7 ms·

"Salaries are not just internally transparent at Japanese megacorps but so predictable that any middle-class adult in central Japan can accurately predict my sa

• dkrich 11y ago
  Yeah, I actually prefer a lack of transparency. I fully recognize the right of others to discuss salaries openly and support their ability to do so. However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating. If for example, you know company X's highest paid software developer makes $110k, and the lowest makes $90k, (and such a narrow banded salary range is probably likely if everyone knows exactly what everyone else earns), you probably aren't going to get them to pay you far north of $110k simply because that would carry the likely result of increasing everyone else's salary since they now know you are making more than they are and they want a salary increase too. But the lack of transparency should really go both ways, ideally if you want to get the best terms. That is, if you can inflate your previous salary or not disclose it at all while asking for a number significantly above it you are in a much better position than laying bare your entire earnings history.
  • chralieboy 11y ago
    >> However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating. This is exactly why salaries _should_ be transparent. Skill at negotiating salaries, unless you are an agent, is not a relevant skill. If you are an engineer, for example, the company should not be rewarding or penalizing you for your salary negotiation skills.
    • dkrich 11y ago
      I disagree. If engineers are notoriously bad at negotiating (which we probably are), the solution is to improve that skill, not to seek to avoid negotiating in any form or fashion. The idea that you can willfully eschew any responsibility for asking for what you want (which is really what a negotiation is) and still get it, is both self-defeating and naive. The reason lawyers/agents/salespeople are good at negotiating is not merely that their job requires it, it's because they have developed that skill.
      • 15155 11y ago
        Those who can negotiate far exceed those who cannot. A corollary: those who know their worth also far exceed those who don't. Totally agree with you.
      • galfarragem 11y ago
        I agree with you. Anyway developing this skill also means that you allocate a considerable brain processing power into this activity; far more than some devs want/can allocate. This skill probably will make (or force) them into management.
      • arrrg 11y ago
        Well, simple alternate solution, require total salary transparency. Sure, it’s possible to get better at negotiation, but why require that? It’s quite pointless. Also, this seems like a good solution to several thoroughly and inherently unfair (because sexist or racist, for example) wage gaps.
      • nhaehnle 11y ago
        This is true, but it's also inefficient for society as a whole. Basically, what the other side is saying is that yes, negotiating is a skill, but the reason why our economy works so efficiently is that we instituted division of labor. If everybody specializes in some skill, then they will be better at it than a jack-of-all-trades. On average, an engineer should be able to become a better engineer if they do not simultaneously have to worry about improving their negotiation skills. That would be overall beneficial to society. So it might actually be better for society if the range of potential income is much smaller, because individuals in such a society would spend less time on skills like negotiation, which are not directly productive. Depending on your outlook on life and how much anxiety the knowledge about income differentials causes you, the situation can look very much like a prisoner's dilemma.
  • 15155 11y ago
    Correct. Transparency benefits the company for this exact reason. There is a non-zero cost (headache, dollars, what have you) in leaving an organization. This means that salaries can be at market rate, drift below, and people still may not see enough value to leave. Good negotiating means you will always see market rate or above. Transparency means salaries will drift below market rate until someone deems you worthy of a bump. Buffer salaries are outrageously low: for that reason alone, I would never advise anyone to work there.
    • nulltype 11y ago
      Salary is only one part of a company's compensation. For instance, in the Buffer case, they do remote working, so some people could find that to be worth quite a bit.
  • Rapzid 11y ago
    For this reason I'm also selfishly for not publishing salaries within a company. I'm all for talking about salary to everyone except co-workers. Knowing what you can make elsewhere gives you power to negotiate or move. I know what my engineering friends make, I know what they are getting bumped to after reviews, I know what offers they are getting and the same goes both ways. Knowing what everyone makes internally would just cause trouble I think.. At the least I would imagine it would limit my options to only companies that can afford to pay everyone top dollar..
  • jacquesm 11y ago
    It's ok to discuss your salaries with your colleagues, especially with the ones that are currently being shafted. But don't discuss your salary with recruiters for other firms, no need to make their lives any easier than they already are. Make them work for their money and disclose a range instead.