Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

Unless you're paid on commission or by output it should be same job same pay. You're selling the same hours as everyone else and have the same work expectation which you either meet or don't. If you have different work expectations that's a title difference which is fine. But paying two SWE II's different amounts is unfair.

It should be everyone of a given title makes the highest amount anyone with that title was able to successfully negotiate because you've proven the market rate and it smooths over a lot of different biases naturally.

Trying to vaguely estimate the output of different employees while not actually paying them directly for that output is silly.

View on HN

Some SWE IIs (or McDonald's employees) do a better job than others, need less instruction, take more initiative, are more dependable, etc. even though they may have an identical job description as another employee who doesn't do as well at those things. Paying the better employee more, so they stick around, or just because you recognize the greater value they provide, is perfectly fair.

Did folks like you in this thread thinking along this path, actually read the article? The algorithms don’t appear to be taking on the output (such as star ratings) alone into consideration. This is the core of your argument.

The algorithms are allegedly manipulating workers into working longer than they would otherwise need to, by withholding opportunities so that it takes longer for their daily goal to hit. That’s horrible if true!

I read it and the article admits at the end there’s no proof this is actually happening. The companies say it’s not. There’s only an academic who is theorizing about it and an anecdote from a worker that claims it feels like they are cut off from jobs when they are approaching a bonus. And the academic wants to influence the creation of a law for their made up problem.

Fair point, but I was responding to the claim in the parent comment (“paying two SWE II's different amounts is unfair.”)

It’s just not reality you’re describing. Here’s some reasons why:

- 1 employee may just be better/more valuable than the other for a variety of reasons. Promotion isn’t always an option or even the right call. So we have a range/band we compensate into. This allows raises based on merit and adjustment when needed.

-location matters. Cost of living is a thing. I’m not going to debate if it ought to be this way, just that it is.

- 1 employee may have had a offer from an competitor. We want to keep them but can’t use a promotion to do so for a variety of reasons. For instance, promotions cone with equity and that means approval from a pool that may not have anything easily available. But money is there and easier. So we offer more money to stay. The employee earned that by seeing what the market values them at. The other employee isn’t automatically granted a raise because of that.

-negotiation matters. The time you’re hired natters. Your pedigree matters. There’s a lot of reasons 2 employees will have different pay.

You are selling experience, loyalty and personality (not to mention productivity). Employers are looking for more than a warm body

Reply on news.ycombinator.com