. Past history of being discriminated or of screwing up negotiation stays with you indefinitely, and that's not great. The data asymmetry is not great, either. Peoples' personal financial information should not be aggregated and shared with employers without their consent.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any This is false. If you have poor negotiating skills, and likely a low salary history to go with it - the prospective employer will low-ball your initial offer based on asymmetric knowledge. If they have no idea how much you earned, and are judging you on your skills and experience alone, the initial offer will most likely be a higher number much closer to market salaries. Even if there is zero negotiations and the candidate accepts the first offer, the outcomes are completely different.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > This is false. That's rather presumptive. If the candidate did not disclose his salary history, the obvious assumption is that it is not a positive, and the candidate will get a lowball offer. > are judging you on your skills and experience alone It never works that way. They'll be judging you on what you chose not to reveal, too. Other examples: 1. if you say you have a degree, but are silent about from where, the assumption will be it is not Stanford. The assumption will be it's from a degree mill, or worse, you're lying about the degree. 2. if you didn't submit SAT scores to the admissions dept, the assumption will inevitably be that they are poor scores.

WalterBright 5y ago

> that signal is effectively meaningless No, it isn't. > or even accurate measure of I didn't say it was accurate. I said it wasn't meaningless. Nobody is dumb enough to think that it's exact. > employers start assuming You're doing a lot of assuming. But at least you kinda sorta agree now that it is a signal, so, progress!

mlyle 5y ago
The problem is, it's not just a signal of your economic value to companies. It's also a signal of: * Your past skill at negotiation * Any past economic disadvantaged background or discrimination It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any. What is going to help is making an effort to learn how to do it. A relatively small effort can yield lifetime benefits.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    Yes, but you're saying that even if someone improves, a rational actor will use the signal of the history of poor negotiation to collude with others to pay that person less.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      And you can demonstrate that you are worth a higher salary and not accept less.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        Surely you understand the entire argument, including parts you glossed over: > It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field. I have done quite well for myself. But I am concerned that this is one more way that the field is tilted against disadvantaged groups. Past history of being discriminated or of screwing up negotiation stays with you indefinitely, and that's not great. The data asymmetry is not great, either. Peoples' personal financial information should not be aggregated and shared with employers without their consent.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any This is false. If you have poor negotiating skills, and likely a low salary history to go with it - the prospective employer will low-ball your initial offer based on asymmetric knowledge. If they have no idea how much you earned, and are judging you on your skills and experience alone, the initial offer will most likely be a higher number much closer to market salaries. Even if there is zero negotiations and the candidate accepts the first offer, the outcomes are completely different.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > This is false. That's rather presumptive. If the candidate did not disclose his salary history, the obvious assumption is that it is not a positive, and the candidate will get a lowball offer. > are judging you on your skills and experience alone It never works that way. They'll be judging you on what you chose not to reveal, too. Other examples: 1. if you say you have a degree, but are silent about from where, the assumption will be it is not Stanford. The assumption will be it's from a degree mill, or worse, you're lying about the degree. 2. if you didn't submit SAT scores to the admissions dept, the assumption will inevitably be that they are poor scores.