> Skilled computer scientists with some management responsibilities, for instance, often make base salaries of $180,000 to $210,000.
Huh. I guess I need to go find some management responsibilities somewhere, dealing with people issues instead of computer issues for part of the day can't be that bad...
> Behind the scenes, technology companies are making the case that agreements among companies are not anticompetitive and don't affect employees' salaries or the availability of jobs. They say such agreements are commonplace, used by companies to maintain good relationships with business partners.
> The technology industry makes the case that it would be harder to enter into collaborative ventures with other companies if they fear losing valuable employees.
That seems rather contradictory; if there's no effect on the employee's opportunities, what are the companies afraid of?
> Policing the labor markets hasn't been a central focus of antitrust enforcers in recent years. But the Justice Department did act against what it saw as efforts to manipulate the labor market. It brought a civil case against a group of hospitals in Utah in 1994, alleging that they had illegally conspired to hold down nurses' wages by exchanging information about their pay.
Maybe this could be an argument for not keeping salaries a secret; get rid of the information asymmetry.
This is the first I hear about a DoJ investigation, but this article largely comes off as FUD. It dances around a few weak claims, none with real evidence to back them up.
First, there's a shortage of computer scientists [1], which has led to an increase in salaries and fierce competition among companies to hire good employees. It's no accident that Google has had better perks than any U.S. company in history in order to attract top talent. They're already spending a lot per employee, and that they would fix employees salaries is ludicrous, considering they would lose out on great talent.
I don't even know what to make of, "skilled computer scientists with some management responsibilities, for instance, often make base salaries of $180,000 to $210,000" -- in Silicon Valley, at least, this is the top tier salary range reserved for only a privileged few. It would also seem strange that the DoJ would be helping these salaries stay at this high level. The government doesn't have a great track record of publicly trying to make the rich richer.
/First, there's a shortage of computer scientists/
That doesn't sound like the experience of anyone who works in the field. Remember that CS is one of the few professions where workers really do have to compete with Chinese, Russian, and Indian salaries.
/often make base salaries of $180,000 to $210,000/
Sounds like a statistic invented by the same people who are suggesting a shortage of computer programmers to hire.
Here's something I've been thinking about. Imagine Google or FB acquires of a small startup. The startup's product is either unwanted or incorporated into their parent company within a year. That means that for the next couple years of the payout period, a founder could be making $1M/year. Are they that much more valuable than the rest of the company's devs (who make a lot less)? (That's definitely possible.) Or, are the rest of the devs paid a lot less than what the value they provide? If the latter, why don't Google and FB raise salaries more? Could acquisitions be a kind of backdoor to avoid having to raise everyone's salaries?
Huh. I guess I need to go find some management responsibilities somewhere, dealing with people issues instead of computer issues for part of the day can't be that bad...
> Behind the scenes, technology companies are making the case that agreements among companies are not anticompetitive and don't affect employees' salaries or the availability of jobs. They say such agreements are commonplace, used by companies to maintain good relationships with business partners.
> The technology industry makes the case that it would be harder to enter into collaborative ventures with other companies if they fear losing valuable employees.
That seems rather contradictory; if there's no effect on the employee's opportunities, what are the companies afraid of?
> Policing the labor markets hasn't been a central focus of antitrust enforcers in recent years. But the Justice Department did act against what it saw as efforts to manipulate the labor market. It brought a civil case against a group of hospitals in Utah in 1994, alleging that they had illegally conspired to hold down nurses' wages by exchanging information about their pay.
Maybe this could be an argument for not keeping salaries a secret; get rid of the information asymmetry.