3 ms·

Its a sign of poor competition. A working free market should tend towards people making the same amount for the same work

by 8note 4y ago

nemo44x 4y ago
That’s just not true. Different people value themselves differently. Someone in a certain location might value their time more than someone doing the same job elsewhere. Why else do you think we have outsourced labor to places where people need less to live on today?
Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
Says who? Unless you're proposing identical output when you say "same work", which is never true anywhere in practice, this is plainly false.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Unless you're paid on commission or by output it should be same job same pay. You're selling the same hours as everyone else and have the same work expectation which you either meet or don't. If you have different work expectations that's a title difference which is fine. But paying two SWE II's different amounts is unfair. It should be everyone of a given title makes the highest amount anyone with that title was able to successfully negotiate because you've proven the market rate and it smooths over a lot of different biases naturally. Trying to vaguely estimate the output of different employees while not actually paying them directly for that output is silly.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Some SWE IIs (or McDonald's employees) do a better job than others, need less instruction, take more initiative, are more dependable, etc. even though they may have an identical job description as another employee who doesn't do as well at those things. Paying the better employee more, so they stick around, or just because you recognize the greater value they provide, is perfectly fair.
    - codeisawesome 4y ago
      Did folks like you in this thread thinking along this path, actually read the article? The algorithms don’t appear to be taking on the output (such as star ratings) alone into consideration. This is the core of your argument. The algorithms are allegedly manipulating workers into working longer than they would otherwise need to, by withholding opportunities so that it takes longer for their daily goal to hit. That’s horrible if true!
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        I read it and the article admits at the end there’s no proof this is actually happening. The companies say it’s not. There’s only an academic who is theorizing about it and an anecdote from a worker that claims it feels like they are cut off from jobs when they are approaching a bonus. And the academic wants to influence the creation of a law for their made up problem.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        Fair point, but I was responding to the claim in the parent comment (“paying two SWE II's different amounts is unfair.”)
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    It’s just not reality you’re describing. Here’s some reasons why: - 1 employee may just be better/more valuable than the other for a variety of reasons. Promotion isn’t always an option or even the right call. So we have a range/band we compensate into. This allows raises based on merit and adjustment when needed. -location matters. Cost of living is a thing. I’m not going to debate if it ought to be this way, just that it is. - 1 employee may have had a offer from an competitor. We want to keep them but can’t use a promotion to do so for a variety of reasons. For instance, promotions cone with equity and that means approval from a pool that may not have anything easily available. But money is there and easier. So we offer more money to stay. The employee earned that by seeing what the market values them at. The other employee isn’t automatically granted a raise because of that. -negotiation matters. The time you’re hired natters. Your pedigree matters. There’s a lot of reasons 2 employees will have different pay.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    You are selling experience, loyalty and personality (not to mention productivity). Employers are looking for more than a warm body
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Drivers (with the same job for the same company) are pretty solidly doing the same work.
abigail95 4y ago
Literally the opposite of a hundred years of research. Consider this - I'm 65 and do Uber part time because I'm bored. Now I'm 20 on a student visa with a work limit, and not many ways to support myself. Who should get the next Uber trip? Should Uber flip a coin? Must we be paid the same? If the student is willing to work for less than what the senior would get out of bed for, why would a free market not allow this? How do these dynamics affect the prices that customers pay?

Its a sign of poor competition. A working free market should tend towards people making the same amount for the same work

by 8note 4y ago

Its a sign of poor competition. A working free market should tend towards people making the same amount for the same work

nemo44x 4y ago

That’s just not true. Different people value themselves differently. Someone in a certain location might value their time more than someone doing the same job elsewhere. Why else do you think we have outsourced labor to places where people need less to live on today?

Wolfenstein98k 4y ago

Says who? Unless you're proposing identical output when you say "same work", which is never true anywhere in practice, this is plainly false.

Spivak 4y ago
Unless you're paid on commission or by output it should be same job same pay. You're selling the same hours as everyone else and have the same work expectation which you either meet or don't. If you have different work expectations that's a title difference which is fine. But paying two SWE II's different amounts is unfair. It should be everyone of a given title makes the highest amount anyone with that title was able to successfully negotiate because you've proven the market rate and it smooths over a lot of different biases naturally. Trying to vaguely estimate the output of different employees while not actually paying them directly for that output is silly.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Some SWE IIs (or McDonald's employees) do a better job than others, need less instruction, take more initiative, are more dependable, etc. even though they may have an identical job description as another employee who doesn't do as well at those things. Paying the better employee more, so they stick around, or just because you recognize the greater value they provide, is perfectly fair.
  - codeisawesome 4y ago
    Did folks like you in this thread thinking along this path, actually read the article? The algorithms don’t appear to be taking on the output (such as star ratings) alone into consideration. This is the core of your argument. The algorithms are allegedly manipulating workers into working longer than they would otherwise need to, by withholding opportunities so that it takes longer for their daily goal to hit. That’s horrible if true!
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      I read it and the article admits at the end there’s no proof this is actually happening. The companies say it’s not. There’s only an academic who is theorizing about it and an anecdote from a worker that claims it feels like they are cut off from jobs when they are approaching a bonus. And the academic wants to influence the creation of a law for their made up problem.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Fair point, but I was responding to the claim in the parent comment (“paying two SWE II's different amounts is unfair.”)
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It’s just not reality you’re describing. Here’s some reasons why: - 1 employee may just be better/more valuable than the other for a variety of reasons. Promotion isn’t always an option or even the right call. So we have a range/band we compensate into. This allows raises based on merit and adjustment when needed. -location matters. Cost of living is a thing. I’m not going to debate if it ought to be this way, just that it is. - 1 employee may have had a offer from an competitor. We want to keep them but can’t use a promotion to do so for a variety of reasons. For instance, promotions cone with equity and that means approval from a pool that may not have anything easily available. But money is there and easier. So we offer more money to stay. The employee earned that by seeing what the market values them at. The other employee isn’t automatically granted a raise because of that. -negotiation matters. The time you’re hired natters. Your pedigree matters. There’s a lot of reasons 2 employees will have different pay.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  You are selling experience, loyalty and personality (not to mention productivity). Employers are looking for more than a warm body
Dylan16807 4y ago
Drivers (with the same job for the same company) are pretty solidly doing the same work.

abigail95 4y ago

Literally the opposite of a hundred years of research. Consider this - I'm 65 and do Uber part time because I'm bored. Now I'm 20 on a student visa with a work limit, and not many ways to support myself. Who should get the next Uber trip? Should Uber flip a coin? Must we be paid the same? If the student is willing to work for less than what the senior would get out of bed for, why would a free market not allow this? How do these dynamics affect the prices that customers pay?