9 ms·

Why shouldn't Dave and Cathy know what Bob is earning? They're the same level, they should earn the same.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
While I support all efforts at increasing information transparency, I disagree that prices need to be the same. It is possible that humans are sufficiently different in the quality of the labor they are selling that a buyer might price them differently. For example, I am willing to pay a higher price for someone has 10 years of experience and is less likely to make mistakes or other desirable qualifies more than someone who has 0 years of experience, even though they are doing the same work.
- layer8 3y ago
  Isn’t difference in experience one aspect that is represented by different levels? In other words, it’s not the same work if experience vastly differs.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    It could be, but I do not see why it has to be. And “vastly” is a nebulous term, maybe an employer wants to classify “levels” more or less broadly, and wants to reward within “levels”, I don’t know, I just don’t see a need to prescribe a very specific system of employee management.
- BrkAway21 3y ago
  The problem with your example is that you are making the assumption that someone with 10 years of experience is less likely to make mistakes in practice than the person with 0 years of experience. I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). It doesn't mean that everyone needs to make exactly the same amount, because I think there is an argument to be made for someone who has more tenure at a company to retain them and for their role-specific experience. But that shouldn't be a >5% difference. Also, I don't see how people can't see that this is precisely the logic that contributes to women generally getting paid less for doing the same job. Anecdotally, I joined a company and had about 7 years of experience. My "peers" in performing exactly the same duties as me had probably about 25 years of experience. I was responsible for the 2nd largest revenue generating P&L that generated the highest profit margin (which I actually turned around from losing money in 6 months). I found out I was getting paid $70k less than "my peers." Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money? This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). We go through life making a lot of guesses and utilizing a lot of prior probabilities. Work history is, in my experience, one of the stronger signals available to us. If an employer initially pays an employee less due to less track record, then finds out the employee is as good as other employees, and does not adjust the pay, then that employer is stupid and will eventually lose the good employees to places with better management. Assuming employees have access to sufficient labor pricing data and can see they can earn more elsewhere. > But that shouldn't be a >5% difference. What is the basis for this cutoff? > Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money? You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others. >This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women. No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees. Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination.
    - BrkAway21 3y ago
      > No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees. Well I definitely agree it was bad management. And I did leave when I realized that despite my performance, they weren't going to compensate me appropriately. To excuse it away as "oh, that's bad management" is being willfully ignorant to the truth that this kind of stuff does happen, in general, more to women. I was in a position where I was fortunate that I could leave and find a better opportunity. But not all women have this luxury. Many need their incomes and don't have the time to look for other opportunities that will value them appropriately. > Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination. It's great there are laws to protect women from illegal discrimination. But it's not like that just "magically" corrects itself. You have to bring a suit. Or you just have to leave if you don't want to deal with it. It's like saying "well that's wrong." Sure, it is, but the effort is disproportionately on the "wronged" person to fix it. > You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others. Well yes, and I thought I had. But as I said, it wasn't until I had been at the company, better understood what my "peers" were doing and then finding out that they were paid SO much more than me that I realized I needed to go somewhere else. But I believe the point that many others are making is that if there are been better salary transparency, I could have saved myself some time by realizing they weren't going to value me and what I brought, so I could have passed on the opportunity altogether.
c0pium 3y ago
Everyone at the same level is not the same. At most companies people can expect to be in level for a few years.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Why should everyone at the same level earn the same? There are still differences in skill and willingness to work for a given range.
- muspimerol 3y ago
  "Willingness to work for a given range" gets exploited by employers at the expense of employees. It helps prop up structural (gender/race) pay gaps and breeds distrust among employees as some salaries inevitably leak out.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The structural pay gaps exist because salaries are not public in the first place. Paying less due to gender and race is already illegal. The only reason it prevailed is because proving it is difficult if you do not have access to the data.
    - muspimerol 3y ago
      Of course, that's my point :-) It is illegal but still exists empirically today, which is one very good reason why salary bands should be public.
paulcole 3y ago
Why should they earn the same? They’re not the same person.
- wdb 3y ago
  Why have levels then?
  - paulcole 3y ago
    Generally as a business scales it makes sense to add processes and standardization. But levels do not have to dictate equal salary. People are different, with different motivations, assets, and leverage. Personally, throughout my career I've actively tried to earn less than coworkers. It gives me more wiggle room to goof off, makes my similar accomplishments look/feel a bit more impressive, and helps keep me off the chopping block at layoff time. I actively don't want to be paid the same as somebody with the same job title/level as me. And I can understand why someone who adds more in terms of output and contribution would want to earn more than someone else who adds less. Of course, there's (what I see as) good pay inequality and bad pay inequality (that which is driven by systemic injustice, discrimination, etc.). If a company thinks standardized salaries are the best way to fight that, that's a choice they're welcome to make.
HelloMcFly 3y ago
They're at the same level, but maybe not doing the same job. Even if they're nominally in the same "job code" the actual mechanics of what they are doing, the sensitivity of their work, the skills required for success, the markets/industries they are operating in, the pay scale where they live, the level of functional support they are receiving may all be substantially different. Of course there may also be other decisions such as upping salary to entice an employee not to accept that other job offer they got (do you want to remove pay leverage of looking for jobs elsewhere by mandating same salaries?), or any such other consideration. Individual pay isn't some 2+2=4 math equation, it's multifactorial. Now any company with good internal controls would have people in some sort of band where for comparable (not identical) work there's a range of normalcy relative to the value the work provides in the given markets the labor is occurring.
- layer8 3y ago
  What does “same level” even mean then?
  - HelloMcFly 3y ago
    Organizational leveling criteria is a reflection of your internal hierarchy of authority, decision making, and accountability. Compensation criteria considers that to a degree, but also accounts for more externalities, individual organizational differences, and at times a reflection of strategic priorities. These things are related certainly, but they cannot be considered interchangeable of you will find yourself over-paying for labor or losing recruiting battles to your talent competitors due to underpaying. Believe me - most organizations would love nothing more than to just pay everyone the same and be able to retain their desired stuff and stay competitive in the market. Compensation activities are a drain.
- muspimerol 3y ago
  > the actual mechanics of what they are doing, the sensitivity of their work, the skills required for success, the markets/industries they are operating in Surely these are all criteria that should determine your level. What's the point of levels if you're saying each level consists of arbitrary other levels? I agree that a range should be public, but an employee's salary should remain within the range for their level. If they're demonstrably more valuable to the company, they should be promoted within a transparent structure.
geertj 3y ago
Pay scales are ranges not points. You want to be able to reward good performers higher than lesser performers, even in the same level, so that the incentives are aligned. Promotions to a next level are part of this but those only happen every few years for most people.
dfxm12 3y ago
It's a matter of perspective. From a worker point of view, being open about what we're earning will help bring to light if we're being exploited. From a business owner point of view, employees having this knowledge disturbs the power imbalance employers enjoy when it comes to compensation negotiations. I think more people than you'd expect in HN are in the latter camp. This site was launched as Startup News, after all.
- guappa 3y ago
  Most users are workers who haven't figured out they aren't capitalists yet.
  - oblio 3y ago
    Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires. Most haven't also realized that just because they work in software, it doesn't mean the world hasn't changed. The times of Microsoft's IPO creating tens of thousands of millionaires and multiple billionaires are gone. Until the next big platform pops up, things are not frozen, but stuck in mud. The biggest Windows apps have probably been the same since 20 years ago. The biggest MacOS apps, same. The biggest iOS apps probably stabilized at least 5 years ago. Android, same. Quoting kids: game's gone.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I'm in the late afternoon/early evening of my career in tech. I think this game's got a lot more time left in it.
      - oblio 3y ago
        Yes, but I'd say that until a new platform pops up, at least 80% of what's on existing has been staked out by at least medium sized companies, if not mega-corps. Those remaining 20% can still make for decent living, I won't deny that.
pc86 3y ago
> They're the same level, they should earn the same. No, they shouldn't. They should earn exactly as much as they can get their employer to pay them. I've worked hard in my career, I've negotiated hard for pay at new jobs, raises, bonuses, promotions, etc. Some people don't. If I'm not going to be able to negotiate my pay, by definition I'm going to be making less. Why in the world would I want that?
pelasaco 3y ago
That's communism. In companies, one's salary is related with his/her output or salary negotiation skills.. Dave, Cathy and Bob could be in the same level, where the salary range fluctuates between 60k - 95k. Who is where, depends of the both factors mentioned above.

While I support all efforts at increasing information transparency, I disagree that prices need to be the same. It is possible that humans are sufficiently different in the quality of the labor they are selling that a buyer might price them differently. For example, I am willing to pay a higher price for someone has 10 years of experience and is less likely to make mistakes or other desirable qualifies more than someone who has 0 years of experience, even though they are doing the same work.

layer8 3y ago
Isn’t difference in experience one aspect that is represented by different levels? In other words, it’s not the same work if experience vastly differs.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  It could be, but I do not see why it has to be. And “vastly” is a nebulous term, maybe an employer wants to classify “levels” more or less broadly, and wants to reward within “levels”, I don’t know, I just don’t see a need to prescribe a very specific system of employee management.
BrkAway21 3y ago
The problem with your example is that you are making the assumption that someone with 10 years of experience is less likely to make mistakes in practice than the person with 0 years of experience. I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). It doesn't mean that everyone needs to make exactly the same amount, because I think there is an argument to be made for someone who has more tenure at a company to retain them and for their role-specific experience. But that shouldn't be a >5% difference. Also, I don't see how people can't see that this is precisely the logic that contributes to women generally getting paid less for doing the same job. Anecdotally, I joined a company and had about 7 years of experience. My "peers" in performing exactly the same duties as me had probably about 25 years of experience. I was responsible for the 2nd largest revenue generating P&L that generated the highest profit margin (which I actually turned around from losing money in 6 months). I found out I was getting paid $70k less than "my peers." Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money? This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). We go through life making a lot of guesses and utilizing a lot of prior probabilities. Work history is, in my experience, one of the stronger signals available to us. If an employer initially pays an employee less due to less track record, then finds out the employee is as good as other employees, and does not adjust the pay, then that employer is stupid and will eventually lose the good employees to places with better management. Assuming employees have access to sufficient labor pricing data and can see they can earn more elsewhere. > But that shouldn't be a >5% difference. What is the basis for this cutoff? > Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money? You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others. >This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women. No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees. Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination.
  - BrkAway21 3y ago
    > No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees. Well I definitely agree it was bad management. And I did leave when I realized that despite my performance, they weren't going to compensate me appropriately. To excuse it away as "oh, that's bad management" is being willfully ignorant to the truth that this kind of stuff does happen, in general, more to women. I was in a position where I was fortunate that I could leave and find a better opportunity. But not all women have this luxury. Many need their incomes and don't have the time to look for other opportunities that will value them appropriately. > Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination. It's great there are laws to protect women from illegal discrimination. But it's not like that just "magically" corrects itself. You have to bring a suit. Or you just have to leave if you don't want to deal with it. It's like saying "well that's wrong." Sure, it is, but the effort is disproportionately on the "wronged" person to fix it. > You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others. Well yes, and I thought I had. But as I said, it wasn't until I had been at the company, better understood what my "peers" were doing and then finding out that they were paid SO much more than me that I realized I needed to go somewhere else. But I believe the point that many others are making is that if there are been better salary transparency, I could have saved myself some time by realizing they weren't going to value me and what I brought, so I could have passed on the opportunity altogether.

c0pium 3y ago

Everyone at the same level is not the same. At most companies people can expect to be in level for a few years.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Why should everyone at the same level earn the same? There are still differences in skill and willingness to work for a given range.

muspimerol 3y ago
"Willingness to work for a given range" gets exploited by employers at the expense of employees. It helps prop up structural (gender/race) pay gaps and breeds distrust among employees as some salaries inevitably leak out.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The structural pay gaps exist because salaries are not public in the first place. Paying less due to gender and race is already illegal. The only reason it prevailed is because proving it is difficult if you do not have access to the data.
  - muspimerol 3y ago
    Of course, that's my point :-) It is illegal but still exists empirically today, which is one very good reason why salary bands should be public.

paulcole 3y ago

Why should they earn the same? They’re not the same person.

wdb 3y ago
Why have levels then?
- paulcole 3y ago
  Generally as a business scales it makes sense to add processes and standardization. But levels do not have to dictate equal salary. People are different, with different motivations, assets, and leverage. Personally, throughout my career I've actively tried to earn less than coworkers. It gives me more wiggle room to goof off, makes my similar accomplishments look/feel a bit more impressive, and helps keep me off the chopping block at layoff time. I actively don't want to be paid the same as somebody with the same job title/level as me. And I can understand why someone who adds more in terms of output and contribution would want to earn more than someone else who adds less. Of course, there's (what I see as) good pay inequality and bad pay inequality (that which is driven by systemic injustice, discrimination, etc.). If a company thinks standardized salaries are the best way to fight that, that's a choice they're welcome to make.

HelloMcFly 3y ago

They're at the same level, but maybe not doing the same job. Even if they're nominally in the same "job code" the actual mechanics of what they are doing, the sensitivity of their work, the skills required for success, the markets/industries they are operating in, the pay scale where they live, the level of functional support they are receiving may all be substantially different. Of course there may also be other decisions such as upping salary to entice an employee not to accept that other job offer they got (do you want to remove pay leverage of looking for jobs elsewhere by mandating same salaries?), or any such other consideration. Individual pay isn't some 2+2=4 math equation, it's multifactorial. Now any company with good internal controls would have people in some sort of band where for comparable (not identical) work there's a range of normalcy relative to the value the work provides in the given markets the labor is occurring.

layer8 3y ago
What does “same level” even mean then?
- HelloMcFly 3y ago
  Organizational leveling criteria is a reflection of your internal hierarchy of authority, decision making, and accountability. Compensation criteria considers that to a degree, but also accounts for more externalities, individual organizational differences, and at times a reflection of strategic priorities. These things are related certainly, but they cannot be considered interchangeable of you will find yourself over-paying for labor or losing recruiting battles to your talent competitors due to underpaying. Believe me - most organizations would love nothing more than to just pay everyone the same and be able to retain their desired stuff and stay competitive in the market. Compensation activities are a drain.
muspimerol 3y ago
> the actual mechanics of what they are doing, the sensitivity of their work, the skills required for success, the markets/industries they are operating in Surely these are all criteria that should determine your level. What's the point of levels if you're saying each level consists of arbitrary other levels? I agree that a range should be public, but an employee's salary should remain within the range for their level. If they're demonstrably more valuable to the company, they should be promoted within a transparent structure.

geertj 3y ago

Pay scales are ranges not points. You want to be able to reward good performers higher than lesser performers, even in the same level, so that the incentives are aligned. Promotions to a next level are part of this but those only happen every few years for most people.

dfxm12 3y ago

It's a matter of perspective. From a worker point of view, being open about what we're earning will help bring to light if we're being exploited. From a business owner point of view, employees having this knowledge disturbs the power imbalance employers enjoy when it comes to compensation negotiations. I think more people than you'd expect in HN are in the latter camp. This site was launched as Startup News, after all.

guappa 3y ago
Most users are workers who haven't figured out they aren't capitalists yet.
- oblio 3y ago
  Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires. Most haven't also realized that just because they work in software, it doesn't mean the world hasn't changed. The times of Microsoft's IPO creating tens of thousands of millionaires and multiple billionaires are gone. Until the next big platform pops up, things are not frozen, but stuck in mud. The biggest Windows apps have probably been the same since 20 years ago. The biggest MacOS apps, same. The biggest iOS apps probably stabilized at least 5 years ago. Android, same. Quoting kids: game's gone.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    I'm in the late afternoon/early evening of my career in tech. I think this game's got a lot more time left in it.
    - oblio 3y ago
      Yes, but I'd say that until a new platform pops up, at least 80% of what's on existing has been staked out by at least medium sized companies, if not mega-corps. Those remaining 20% can still make for decent living, I won't deny that.

pc86 3y ago

> They're the same level, they should earn the same. No, they shouldn't. They should earn exactly as much as they can get their employer to pay them. I've worked hard in my career, I've negotiated hard for pay at new jobs, raises, bonuses, promotions, etc. Some people don't. If I'm not going to be able to negotiate my pay, by definition I'm going to be making less. Why in the world would I want that?

pelasaco 3y ago

That's communism. In companies, one's salary is related with his/her output or salary negotiation skills.. Dave, Cathy and Bob could be in the same level, where the salary range fluctuates between 60k - 95k. Who is where, depends of the both factors mentioned above.