[skrebbel]

I never understood this. Shouldn't the salary be relative to the amount of value I add? Two people doing the same work, but one decides to rent a $3000,- apartment in SF and the other lives in North-east Veszprem. Why would a company pay the first guy more? Or the second guy less? Would feel very unfair if you're the second guy.

[redguava]

It's a really complicated thing. I agree the salary should be relative to the amount of value you add. But what a "good salary" is, depends on where you live.

If you do an amazing job, and I pay you an amazing amount. That amazing amount could vary depending on your cost of living.

I agree in a perfect world that you should get paid the same no matter where you are, and globalisation will probably head in that direction. But so will cost of living balancing out too (if people in lower cost of living countries are earning lots more money, the price of things will go up.... supply/demand).

I guess ultimately, when comparing what you pay people, why use the dollar amount as opposed to the benefit to their lives. Shouldn't you be paying everyone an amount that equally benefits them? Why should one person be far greater benefited from their salary? Ultimately it's what you do with the money that matters, not the number on the note.

[netcan]

Say you have 2 good candidates for a remote job. The slightly better one lives in Warsaw, you prefer him. You offer them $60k. The slightly worse one lives in NY, you offer $100k?

Is that really how it would work? What if the Warsaw guy demanded $100k, would you pick the NY guy.

This stuff about cost of living or finding the salary they would be happy with is all baloney. Employers want to pay as little as the candidate will accept. Candidate want the maximum salary an employer is willing to pay them. Anywhere between those two an agreement is possible. Negotiation is (a) figuring out if that range exists and (b) trying to get as close as possible to your ideal place in that range. Same as any other market. Employers (and recruiters are even worse) are trying get have more information than the candidate earlier to help them win at this game.

Employers do the initial advertising, control the process, do it more times, have less at stake. There are some markets where candidates have the stronger hand, but they're unusual. To me, not advertising a salary range is like having separate tourist prices, charging a couple walking into a hotel reception late at night double price, etc. It feels like a dirty trick played by the pro on the amateur.

[redguava]

You make an incorrect assumption that causes an incorrect conclusion.

Not all employers want to pay as little as the candidate will accept. I can state this as fact as I am an employer and I do not do that.

As an employer, I want a happy and loyal staff member. Negotiating them down on price doesn't achieve that. I have never offered less than someones initial asking price, and sometimes paid more.

I think it's wrong to assume the employer and employee have differing objectives. We hopefully both want a successful relationship/partnership. Achieving a salary that both are happy with is part of that.

As for your example, again you assume that the employer makes an offer or the employee demands something. Can't it just be a discussion to find the most appropriate salary? That's how I do it.

[netcan]

Perhaps I overstated a little. There are of course other factors. An employers doesn't really benefit if the employee feels screwed. I don't mean to imply that the process is purely cold & inhuman.

However, there is an underlying economic reality here. It's a negotiation over price. The employee has a minimum salary they would accept, some larger amount where they feel satisfied and less likely to look for an alternative job. But, they always want more and if they think they can get more, they will often try. You as the employer also most likely have maximum you are willing to pay and a lower amount that you would prefer to pay.

Even if it manifests as a discussion, this is in many real ways just a veneer over that underlying reality. You are not really offering the Warsaw candidate less then the NY one because they have a lower cost of living. You are offering it because it matches their expectations and they are likely to accept it which is in turn because their alternative are probably comparable. Not advertising a salary range leaves you the opportunity to take advantage of that possibility.

I do think we should be civil and nice and ethical. After all, my problem with undisclosed salary is that it isn't nice. Lets be honest though.

[petercooper]

Shouldn't you be paying everyone an amount that equally benefits them?

Because that's entirely subjective and can't be calculated objectively.

Person A in SF might be paying $3000/mo in rent but also has top bands, a lot of popular culture, great shops, and so forth at their front door. These things counteract the lack of much disposable income for them.

Person B in Vietnam might pay $200/mo for a house but may also have frequent power cuts, poor access to healthcare, etc.. but the extra money counteracts these negative points for them.

This is one of many reasons Westerners get paid colossal salaries to work in places like Iraq or pockets of the Middle East. Cultural and security issues (in varying measures) are compensated for by a higher income.

[redguava]

Of course it can't be calculated objectively.

Only the employee knows the amount that is right for them.

[skrebbel]

I see your point.

I guess it would feel more fair if the deal explicitly contained a note like "and if you move elsewhere for whichever reason, we'll adjust the salary so that you have at least as good a standard of living as you do now".