> The labour shortage sparked by the Covid-19 pandemic has inflated salaries, meaning that in order to land new hires, companies are offering higher salaries th

> The labour shortage sparked by the Covid-19 pandemic has inflated salaries, meaning that in order to land new hires, companies are offering higher salaries than many of their existing staff are making for similar roles. That's a long way of saying that inflation requires higher salaries and that employers are particularly hostile to matching inflation for their existing employees. Just because they're used to shoving their fingers in their ears and ignoring employees asking for money because things are getting expensive doesn't mean it's normal or okay. > Before New York City enacted its own pay transparency law, lobbyists warned that they could create conflict in teams and remove incentives for employees to work hard. That's the intent. People will get mad that they are not being paid the same as others doing the same or similar work. No more secrets. > Activists and community leaders argue that the laws provide vital information to women and employees of colour who otherwise might not have the professional connections to know what kind of salary to negotiate for. Illinois, Oregon and Kentucky are weighing pay disclosure rules of their own. I don't know what activist they found to argue that these laws are only for women and employees of color. That's a terrible take on these kinds of laws. They benefit everyone, everyone at some point or another has experienced a pay deviation from the norm, some people repeatedly, some people for most of their careers. This includes companies that routinely underpay compared to industry norms. This should even start to highlight how awful cost of labor is; someone based on their geography can be paid more than you simply for existing. > But those most upset about the disclosures are the firms’ existing staff. Alan Goldstein, a New York-based executive recruiter, said that Wall Street human resource executives blamed the transparency for a wave of resignations after bonuses were paid out at the end of February. That's quite a silly take on this situation. Maybe they should pay better, and have incentives that keep employees around since they can't rely on the mystery of the future anymore? --- I moved out of Texas because of a salary sharing thread on Twitter. I realized I made a third of what someone doing my same, if not lesser, job in San Francisco made. Asset prices are also higher in SF, so by the time these folks retire, they're sitting on a very fat nest egg. I've since left California, but I do side hustles that bring in some income to match what my SF salary used to be. If I hadn't seen that thread, I would've never known that the normal salary and benefits were so high there. It also helped me develop the opinion that cost of labor is an awful mechanism whereby we justify paying certain people more based on their geography, a geography that's often tied to exclusivity and high barrier to entry. If business leaders are mad that the story is unraveling and they'll have to pay all or most of us fairly at some point then that's just tough luck I guess.