[BrkAway21]

The problem with your example is that you are making the assumption that someone with 10 years of experience is less likely to make mistakes in practice than the person with 0 years of experience. I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). It doesn't mean that everyone needs to make exactly the same amount, because I think there is an argument to be made for someone who has more tenure at a company to retain them and for their role-specific experience. But that shouldn't be a >5% difference.

Also, I don't see how people can't see that this is precisely the logic that contributes to women generally getting paid less for doing the same job. Anecdotally, I joined a company and had about 7 years of experience. My "peers" in performing exactly the same duties as me had probably about 25 years of experience. I was responsible for the 2nd largest revenue generating P&L that generated the highest profit margin (which I actually turned around from losing money in 6 months). I found out I was getting paid $70k less than "my peers." Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money? This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women.

[lotsofpulp]

> I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it).

We go through life making a lot of guesses and utilizing a lot of prior probabilities. Work history is, in my experience, one of the stronger signals available to us.

If an employer initially pays an employee less due to less track record, then finds out the employee is as good as other employees, and does not adjust the pay, then that employer is stupid and will eventually lose the good employees to places with better management. Assuming employees have access to sufficient labor pricing data and can see they can earn more elsewhere.

> But that shouldn't be a >5% difference.

What is the basis for this cutoff?

> Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money?

You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others.

>This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women.

No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees.

Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination.

[BrkAway21]

> No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees.

Well I definitely agree it was bad management. And I did leave when I realized that despite my performance, they weren't going to compensate me appropriately. To excuse it away as "oh, that's bad management" is being willfully ignorant to the truth that this kind of stuff does happen, in general, more to women. I was in a position where I was fortunate that I could leave and find a better opportunity. But not all women have this luxury. Many need their incomes and don't have the time to look for other opportunities that will value them appropriately.

> Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination.

It's great there are laws to protect women from illegal discrimination. But it's not like that just "magically" corrects itself. You have to bring a suit. Or you just have to leave if you don't want to deal with it. It's like saying "well that's wrong." Sure, it is, but the effort is disproportionately on the "wronged" person to fix it.

> You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others.

Well yes, and I thought I had. But as I said, it wasn't until I had been at the company, better understood what my "peers" were doing and then finding out that they were paid SO much more than me that I realized I needed to go somewhere else. But I believe the point that many others are making is that if there are been better salary transparency, I could have saved myself some time by realizing they weren't going to value me and what I brought, so I could have passed on the opportunity altogether.

[BlargMcLarg]

>We go through life making a lot of guesses and utilizing a lot of prior probabilities. Work history is, in my experience, one of the stronger signals available to us.

Research continues to fail to support this. At what point is your experience a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[sokoloff]

No, you clearly should have been making more, which is the other side of the "compensation for jobs that differ should not be mandated to be the same" argument.

Are you saying that "despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively 'better' that they should have made the same money"?

I have software engineers on my team who are literally creating twice as much business [edit to add: value] per year despite being at the same level. (The actual peak to trough ratio is probably higher than that, but it's at least 2x.) Why should they be paid exactly the same or even within 5% of each other?

[BrkAway21]

> I have software engineers on my team who are literally creating twice as much business per year despite being at the same level. (The actual peak to trough ratio is probably higher than that, but it's at least 2x.) Why should they be paid exactly the same or even within 5% of each other?

I'm not exactly sure I would say they are performing the same duties then. Are they all responsible for generating business? I would argue they aren't actually doing the same job. This could be the difference between their salaries being the same versus their compensation being the same. Generating business can be a highly variable achievement from year-to-year, so providing total compensation that is higher for those generating more business than others. If their primary job is to do software engineering, then I would imagine their salary would reflect that job. Additional compensation could be given for doing essentially additional responsibilities over and above their job. You could give the feedback to your other software developers to explain the difference in their total compensation vs. salary. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "creating business" though.

[sokoloff]

Was a missing word typo/editing error. "creating twice as much business [value] per year"

Pure software engineering type roles, no sales/sales engineering. Just simply being better at value creation via software engineering.

I'm sure you've worked with the "whizzes" and the "whiffers". People who can effortlessly create elegant, reliable systems vs people who struggle to craft limp-along systems that look and behave as if they are comprised of bailing wire and load-bearing bubble gum.