I want to talk about pay, and make choices based on what I know about other people's pay. I've attempted to do this several times with friends, but for a lot of people pay is just too intimate a number to discuss objectively.
In one case, we discovered that one friend was getting paid $30k less per year than I was, which seemed mostly to be related to the fact his parents convinced him that no one was actually getting the insane tech salaries people talk about here and thus he didn't negotiate. Maybe he took that information with him to his employer and successfully negotiated up, maybe he didn't. I don't know because he started treating me differently and eventually stopped talking to me altogether.
It's not like job title maps to the actual work anyways. Some companies only expect SWEs to work various parts of a huge monolith that magically gets deployed somewhere. Some companies only expect SWEs to own every single part of the process for getting an application from a whiteboard to prod. Some companies have different expectations depending on your org. Some companies vary these expectations based on what they sense they can get individuals to do. That's not even discussing the idea that people can be better (and thus take less time) than others even if they are doing the "same" task. How is pay a useful number in that context?
I'm just soured on the whole idea, I don't see how a system based on this kind of radical transparency doesn't result in either completely leveled salaries or pay reflecting (and enforcing) social hierarchies. I just see people using different social tools based on group perceptions more than the modicum of individual agency I have when I'm able to advocate for my specific contribution's value during negotiations.
The problem is that you don't know the value of your contribution - unless you're in accounting or the CFO. At least with knowledge of what other people make, you can know the ratio of relative contributions to compensation.
Without that, you know nothing. You'll be making the case that your performance deserves a 20% raise, and they'll negotiate you down to a 10% raise. Meanwhile everyone else is making twice as much as you. Your estimate of 20% was not based on your value it was an estimate that you made of what sounded reasonable, and what you thought you might be able to get away with. That's easily nullified by the boss always playing hardball, and always giving the impression that they're paying you as much as you possibly can.
How can you possibly know how much you should be paid if you both don't know how much other people are paid, and you don't have access to the books?
> How can you possibly know how much you should be paid if you both don't know how much other people are paid, and you don't have access to the books?
Surveys & data on job sites, staying plugged into places like this where people discuss salaries semi-anonymously, getting to the offer stage at other companies and seeing what they propose. It's not a perfect strategy, but I'd rather have individual agency over giving companies an excuse to level salaries.
In one case, we discovered that one friend was getting paid $30k less per year than I was, which seemed mostly to be related to the fact his parents convinced him that no one was actually getting the insane tech salaries people talk about here and thus he didn't negotiate. Maybe he took that information with him to his employer and successfully negotiated up, maybe he didn't. I don't know because he started treating me differently and eventually stopped talking to me altogether.
It's not like job title maps to the actual work anyways. Some companies only expect SWEs to work various parts of a huge monolith that magically gets deployed somewhere. Some companies only expect SWEs to own every single part of the process for getting an application from a whiteboard to prod. Some companies have different expectations depending on your org. Some companies vary these expectations based on what they sense they can get individuals to do. That's not even discussing the idea that people can be better (and thus take less time) than others even if they are doing the "same" task. How is pay a useful number in that context?
I'm just soured on the whole idea, I don't see how a system based on this kind of radical transparency doesn't result in either completely leveled salaries or pay reflecting (and enforcing) social hierarchies. I just see people using different social tools based on group perceptions more than the modicum of individual agency I have when I'm able to advocate for my specific contribution's value during negotiations.