Hacker News Reader

It's down to what you think salaries are for. If market value is supposed to equate to social value and ensure a fair distribution of the output of society, then you need open prices or the market won't work properly.

I need to know what you are paid so I can balance what I am paid against what I think you are worth.

Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer.

Which is why they play upon the doubt and insecurity in people's minds that they are actually worth what they have negotiated.

It's the basis of why unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases. Right up to the point when unionisation was defeated and 'individualists' got to play their game. Since then the productivity gains have gone to the top of town.

Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team.

> Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - the employers - who then divide and conquer.

Closed salaries might also benefit some employees. I think most people will agree that across any job title, or team, there are people who're favored in some way - better at their job, fun to be around, great motivators or mediators, whatever it is. It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.

Closed salaries would've helped me in a recent salary negotiation. The company's open salaries in combination with their tiered salary concept contributed to their refusal of a raise in starting base salary. "Everyone knows what a Tier 4 FTE starts at, so if I start you higher then I have to give everyone a raise". No problem if we could just keep my salary a secret.

On the other hand, I don't think it's my employer's business with whom I share my salary, though I could see this secrecy being part of an employment contract.

Open salaries is not the root problem in your example, it's the rigid "tiers."

Rigidity in salaries is a natural end result of open salaries, as otherwise everyone demands explanations of why someone else is making more.

Even in this thread you already see people calling for unionization and collective bargaining to ensure everyone gets their "fair share."

If you're going to be open about salaries, it makes sense to be open about the explanations for them too. You seem to want to keep them secret?

I think the fundamental issue here is that "luck" is very often the explanation.

It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.

So long as the reason why someone is paid more is also public then it's fine. People could use that as motivation to improve - seeing someone else rewarded for something is a brilliant driving force to do it yourself as well.

So long as the reason why someone is paid more is also public then it's fine.

You're assuming perfectly rational behavior, which is... not human.

I'm not arguing against open salaries (I am in such condition), but assuming rational actors is not realistic.

In particular, an example justification along the lines of "X takes more because is a better programmer than you are" is very dangerous, not only in the obvious way.

I don't know about you, but I have a number of more experienced but less productive colleagues who have been known to gripe about bonuses and raises not being directly tied to seniority. They often pine for unions, where time in grade leads inexorably to higher salary and these young hotshots would have to wait their turn.

"Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team."

Holy shit, that's it! That's why the individual always loses out in negotiating for their salary--the company is already one big team (HR, accounting, all the business processes, etc) and you're just some guy on the other side of the table.

Even for hot shots, a union would only be a benefit. Look at the Screen Actors Guild--hot shot actors bring in bank, they're not constrained by the union, but everyone involved gets the basic union protections.

Wow, that's it. Individuals always get defeated by the team, and that's exactly what it is when you go up against a company to negotiate your salary.

You're a bit enthousiatic about that, but it's basically why many animals from groups (are gregarious), including humans. Groups are stronger than individuals.

Lone hunters can get one individual out of a herd but they'll never be able to kill the whole herd. And some herds of certain species can kill a lone hunter.

I'm sorry, I think your analysis of the cause of the power disparity is wrong. It's not due to numbers.

It's because power disparity is inherent in hierarchical organizations. The CEO is just one person, but their position at the apex of the hierarchy gives them power over everyone else in the organization. Power disparity is baked into the hierarchy—it's not a hierarchy without it.

Unions are a way to balance the power of the employee group against the management hierarchy. Unfortunately unions are also subject to the corruption that accompanies power.

> unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases

Considering that most unions encourage rigid salary bands, this is a ludicrous statement to make.

It's obvious that different workers have different productivity levels (and those levels don't correspond directly to years of experience). Considering that, I consider it highly unfair to force people into having the same salary.

> unionisation was defeated

Did I miss something?

Granted, the most powerful and corrupt unions are public sector unions, where salaries are more or less publicly known. Just look at how many police have been indicted for murdering innocent people.

So the balance is clearly necessary -- there is no such thing as a collectivist utopia.

> "We needed person X in January and couldn't wait until march so we promised them more money to come accross."

Yeah but that in itself is useful information. It signifies that demand for those kind of employees is high and that should in turn affect the salaries of both new hires and employees bold enough to renegotiate.

The only reason it's not public, is because an inefficient labour market helps the employers underpay their employees.

> The only reason it's not public, is because an inefficient labour market helps the employers underpay their employees.

If that were true, why wouldn't everyone voluntarily post their salaries publicly? For that matter, why won't you?

It's already protected for employees to share their salaries. If the only reason salaries are private is to help employers, wouldn't we expect many people to share their salaries voluntarily?

Same reason people buy diamond rings, gendered deodorant, banned nonwhites from boxing, etc.

Culture rules. People are not far-sighted logical market agents.

Consider the opposite: If sharing your salary is so inoffensive, why do companies go to great lengths to stop you from doing it, necessitating enshrined legal protections (that most people are unaware about)?

https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/index.htm

Transparency always shows the ugly unfair side of things when the sheets are first lifted... That's the whole point. People adjust and systems adjust, and we figure out how to better work together.

Salaries are a reflection of the value you're supposedly contributing to society. Isn't that on principle public?

Salaries are a reflection of your supply and demand. Two people with equal demand but unequal supply (one has financial obligations that make them unavailable below a certain salary level) will result in unequal pay.

The notion that salary is meant to be directly tied to productivity does not and has not ever reflected reality.

Current hires are not a fixed supply to be taken for granted.

Hire someone else for a ton extra, refuse me a raise, and I'll leave.

That is, if that information was available. Kinda convenient that it isn't, huh?

It is absolutely convenient to be able to retain talent for as cheap as possible. Just like it is convenient to pit two suppliers against each other to drive costs down.

Quitting because you don't get a raise doesn't change anything unless you have an alternative that will pay you more. In which case, that alternative is a negotiating piece independent of a coworkers salary.

Long story short, have alternatives.

If you leave, even if you are leaving to a worse salary, you are hurting the former company. If that company considers you to be worth whatever they're paying you (read: they can't find someone better for less) than they will give you the raise rather than let you go. All you need to know is the maximum amount they are willing to pay you, which you can then negotiate for.

> Hire someone else for a ton extra, refuse me a raise, and I'll leave.

Hmm.... Wouldn't this inflate the economy? (Edit: seems that it doesn't, at least in Norway.)

I assume there always will be the cases where someone is needed urgently, so such hires are unavoidable.

Salaries are a proxy for value, but how we measure that value in a capitalist society, is most certainly driven by supply and demand. We should be careful not to project the inadequacies of the measuring device onto what's being measured.

Salary cannot exceed the value provided, but otherwise it often does not reflect value. Take for example cleaners, without whom no company could exist (i.e. they provide a lot of value), and yet, because of s&d, they're paid minimum wage.

> Salary cannot exceed the value provided

CEO's of fortune 500, investment bankers, etc...

Salaries are at best weakly correlated to contribution to society. Somebody raising their own children is contributing to society, for example, usually without salary. And producing food is probably a more valuable contribution than arguing in court about patents on round corners and such.

> And producing food is probably a more valuable contribution than arguing in court about patents on round corners and such.

The key point of the marginal revolution is it isn't the aggregate contribution that matters, but the marginal.

The canonical example is diamonds and water. We all need water, so why does it cost a fraction of what a tiny diamond costs?

> producing food is probably a more valuable contribution...

This is a commonly held belief, but I wonder if it's actually true? The important things produced in the United States are largely possible because of intellectual property rights, and we pay people to not make food.

So you shouldn't be allowed to anonymously contribute to society? Does this include whistle blowers?

Begs the question of whether whistle blowers would be needed if there was more transparency, right?

Only if there will be a complete and enforced transparency, so no one would be able to do anything with secrecy.

Sort of "The Circle" setting.

Of course you should. But if you anonymously contribute to society, who do you expect to pay you for it?

Sure, you can still make anonymous donations to the charities of your choice.

> Why keep this stuff secret? Because none of it is fair and we all know it.

Revealing the secrets helps to make the system more fair. Without knowledge of the unfairness, there's much less pressure to increase fairness. Which is of course the point of keeping it secret.

It sounds like you're complaining about the pressure. But the pressure is the point.

But what is the point really when a salary is the product of many things?

I do JS for 10 years, someone else does JS 10 years, should we get the same?

Maybe the other one performes better because she and the boss are a super cultural fit?

Friends for year? Same country? Same age? etc. pp.

This article is on the BBC. Iniquitous salaries are not ideal but they are not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is wealthy people who own land, do no work and demand rent from others for the right to exist.

https://whoownsengland.org/

Paying some people a bit more won't fix the UK. Reporting people to the state for tax evasion isn't the issue. Land is hardly taxed in the UK. We cannot just look at what is legal vs illegal. The state is setup to funnel money to the establishment. We must look beyond this to what is moral and what is immoral. Is it subjective? Sometimes. In Kensington council tax is 1K per anum on a 2MM house which may be empty, paying the owner 100K on a 5% increase in land prices per anum whilst residents burn to death for the sake of a sprinkler system.

Read the Grenfell one if you want to be particularly sickened and to see how the UK really works. The BBC won't touch this.

edit: to the guy below asking about downvotes, here's what happens on HN. Any time you mention landlords they downvote and someone flags the post and then you get, even though I've submitted 4 posts today "you're submitting too fast".

It looks like free speech, but it's not. This happens every single time.

I'm assuming you're downvoted because it's not relevant. But I agree with the landownership problem, it has caused a lot of trouble not only in the UK, but in multiple countries and it's never going to stop.

First you observe that something is unfair and then you defend it.

I don't see Norway cities on fire. Actually I have been there and it's pretty much one of the most stable place I've been to.

Apparently they managed to overcome the issues you raise.

> Why keep this stuff secret? Because none of it is fair and we all know it.

Bingo. It's also why offshore accounts is so prevalent amongst the wealthy.

> So you should piss off everyone else by rubbing it in their face that X was pretty lucky on timing? Or give everyone a raise the company can't afford?

Don't forget the other kind of "luck". So and so's father /friend/etc is X so they get better pay/access/etc.

This isn't just a problem in the private sector, the public sector is a problem too.

> Privacy is quite unfashionable nowadays.

Selective privacy is quite fashionable. The peasants don't get privacy.

I think offshore assets have more to do with navigation taxes.