Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by chipgap98 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

chipgap98

Stochastic wage fixing is still wage fixing

View on HN

Your honor, the algorithm made me do it!

ChatGPT did it!

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fix...

unless you collude with other companies, doesn't seem like it is.

unless disclosed to employees and applicants this seems like de facto colluding.

I always ask myself, as to the legality or ethics, would this survive review by a jury of my peers...

You think it is more ethical for wage data to be kept secret? Why? Rarely is requiring secrecy the more ethical option.

What would be the least ethical would be keeping it secret to one party and having the other party sharing data... Oh wait!

Glassdoor exists.

>Glassdoor exists.

you are not allowed to tell anyone how much you make so you might be in trouble if your found out but the companies share this info without your consent. From my POV make it all transparent.

I have had a career spanning over 30 years at this point. I've worked in businesses with 6 employees and F500 corporations. No one has ever told me that I can't tell anyone else how much I make.

So... Pave shouldn't exists as "Glassdoor exists" and is already providing data?

Eh? Glassdoor is for the other party, which you were implying was being kept in the dark.

If Glassdoor data are sufficient, why would employers pay for Pave?

It's not like Glassdoor is restricted to employees, they even offer specific services to employers.

I never said that.

That is the entire basis for the RealPage lawsuit. The point is that if the effect on pricing is indistinguishable from price fixing, it doesn't matter if the act of colluding is abstracted into and laundered through a 3rd party with an algorithmic system responsible for setting prices.

Honestly, I think it does still matter. The basis for the RealPage lawsuit seems to be that people inside and outside the company glibly considered it price-fixing, and said it out loud to each other. The didn't really seem to make the case that it was "algorithmic price-fixing" (Disclaimer: not a lawyer). You can only argue in court about existing laws, so until algorithmic price-fixing is written in the law books (or settled case law) you're gonna have a tough time bringing that up to a judge.

It seems you don't understand the lawsuit. Most of the claims are based on the actual mechanics of how algorithmic price fixing does violate existing laws.

As this guy argues, that this is also price fixing by algorithm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFk8V7mU0Wo .

(Got the link from a comment on another recent HN post, IIRC.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com