[akdor1154]

> So, it's in employers' interest to make the salaries transparent, isn't it? I bet the model is incomplete.

Not necessarily - without transparency, an employer might decide to hire Dr Super Engineer, and might be happy to pay her 2× the mean wage of their existing engineering team.

With transparency, they might choose not to hire her, because they are only happy to pay her 2× if the existing engineering team are not aware, and she might refuse to take the job if they won't give her 2×.

[callmeal]

>With transparency, they might choose not to hire her, because they are only happy to pay her 2× if the existing engineering team are not aware, and she might refuse to take the job if they won't give her 2×.

What's stopping them from creating a new role/position/title that pays 2x?

[lsiebert]

Nothing, but there's no need for that, because there's nothing stopping them from paying her 2x for the same position, based on the actual skills and experience someone has.

You can totally pay people different wages under these laws for the same position, if they are better at their job, you just have to show that that's why.

[dolni]

Employers are already intrinsically motivated to pay as little as they can get away with. Isn't the fact that they are willing to pay more the best kind of proof?

[lsiebert]

That would only work as proof if you believe that salary is a perfect metric for job performance, and that nobody is paid less than they could get elsewhere (IE that the labor market operates with perfect efficiency).

I imagine we both know neither of those is the case.

Since those are not the case, you can ask yourself, are bills requiring equal pay for equivalent work and pay transparency each likely to improve salary as a metric for job performance, and labor market efficiency?

I suspect they do both, but if you believe otherwise, feel free to explain.

[dolni]

> That would only work as proof if you believe that salary is a perfect metric for job performance

There exists no perfect metric for job performance, so what is your point? No alternative system you propose can do it perfectly.

> and that nobody is paid less than they could get elsewhere (IE that the labor market operates with perfect efficiency)

Pay is not the only measure of a good job. I could easily find a job that pays me 50% more than I currently make.

> Since those are not the case, you can ask yourself, are bills requiring equal pay for equivalent work and pay transparency each likely to improve salary as a metric for job performance, and labor market efficiency?

No, they absolutely aren't. Who decides what is equivalent work? Having the same job title doesn't mean you add the same value to an organization, and trying to use law to force that will exacerbate the problem, not make it better.

Some people work more, practice their craft outside work, or are available after hours as needed. Those people are more valuable and should be compensated as such, not lumped in with the lowest common denominator.

All of the people I have talked to who supported these "equal pay" measures were people who were bad (or at best mediocre) at their job.

Businesses in the US are driven almost entirely by money. The people making less at their jobs are really, truly providing value, they can use that as leverage to negotiate a higher salary. Or just take matters into their own hands and give themselves a raise by getting a new job.

I don't get how the end of the political spectrum that complains about pay gaps is the same one that constantly complains about how corporations are driven by greed and money.

No employer wants to pay any person any more than they have to. I, a white man, have had to do a lot of work to justify my own raises. And when I got screwed by my employer, you bet your ass I left and found something better.

If people think they really can get more for what they do, they should go out there and do it. At the end of the day, money talks. If you truly provide value, you have leverage.