|
wateroverfire posted:Ah, got it. This seems like a weird focus on individual "superstar" workers that isn't really material to the point. Sure, if some individual is ostensibly so great that they want to get paid much more than their peers, then I guess that might be difficult for them. But in general, if two companies have their wage scales totally open to prospective new employees, then how is that not going to push the scales upward? If the claim here is that every actor having perfect information with which to make a reasoned decision does not lead to workers receiving the most fair price for their labor, then are you just repudiating capitalism entirely? Because it certainly sounds like your argument is "well, owners are going to screw over the worker no matter what."
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I just explained two mechanisms that would tend to work against employees getting paid more. Can you tell me why you think having salary information public would result in people getting more money? All else being equal, a company would prefer to get the first choice of applicants, since that will allow them to hire the best employees and therefore make the most money. If prospective employees can easily determine which companies offer the best compensation, then those companies will have an obvious advantage in the hiring process. This would in theory push salaries upward until the marginal value of elite employees is worth less than the additional cost in pay. Of course, in practice it would probably just lead to more collusion and wage fixing since capitalists are scum, but since I assume you aren't arguing in favor of a worker's revolution I'm interested in why you think hidden information is a benefit to the free market.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
on the left posted:When an industry/company becomes prestigious and high-paying though, women and minorities tend to get pushed out though. So if you have a company that pays higher, you will attract more highly qualified applicants, but statistically most of the best and most qualified applicants will be from groups you aren't trying to help (due to better access to education and previous opportunities in the past). I'm pretty sure that if a company starts raising its salaries for men and not for women, and all this data is public, it's not going to go well. I certainly don't think that something like this is going to eliminate pay discrimination--only the destruction of systems of oppression in general will do that--but I don't think that it would somehow help white men and leave everyone else behind.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:If salary disclosures help with compensation negotiations, why haven't we seen any meaningful uptick in comp with sites like glassdoor or payscale? One obvious possibility is that these sites do not have good enough data or a wide enough user base to dramatically affect the market. But, again, if you are arguing against economic liberalism then I am right there with you. Tearing down private ownership of capital would absolutely do much more to help workers, and women, than free-market-based reforms. on the left posted:No, what I am saying is that a company could have equal pay, but not a very diverse workforce. You wouldn't hire many women if taking a year off to raise a baby put you behind the top 50 applicants. I agree that workforce discrimination is a problem. Do you contend that rising wages in an industry will necessarily cause more discrimination to occur, thereby pushing women and minorities out of it? If so, do you think that allowing ownership to depress wages as much as possible is a good solution to the problem?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I doubt that comp disclosure + litigation would work. Any employee with the temerity to sue for pay is likely to be blackballed not just by his present employer but future employers. So because businesses would illegally retaliate against workers who fight for their rights, it's better if we just keep the workers from having evidence that they're being screwed?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Just a thought, maybe discrimination is a huge issue that runs throughout society, and there's no way to keep it out of the hiring process without rebuilding society to not be based on white male supremacy, so until we can do that we have to just try to do the best we can to counteract the effects via things like Affirmative Action and aggressive attempts to collect & disseminate evidence of discrimination. Maybe lovely concern trolls about whether a given proposal will end discrimination once and for all are terrible wastes of everyone's time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 06:55
|
|