[oefrha]

> 40% are getting paid at least 10% less

That statement is wrong either way. Looking at the graph, ~22% got a >10% cut while ~36% got a >10% raise. Overall ~43% got a cut while ~57% got a raise. And if there’s any doubt, later on they dropped the “at least 10% less” qualifier for the 40% figure in text:

> But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition.

Can’t believe they (accidentally? intentionally?) screwed up the very first concrete figure given in the article. Guess what, discussion is now based on the wrong figure.

Also, the y-axis of the plot is labeled “number of workers” when it should be “percentage of participating workers”, unless they had exactly 100 participants (they say they had 200+). Lousy presentation.

I’m all for transparency, obviously.

Edit: In addition, since participation is entirely voluntary, common sense tells me that the data they gather should skew more negative, since people negatively affected are much more likely to participate.

[pxx]

it seems clear to me from first principles and from experience [0] that the result from voluntary compensation sharing skews low compared to the actual population. it's the people who want to complain about low wages who participate in such schemes.

that's not to say sharing wages is bad. this can still provide upward pressure on said wages. but the people who participate in the beginning are likely from the lower end of the distribution.

[0] websites like levels.fyi seem to consistently skew low when estimating higher percentiles