3 ms·

HN, educate me on this please, why is this wrong or upsetting? You don't get paid for the work you do, you get paid for how hard it is to replace you, right? I

by _8j50 4y ago

HN, educate me on this please, why is this wrong or upsetting? You don't get paid for the work you do, you get paid for how hard it is to replace you, right? Is this not supposed to be the case or is it illegal or immoral (by someone's standards?)? You have Bob and Jane both C programmers with equal education and experience but Jane's work is many times superior to Bob, so getting someone of the same caliber as Jane will cost more because they can negotiate for more right? Also, do the same people who get outrages about this also insist that salary negotiation should be a thing of the past? That means a position will pay a fixed amount no matter who is filling it? Meaning the larger a team the more it costs so get what few people you have to work harde and longer right because they all cost the price of the highest performer? I am not trying to make a point I just want to know what the ideal situation is supposed to be. I don't have much gripe about pay, I would be happy to get paid the same amount as people with kids and mortgages who can't take any less than a high amount but I certainly don't want to hear other people's salary or tell mine. But it would suck if all the few high paying roles are always taken because of the demand and the majority are much lower paying.

tjpnz 4y ago
I assume you're not arguing that people born into affluent families perform better than those who weren't. In my view the ideal situation would still be a meritocracy but it would not be predicated on who you know or the old school tie.
- janosett 4y ago
  You’re assuming being born into an affluent family is the cause of the higher pay. Is it possible that the employees from affluent families are higher performing? I assume there’s significant class bias but I think considering only that factor is a little reductive.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    We have seen enough of modern classist society to see it’s not reductive to focus on class as the factor.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Yes, I also support meritocracy as well as critical examination of bias when decisions are made that especially affect a certain group of people. But keep in mind, the merit for jobs is still how hard it would be to get an individual that brings similar value which could be seemingly silly things like attractiveness for sales jobs for example.
rikroots 4y ago
In my view, it's a personal confidence thing. People raised in a (UK traditional) working class family are bought up with lower expectations about what success they can enjoy in later life[1], compared to people raised in (traditional) middle class families. They will generally have less educational advantages eg: less pressure to read books, finish homework, do extra-curricular activities, etc. Getting to university will require harder work in a less friendly social environment. So when it comes to work, working class people will (in general) tend to have less confidence to negotiate a wage equivalent to their middle class colleagues doing the same work. Of course there's numerous exceptions to this on an individual level[2], but we're not talking about individuals here. [1] - anecdotal evidence: despite having an excellent academic record at school, the first question my Careers Advisor asked me was: "So which Regiment are you planning to join?" - which kinda sums up the sort of assumptions people made about me, based on my family's reputation and circumstances. [2] - me, for instance (I'm ignoring, for the purposes of this comment, the 7 weeks I spent in the Army).
hotpotamus 4y ago
What if you have Steve who is a brilliant C programmer, better even than Jane, but autistic and so unable to negotiate a better salary than either Bob or Jane? Would you find it ethical to pay him less?
- _8j50 4y ago
  Yeah, I do. He still gets hired and shows off his talent, if you don't give him a bug raise to keep him he might look for another job and someone else might look at his resume from the work he did for you and pay him what he deserves. I am speaking as someone that is terrible at negotiating or even talking to strangers.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    And you are OK with colleagues who are inferior programmers but better negotiators getting paid more than you?
    - rdtwo 4y ago
      I mean that’s business. Are you ok with superior products being priced less than expensive inferior ones?
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        I usually have no idea what superior and inferior are. A $50 Casio watch is a better timekeeper than a $20,000 Rolex, but it's not really superior is it?
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      Depends. Are we apples to apples doing the same things and our work is bringing value only through programming, but I don’t like confrontation? Then no. It can of course be that the better negotiator is also a better communicator and acts as some type of team adhesive and then it is a different story.
mmarq 4y ago
It is wrong because people are being underpaid for not participating in silly upper class rituals that are not relevant to productivity. Apart from the evident injustice of being poorer because your parents could afford polo lessons, it produces a system of perverse incentives, whereby wearing cufflinks is more important than knowing how to do your job. There are a few industries in the UK were you’d be better off being a foreigner than a lower class local. The ideal situation is one where people are judged by the value of their work and not by the socioeconomic background of their parents.

by _8j50 4y ago

tjpnz 4y ago

I assume you're not arguing that people born into affluent families perform better than those who weren't. In my view the ideal situation would still be a meritocracy but it would not be predicated on who you know or the old school tie.

janosett 4y ago
You’re assuming being born into an affluent family is the cause of the higher pay. Is it possible that the employees from affluent families are higher performing? I assume there’s significant class bias but I think considering only that factor is a little reductive.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  We have seen enough of modern classist society to see it’s not reductive to focus on class as the factor.
_8j50 4y ago
Yes, I also support meritocracy as well as critical examination of bias when decisions are made that especially affect a certain group of people. But keep in mind, the merit for jobs is still how hard it would be to get an individual that brings similar value which could be seemingly silly things like attractiveness for sales jobs for example.

rikroots 4y ago

In my view, it's a personal confidence thing. People raised in a (UK traditional) working class family are bought up with lower expectations about what success they can enjoy in later life[1], compared to people raised in (traditional) middle class families. They will generally have less educational advantages eg: less pressure to read books, finish homework, do extra-curricular activities, etc. Getting to university will require harder work in a less friendly social environment. So when it comes to work, working class people will (in general) tend to have less confidence to negotiate a wage equivalent to their middle class colleagues doing the same work. Of course there's numerous exceptions to this on an individual level[2], but we're not talking about individuals here. [1] - anecdotal evidence: despite having an excellent academic record at school, the first question my Careers Advisor asked me was: "So which Regiment are you planning to join?" - which kinda sums up the sort of assumptions people made about me, based on my family's reputation and circumstances. [2] - me, for instance (I'm ignoring, for the purposes of this comment, the 7 weeks I spent in the Army).

hotpotamus 4y ago

What if you have Steve who is a brilliant C programmer, better even than Jane, but autistic and so unable to negotiate a better salary than either Bob or Jane? Would you find it ethical to pay him less?

_8j50 4y ago
Yeah, I do. He still gets hired and shows off his talent, if you don't give him a bug raise to keep him he might look for another job and someone else might look at his resume from the work he did for you and pay him what he deserves. I am speaking as someone that is terrible at negotiating or even talking to strangers.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  And you are OK with colleagues who are inferior programmers but better negotiators getting paid more than you?
  - rdtwo 4y ago
    I mean that’s business. Are you ok with superior products being priced less than expensive inferior ones?
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      I usually have no idea what superior and inferior are. A $50 Casio watch is a better timekeeper than a $20,000 Rolex, but it's not really superior is it?
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    Depends. Are we apples to apples doing the same things and our work is bringing value only through programming, but I don’t like confrontation? Then no. It can of course be that the better negotiator is also a better communicator and acts as some type of team adhesive and then it is a different story.

mmarq 4y ago

It is wrong because people are being underpaid for not participating in silly upper class rituals that are not relevant to productivity. Apart from the evident injustice of being poorer because your parents could afford polo lessons, it produces a system of perverse incentives, whereby wearing cufflinks is more important than knowing how to do your job. There are a few industries in the UK were you’d be better off being a foreigner than a lower class local. The ideal situation is one where people are judged by the value of their work and not by the socioeconomic background of their parents.