3 ms·

I don't know about recently, but this has always been an obvious way to keep salaries low. If you restrict the information people have, then of course you can s

I don't know about recently, but this has always been an obvious way to keep salaries low. If you restrict the information people have, then of course you can screw some of them over. Its in corporation's best interest to create taboos around salary so you feel more ashamed of being ripped off than angry for being ripped off. This has already played itself out with price tags. Back when buying things was a personal negotiation process, it was possible to rip some people off while you had to work to get a good deal. This of course continues today with cars. However, its incredibly hard to charge people different prices at a grocery store when all prices are public. So too it would be very difficult to underpay someone if salaries were public.

morgante 11y ago
The flip side of that is that it's possible for some employees to get very high salaries which companies wouldn't be willing to offer if all salaries are public.
- tolmasky 11y ago
  When I worked for a big company, there were people I was absolutely OK with making a big salary. Some people were just absolute superstars and everyone knew they were awesome for the team. Of course, I have no idea what they made. What would actually be harder however is to give underserving people larger salaries. This already happens in a fuzzy way now right: most everyone understands that their boss makes more money. We don't know exactly how much of course, but its "understood". If we transitioned to a place where people who are doing amazing work also make more money, I think there'd be no problem at all.
  - morgante 11y ago
    The problem is that performance is much fuzzier than salary data. If you're not working directly with someone and if you don't have a great handle on what business metrics are, it can be very hard to understand why they're producing so much more value than you. This effect can be even more distorted when people start irrationally factoring in years of experience. If salaries were public, you'd definitely start to see people who have put in their 10 years gripe about newcomers earning way more than them (often justifiably). It also penalizes good negotiators, which might be a socially positive thing but I certainly wouldn't like it.
    - tolmasky 11y ago
      > It also penalizes good negotiators, which might be a socially positive thing but I certainly wouldn't like it. It probably penalizes snazzy dressers and charismatic people too, which snazzy dressers and charismatic people probably don't like. But at some point you have to ask, what is a company optimizing for? It has limited resources, X dollars to spread amongst Y people. If you optimize a system to give a lion share of that to good negotiators, its not just socially worse, its economically worse for your business. You might find yourself with a hiring system that ends up with good negotiators instead of good engineers (if an engineer that is socially awkward receives a better offer from somewhere else, he may choose that offer instead of using it to "play" you to get his salary up).
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > It also penalizes good negotiators, which might be a socially positive thing but I certainly wouldn't like it. No, it doesn't penalize good negotiators. It fails to reward them when being a "good negotiator" isn't relevant to the business metrics for the position they work in, but the absence of an unearned reward isn't punishment. And this isn't merely socially positive, but its a positive for the business, because it increases the incentive for good negotiators to seek positions where that is relevant to job duties, since it avoids rewarding that skill where it is not relevant. As such, it increases the alignment between the incentives provided by compensation with the business interests of the employing firm.
onewaystreet 11y ago
If you find out you are getting paid less than others in your company it's possible that you are getting ripped off but it's also possible that they are seen as more valuable than you. The problem is that no one is going to accept being told that.
andyl 11y ago
Really? Sports team salaries are public. The 2014 LA Galaxy top salary is 4.5M (Landon Donovan), and the bottom salary is 36K (Bradford Jamieson IV).
- tolmasky 11y ago
  As I mentioned in a lower comment, I would be fine being payed less than someone who is clearly doing more than me (where more is a function of the job of course). When I was an engineer at a large company, there are many people there that I'd probably be upset about NOT making more than me. This does not mean I'm underpaid. Underpaid is when you are paid less than what you are bringing/the market rate. Landon Donovan is a superstar that brings in the crowds to LA Galaxy. Bradford Jamieson IV is an 18 year old who has a career total 8 goals. The point is not having everyone settle on ONE average salary or something, its not allowing similarly skilled/performing people receive widely different salaries based on unrelated things like negotiation skills. If anything, I'd wager in the sports world most similarly performing athletes make similar amounts thanks to this.

morgante 11y ago

The flip side of that is that it's possible for some employees to get very high salaries which companies wouldn't be willing to offer if all salaries are public.

tolmasky 11y ago
When I worked for a big company, there were people I was absolutely OK with making a big salary. Some people were just absolute superstars and everyone knew they were awesome for the team. Of course, I have no idea what they made. What would actually be harder however is to give underserving people larger salaries. This already happens in a fuzzy way now right: most everyone understands that their boss makes more money. We don't know exactly how much of course, but its "understood". If we transitioned to a place where people who are doing amazing work also make more money, I think there'd be no problem at all.
- morgante 11y ago
  The problem is that performance is much fuzzier than salary data. If you're not working directly with someone and if you don't have a great handle on what business metrics are, it can be very hard to understand why they're producing so much more value than you. This effect can be even more distorted when people start irrationally factoring in years of experience. If salaries were public, you'd definitely start to see people who have put in their 10 years gripe about newcomers earning way more than them (often justifiably). It also penalizes good negotiators, which might be a socially positive thing but I certainly wouldn't like it.
  - tolmasky 11y ago
    > It also penalizes good negotiators, which might be a socially positive thing but I certainly wouldn't like it. It probably penalizes snazzy dressers and charismatic people too, which snazzy dressers and charismatic people probably don't like. But at some point you have to ask, what is a company optimizing for? It has limited resources, X dollars to spread amongst Y people. If you optimize a system to give a lion share of that to good negotiators, its not just socially worse, its economically worse for your business. You might find yourself with a hiring system that ends up with good negotiators instead of good engineers (if an engineer that is socially awkward receives a better offer from somewhere else, he may choose that offer instead of using it to "play" you to get his salary up).
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > It also penalizes good negotiators, which might be a socially positive thing but I certainly wouldn't like it. No, it doesn't penalize good negotiators. It fails to reward them when being a "good negotiator" isn't relevant to the business metrics for the position they work in, but the absence of an unearned reward isn't punishment. And this isn't merely socially positive, but its a positive for the business, because it increases the incentive for good negotiators to seek positions where that is relevant to job duties, since it avoids rewarding that skill where it is not relevant. As such, it increases the alignment between the incentives provided by compensation with the business interests of the employing firm.

onewaystreet 11y ago

If you find out you are getting paid less than others in your company it's possible that you are getting ripped off but it's also possible that they are seen as more valuable than you. The problem is that no one is going to accept being told that.

andyl 11y ago

Really? Sports team salaries are public. The 2014 LA Galaxy top salary is 4.5M (Landon Donovan), and the bottom salary is 36K (Bradford Jamieson IV).

tolmasky 11y ago
As I mentioned in a lower comment, I would be fine being payed less than someone who is clearly doing more than me (where more is a function of the job of course). When I was an engineer at a large company, there are many people there that I'd probably be upset about NOT making more than me. This does not mean I'm underpaid. Underpaid is when you are paid less than what you are bringing/the market rate. Landon Donovan is a superstar that brings in the crowds to LA Galaxy. Bradford Jamieson IV is an 18 year old who has a career total 8 goals. The point is not having everyone settle on ONE average salary or something, its not allowing similarly skilled/performing people receive widely different salaries based on unrelated things like negotiation skills. If anything, I'd wager in the sports world most similarly performing athletes make similar amounts thanks to this.