3 ms·

This was... utterly predictable? Companies have incredibly strong incentives to maintain this information asymmetry, and it's a fool's endeavor to think we can

This was... utterly predictable? Companies have incredibly strong incentives to maintain this information asymmetry, and it's a fool's endeavor to think we can legislate it away. I suspect the next chapter in this, if we try to further clamp down on this from a regulatory standpoint, is that you'll see more and more creativity in terms of what defines compensation, or perhaps even clever re-engineering of titles.

shortrounddev 4y ago
You can get a more accurate number if you require companies to post salaries publicly, but anonymously. Just a list of job titles and their salaries
- giantg2 4y ago
  That can depend on company size and the number of positions. Many "anonymous" data points aren't really that anonymous at smaller companies or with a smaller number of specific roles.
  - asoneth 4y ago
    That is true. Many kinds of reporting requirements are only triggered for companies larger than a certain size, so perhaps that would be beneficial here as well to maintain anonymity.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      That covers half of it. Even in a fairly large company you can still have niche roles that could allow someone to de-anonymize the data. The group size wouldn't be 10k employees, just the 5 people you have in, for example, your legal department.
kris_wayton 4y ago
Doesn't it still have value though? Having to show the bottom means people near the bottom now know where they are.
- ChicagoBoy11 4y ago
  Who's to say the bottom is the actual bottom though? Suppose I pay all my engineer's 170, 170, 190, and 210. What prevents me from listing the salary range at 100-210?
  - kris_wayton 4y ago
    You're right, though the article is talking about pay transparency laws in several different US states, so perhaps some have this loophole and others don't.
  - sgerenser 4y ago
    And this is exactly what Netflix is doing, because they don’t pay any of their senior engineers (these listings were for senior positions) only $90K. I’d be surprised if any (in the U.S. at least, and this is a U.S. job posting) make under $200K.

shortrounddev 4y ago

You can get a more accurate number if you require companies to post salaries publicly, but anonymously. Just a list of job titles and their salaries

giantg2 4y ago
That can depend on company size and the number of positions. Many "anonymous" data points aren't really that anonymous at smaller companies or with a smaller number of specific roles.
- asoneth 4y ago
  That is true. Many kinds of reporting requirements are only triggered for companies larger than a certain size, so perhaps that would be beneficial here as well to maintain anonymity.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That covers half of it. Even in a fairly large company you can still have niche roles that could allow someone to de-anonymize the data. The group size wouldn't be 10k employees, just the 5 people you have in, for example, your legal department.

kris_wayton 4y ago

Doesn't it still have value though? Having to show the bottom means people near the bottom now know where they are.

ChicagoBoy11 4y ago
Who's to say the bottom is the actual bottom though? Suppose I pay all my engineer's 170, 170, 190, and 210. What prevents me from listing the salary range at 100-210?
- kris_wayton 4y ago
  You're right, though the article is talking about pay transparency laws in several different US states, so perhaps some have this loophole and others don't.
- sgerenser 4y ago
  And this is exactly what Netflix is doing, because they don’t pay any of their senior engineers (these listings were for senior positions) only $90K. I’d be surprised if any (in the U.S. at least, and this is a U.S. job posting) make under $200K.