Hacker News Reader

Comment by nhumrich | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one that feels shaky sharing my salary? I work at a start up and if I share my position and company it won't really be anonymous, as I am the only person at the company with that position. I do agree its nice for people to post their salaries so i know if I'm underpaid. But what if I'm overpaid, or at least played more than most at my company? What will that do to people I work with who find or how much I'm paid? It makes me a little uneasy to think my friends might find out I make more than them, I don't really want to flaunt my pay. I'm not saying I am overpaid, but that is the thought that gets in my way from sharing my salary on sites like this and glassdoor. I always assumed because of this salaries on glassdoor where scewed to the lower spectrum. Am I alone in this?

View on HN

Ultimately salary transparency is actually a net positive. You can easily know if you're over or under paid and all groups (gender, ethnicity, etc) can see how their pay compares to the other groups.

Yes there is a pain point that you mention when transitioning to such transparency. If the company hasn't been typically fair with salaries or not properly explaining why person X isn't getting Y then it's not going to be fun. But overall it should give you a better position to negotiate a higher salary when you're underpaid and it makes everyone well aware if discrimination is happening.

I'll tell anyone who asks. I don't publicize because most people I work with are really uncomfortable with it but personally I don't care and I think ultimately, as a society, we're going to move in that direction. It's just going to take a long time.

It's a net positive for some people.

You will tell your salary to anyone who asks, and I will also enjoy having that conversation with anyone for the additional data points, if nothing else. However, some people become really uncomfortable if they learn they're making less than others in similar positions. Especially if you work at an early to mid stage startup that doesn't have things like pay bands and formulaic raises.

I disagree.

The problem here is that every company has above average performers, average performers, and below average performers. However, almost everyone thinks they are an above average performer.

Therefore, if salaries are shared, at least two thirds of your workers are liable to be pissed off at what they are making, even though the amount is completely fair based on their actual worth to the company.

Transparency solves that problem. If below average workers moved from business to business getting paid less than their peers, how long do you think they would consider themselves better than average?

Possibly forever, and I think it's very likely they develop a chip on their shoulder because the world is not properly valuing their skills.

Never underestimate the ability of people to come up with all kinds of reasons why they are being treated unfairly.

I think that's a negative bias. The majority of people behave rationally and while they may speak negatively in public, internally they will understand the pattern.

We have a tendency to put too much value in what people say rather than how they act. I'm confident actions would reflect people understanding their value in a transparent world, even if their words did not.

I agree. Over the decades I have worked with a few below average engineers who were so deeply arrogant they simply refused to believe they weren't God's gift to engineering.

This is a small minority though.

That's a nice thought. But I think too much of our culture has been focused on assigning blame for these sort of things to the the "system".

I'm sure some would come to the conclusion you suggest, but I fear many would fall into a victim role and point fingers.

> almost everyone thinks they are an above average performer.[...]Therefore, if salaries are shared, at least two thirds of your workers are liable to be pissed off at what they are making, even though the amount is completely fair based on their actual worth to the company.

This is a strawman. Where is your data to back up that "almost everyone thinks they are an above average performer"? At least anecdotally I've never run into anything close to that. Almost everyone I've ever worked with that would be considered at or below average knew very well where they were. Their managers also had the data and would sit down and discuss it with them so even if they thought they weren't they certainly knew the company felt they were.

Perhaps if you jumped into an organization where feedback wasn't given (or given honestly) and opened up salaries you could have an issue. But the majority of companies should be giving employees valid, data-backed feedback which would not make them surprised if someone better performing is making more money than them.

Buffer[0] seems to do well with it and an experiment where a Plumbing company[1] did it ended up having lots of positives out of it. Those are just two data points but it shows it's doable. If you have data that shows otherwise, especially for the numbers you made up, feel free to post it as I would be interested in it.

[0] https://open.buffer.com/transparent-salaries/ [1] http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4422455/Pimlic...

> Where is your data to back up that "almost everyone thinks they are an above average performer?

It is a pretty well documented phenomena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

> It is a pretty well documented phenomena.

The effect of an individual feeling above average is, yes, documented and pointed out in your links. But that has nothing to do with "almost everyone thinks they are an above average performer".

Where is the data showing "almost everyone" feels this way? Even reading the wikis you linked it's obvious people will feel this about certain topics or even just in general when comparing themselves to someone else. I didn't see any direct correlation or sources regarding how the majority of people feel, overall, against the majority of others.

Don't be afraid to read the linked articles.

> Illusory superiority has been found in individuals' comparisons of themselves with others...in working environments (for example in job performance)

> In a survey of faculty at the University of Nebraska...more than 90% rated themselves as above average.

> Don't be afraid to read the linked articles.

Oh I did. Those quotes don't actually answer my questions. It "being found" or being found in more than 90% in a single survey doesn't answer my questions at all. Looking for real studies. I looked at some studies but I couldn't find anything about this (at least not in the places I have access to).

Surveys without proper controls are almost useless. I'm certainly saying this entire thing couldn't be true in most people I just want to see data / real studies.

I didn't understand that you found the quality or scope of mentioned studies lacking.

Thanks for clarifying.

You can just mention "A startup in XY technology located in bay area", and hopefully that would be enough to give you ambiguity.

Maybe you can add some details about what stage your company is at (seed vs Series A/B/C), instead of identifying your company?

If it weren't for status anxiety, I imagine people would prefer to have this information available (rather than assuming everyone is paid fairly).

It made me shaky if I had to share my Company's name as I am in a similar position to you where there are only 6 people at the company and I'm in a easily identifiable position there. Currently that is optional so I put as much detail as I could about my position without giving away any company details.

Just don't fill out the company name field.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com