3 ms·

Your argument is circular. You're saying that we shouldn't talk about pay, because when we talk about pay we get paid like Buffer devs do, which you think is o

by Lazare 11y ago

Your argument is circular. You're saying that we shouldn't talk about pay, because when we talk about pay we get paid like Buffer devs do, which you think is obviously low compared to other salaries, which we can't actually prove because we don't talk about pay. It's a bit like telling someone that you're giving them $100 in a box, but not to open the box, because if you open it, it'll turn into $20. "You can only have a high salary if you have no way to verify that it's high." Even if true, where does that leave us?

morgante 11y ago
> which we can't actually prove because we don't talk about pay. Just because salaries aren't public doesn't mean you can't get any salary information. Just go on a few interviews, set up an auction, and see what you can get. > It's a bit like telling someone that you're giving them $100 in a box, but not to open the box, because if you open it, it'll turn into $20. It's a cute analogy, but the more complete version would include a box market, where other people with insight into the box market are interested in buying the box I've been given. In such a scenario, I could shop around my box to see what it's actually worth without having to open it up.
- Lazare 11y ago
  I dunno, let's try the more complete version: "There's $100 in this box. You can't open it, or look inside it, but trust me, it's there. Now you need to go over to my mate George, and give him the box, and he'll give you $100 for it. But only if you haven't opened it!" Now it just sounds like you're being recruited as a drug mule. :) Okay, granted, in your scenario their are multiple box dealers who are willing to bid on your unopened-but-totally-contains-$100 box. If you work at it, it's quite possible that you might even get some semblance of a fair offer. But should you need to work at it? And this still feels like a system which lends itself to collusion, uncertainty, and unfairness. Nor is that even hypothetical; we KNOW that our industry suffered from a serious wage-fixing cartel which was only recently busted open. I feel like any argument against transparency has a high bar to clear.

by Lazare 11y ago

morgante 11y ago

> which we can't actually prove because we don't talk about pay. Just because salaries aren't public doesn't mean you can't get any salary information. Just go on a few interviews, set up an auction, and see what you can get. > It's a bit like telling someone that you're giving them $100 in a box, but not to open the box, because if you open it, it'll turn into $20. It's a cute analogy, but the more complete version would include a box market, where other people with insight into the box market are interested in buying the box I've been given. In such a scenario, I could shop around my box to see what it's actually worth without having to open it up.

Lazare 11y ago
I dunno, let's try the more complete version: "There's $100 in this box. You can't open it, or look inside it, but trust me, it's there. Now you need to go over to my mate George, and give him the box, and he'll give you $100 for it. But only if you haven't opened it!" Now it just sounds like you're being recruited as a drug mule. :) Okay, granted, in your scenario their are multiple box dealers who are willing to bid on your unopened-but-totally-contains-$100 box. If you work at it, it's quite possible that you might even get some semblance of a fair offer. But should you need to work at it? And this still feels like a system which lends itself to collusion, uncertainty, and unfairness. Nor is that even hypothetical; we KNOW that our industry suffered from a serious wage-fixing cartel which was only recently busted open. I feel like any argument against transparency has a high bar to clear.