logoalt Hacker News

trio8453 • today at 9:02 AM • 4 replies • view on HN

Freakonomics have a good episode including one of the authors of that paper - https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-pave-the-road-to-hel...

It's very hard for people to accept that this might even be the case, many people just assume that transparency is better for workers.


Replies

ErrantX • today at 9:37 AM

Love Freakonomics :)

That said I think Jury is still out on pay transparency mostly because there isn't that much practical data. The EU has been navigating it for a few years but research is still ongoing.

One paper (which is more focused on pay gap reporting, which is longer implemented and seems to have limited impact) suggests salary disclosure in job ads actually increases wages.

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pay-transparency-in-pro...

It's definitely obvious that internal salary transparency will a) act to normalise salaries over the long term and b) generally depress salaries. But disclosure at the job as stage is less clear.

lotsofpulp • today at 11:33 AM

Price transparency is better for society, as price movements are the signal to buyers and sellers for which way supply and demand curves are moving, and hence resources can be allocated more efficiently.

A more real time view of the change in people’s pay to quality of life at work ratio can help people decide what to train in and how much to invest in the training.

pembrook • today at 10:16 AM

People intuitively like the idea of reducing inequality and hate the idea that the fact they make less money than the other guy might be entirely rational.

We will invent narratives to protect our ego and will happily keep other people down (including ourselves) instead of confronting this.

"He just got promoted because he's more outgoing, he's not more talented than me!"

Ok let's assume thats true. But if your job involves spending 40 hours a week with someone (more than your family), it turns out humans value being around charming, outgoing people. Is this wrong or is it the market accurately assessing relative value in the context of the actual work (collaborating with other humans)?

➕ show 2 replies
pydry • today at 9:25 AM

About 30% of modern economics is dubious studies that demonstrate that things which hammer profits are Bad For The Little Guy.

See also: hiking the minimum wage (possibly the most obvious example of academic corruption), rent controls, taxing the rich, etc.

There are a number of reasons for this, but the primary ones are 1) economists also respond to incentives and those think tank jobs pay really well and 2) prestige in the industry is also a commodity - a commodity which can be bought and sold. The level to which money talks in this industry is reflected by the wages - always higher than all other humanities.

As an example the freakonomics guys popularity are to popular economics what k pop is to music: a slick, highly refined, marketed product from a superbly well oiled marketing machine.

➕ show 3 replies