Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I agree with your first paragraph, but I'm not sure about the second one.

My instincts tell me that labor is something with a price like anything else, and (aside from claims of unfairness) more transparency is better. The end result over time would presumably be the price of labor (salaries) would more closely resemble actual market value.

But I also consider myself to be a high performer, and the last thing I want when negotiating a raise is my boss to have to think about how the rest of the team will feel about it. I want him to care only about whether or not my services are worth it for the price I'm asking. And that just won't happen if it's all transparent.




I think people believe that pay transparency will result in increasing wages.

This has never happened in economic history. You cannot make two people equal by raising the low producer, you can only cut down the high producer.

When train transport prices were regulated because local trains were more expensive than long haul trains, the result was the raising of long haul prices.


>This has never happened in economic history.

Incorrect, CEO pay rapidly increased once the executive compensation of public companies was published.


Pay transparency would raise aggregate wages and cut into profits - i.e. it would reduce the take home pay of the non-producer (the shareholder).




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: