3 ms·

> What's the actual problem that including salaries tries to solve? It tries to solve pay equity problems. https://hr.uw.edu/comp/pay-equity/salary-setting-gui

by nvr219 4y ago

> What's the actual problem that including salaries tries to solve? It tries to solve pay equity problems. https://hr.uw.edu/comp/pay-equity/salary-setting-guidance/ https://hr.uw.edu/comp/pay-equity/salary-setting-guidance/

nomilk 4y ago
> Employers must provide equal compensation to similarly employed workers The kicker is "similarly employed". I've seen people with the same job title earn a differential of 3x, but that's simply because one negotiated better and was more economically valuable (had about 1.5 more decades' experience) than the other, yet they had the same job title. I guess we could argue to control for years' experience, but I've seen people who were better at a job after 6 months than those in the same job were after 10 years. There are even jobs where people get worse over time, which isn't intuitive but easy to find examples (e.g. you forget documentation if life gets busy for a year or two, and you're less effective because of that). I suspect "similarly employed" is indefinable in any realistic sense. I'm not against trying, just very sober about the probability of crafting a policy that outperforms the imperfect but free-ish market.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Beginner microeconomics courses teach that for the best allocation of resources, a market must have price transparency. How else are market participants supposed to ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves?
  - nomilk 4y ago
    > How else are market participants supposed to ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves? The problem is jobs aren't homogenous, so comparing salaries is meaningless, not only for applicants but also for the company itself. Imagine you find 10 people whose resumes look similar on paper, but after you interview all ten you realise there are some you'd hire in an instant, others you think are just okay, and some you think are awful. It's so obvious why their salaries would differ, and I find it very challenging to make any good argument otherwise. So, how can market participants ascertain supply and demand (and hence, price)? The answer is they can't, but they're no worse than companies, academics, government or anyone else - without assessing the individual, I don't think it's possible for anyone to know.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Hence a salary range. No one is forcing anyone to pay everyone the same, even if it is the same job title. The most important part of these laws is actually just the minimum. People need to know which business and employers to avoid and which to go towards. Sorting job listings by bottom of the pay range can help them save time. In any case, for any marker, the more real time information, the better.
luxuryballs 4y ago
But what’s the actual problem?
- nvr219 4y ago
  Pay inequity is an actual problem.

by nvr219 4y ago

nomilk 4y ago

> Employers must provide equal compensation to similarly employed workers The kicker is "similarly employed". I've seen people with the same job title earn a differential of 3x, but that's simply because one negotiated better and was more economically valuable (had about 1.5 more decades' experience) than the other, yet they had the same job title. I guess we could argue to control for years' experience, but I've seen people who were better at a job after 6 months than those in the same job were after 10 years. There are even jobs where people get worse over time, which isn't intuitive but easy to find examples (e.g. you forget documentation if life gets busy for a year or two, and you're less effective because of that). I suspect "similarly employed" is indefinable in any realistic sense. I'm not against trying, just very sober about the probability of crafting a policy that outperforms the imperfect but free-ish market.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Beginner microeconomics courses teach that for the best allocation of resources, a market must have price transparency. How else are market participants supposed to ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves?
- nomilk 4y ago
  > How else are market participants supposed to ascertain the movements of supply and demand curves? The problem is jobs aren't homogenous, so comparing salaries is meaningless, not only for applicants but also for the company itself. Imagine you find 10 people whose resumes look similar on paper, but after you interview all ten you realise there are some you'd hire in an instant, others you think are just okay, and some you think are awful. It's so obvious why their salaries would differ, and I find it very challenging to make any good argument otherwise. So, how can market participants ascertain supply and demand (and hence, price)? The answer is they can't, but they're no worse than companies, academics, government or anyone else - without assessing the individual, I don't think it's possible for anyone to know.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Hence a salary range. No one is forcing anyone to pay everyone the same, even if it is the same job title. The most important part of these laws is actually just the minimum. People need to know which business and employers to avoid and which to go towards. Sorting job listings by bottom of the pay range can help them save time. In any case, for any marker, the more real time information, the better.

luxuryballs 4y ago

But what’s the actual problem?

nvr219 4y ago
Pay inequity is an actual problem.