Yeah, I actually prefer a lack of transparency. I fully recognize the right of others to discuss salaries openly and support their ability to do so. However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating.
If for example, you know company X's highest paid software developer makes $110k, and the lowest makes $90k, (and such a narrow banded salary range is probably likely if everyone knows exactly what everyone else earns), you probably aren't going to get them to pay you far north of $110k simply because that would carry the likely result of increasing everyone else's salary since they now know you are making more than they are and they want a salary increase too.
But the lack of transparency should really go both ways, ideally if you want to get the best terms. That is, if you can inflate your previous salary or not disclose it at all while asking for a number significantly above it you are in a much better position than laying bare your entire earnings history.
For this reason I'm also selfishly for not publishing salaries within a company.
I'm all for talking about salary to everyone except co-workers. Knowing what you can make elsewhere gives you power to negotiate or move. I know what my engineering friends make, I know what they are getting bumped to after reviews, I know what offers they are getting and the same goes both ways. Knowing what everyone makes internally would just cause trouble I think.. At the least I would imagine it would limit my options to only companies that can afford to pay everyone top dollar..
Transparency benefits the company for this exact reason.
There is a non-zero cost (headache, dollars, what have you) in leaving an organization. This means that salaries can be at market rate, drift below, and people still may not see enough value to leave.
Good negotiating means you will always see market rate or above. Transparency means salaries will drift below market rate until someone deems you worthy of a bump.
Buffer salaries are outrageously low: for that reason alone, I would never advise anyone to work there.
Salary is only one part of a company's compensation. For instance, in the Buffer case, they do remote working, so some people could find that to be worth quite a bit.
It's ok to discuss your salaries with your colleagues, especially with the ones that are currently being shafted. But don't discuss your salary with recruiters for other firms, no need to make their lives any easier than they already are. Make them work for their money and disclose a range instead.
>> However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating.
This is exactly why salaries _should_ be transparent. Skill at negotiating salaries, unless you are an agent, is not a relevant skill. If you are an engineer, for example, the company should not be rewarding or penalizing you for your salary negotiation skills.
I disagree. If engineers are notoriously bad at negotiating (which we probably are), the solution is to improve that skill, not to seek to avoid negotiating in any form or fashion. The idea that you can willfully eschew any responsibility for asking for what you want (which is really what a negotiation is) and still get it, is both self-defeating and naive.
The reason lawyers/agents/salespeople are good at negotiating is not merely that their job requires it, it's because they have developed that skill.
This is true, but it's also inefficient for society as a whole. Basically, what the other side is saying is that yes, negotiating is a skill, but the reason why our economy works so efficiently is that we instituted division of labor. If everybody specializes in some skill, then they will be better at it than a jack-of-all-trades. On average, an engineer should be able to become a better engineer if they do not simultaneously have to worry about improving their negotiation skills. That would be overall beneficial to society.
So it might actually be better for society if the range of potential income is much smaller, because individuals in such a society would spend less time on skills like negotiation, which are not directly productive.
Depending on your outlook on life and how much anxiety the knowledge about income differentials causes you, the situation can look very much like a prisoner's dilemma.
>> Basically, what the other side is saying is that yes, negotiating is a skill, but the reason why our economy works so efficiently is that we instituted division of labor.
Understood, but division of labor is largely gray and only really gets divided when you move up the income chain (ie, the wealthier you are, the more things you can pay others to do to free up your time). Why learn how to make your bed or drive a car since technically you could pay other people to do those things for you? Professional athletes, musicians, and actors pay agents to negotiate their deals for them because they have much more at stake and it makes sense to bring on somebody who is an expert in contracts for specialized fields since its almost certainly a net win for both parties (talent and agent).
Unfortunately, engineering doesn't really pay enough to warrant bringing on an agent to negotiate on your behalf. So people can choose to wish that complete transparency existed and that we all make the same amount at each level of ability, or they can choose to accept that the job market is just that- a market. If you accept a salary of a certain rate and on certain terms, you are selling your services at an agreed-upon price. Just because somebody else asked for more and got it, doesn't change the fact that you were happy enough with the amount you agreed to work for and got it.
So really what we are talking about is wanting happiness with the amount you are paid regardless of whether it is enough to meet your personal needs. If the next person is making 10% more than you, then suddenly you are unhappy. There was a famous psychological experiment that actually verified this same thing- that people would generally be happier to make less money so long as somebody else in the same position isn't making more. That is not a net win for employees. In fact, those who can negotiate up their pay are probably helping the entire field of employees in that domain, since even if you are the bottom 50% of wage-earners in a high-paying field you are doing better than if everyone's pay remained stagnant at a lower level.
I agree with you. Anyway developing this skill also means that you allocate a considerable brain processing power into this activity; far more than some devs want/can allocate. This skill probably will make (or force) them into management.
If for example, you know company X's highest paid software developer makes $110k, and the lowest makes $90k, (and such a narrow banded salary range is probably likely if everyone knows exactly what everyone else earns), you probably aren't going to get them to pay you far north of $110k simply because that would carry the likely result of increasing everyone else's salary since they now know you are making more than they are and they want a salary increase too.
But the lack of transparency should really go both ways, ideally if you want to get the best terms. That is, if you can inflate your previous salary or not disclose it at all while asking for a number significantly above it you are in a much better position than laying bare your entire earnings history.