> The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.
You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job.
Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1].
> Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have.
The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
> people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise.
I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
> You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range.
I'm not arguing this. Again, I agree that these practices are good for employees.
>I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
I agree that providing an average salary or range gives transparency, I just don't buy the idea that it somehow benefits underprivileged groups more.
There is nothing stopping anybody from negotiating or trying to find a good value in the market. If being a woman means they are less likely to negotiate (which I don't believe), they need to learn to negotiate, because they don't have a choice. It is how the market sets prices, and there is no way around it. Setting a range helps, but it doesn't remove the need for negotiating.
> The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's
I agree with this, even if the "study" itself is laughably weak. But basically all the study is saying is "sexism exists".
Based on my experience I do not believe this has a connection with negotiating. Everyone can and should negotiate. Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.
Employers understand that negotiation is necessary as it is the only way to set fair prices. I would need a lot more evidence to buy the idea that it is somehow discriminatory. The author provides none.
> This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
This is correlation and not causation. The fact that women and minorities make less has been established many times. I just don't see any evidence that this is because they can't negotiate. The author needs to provide evidence that the process of negotiation itself is discriminatory, and that salary ranges will somehow alleviate this problem. Based on my fairly extensive experience I don't think it makes sense intuitively.
> I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
Is it correlation when studies show that women and minorities are likely to underestimate their worth? The linked section of this article [1] indicates that women and minority are actively asking for less. I don't buy that this is primarily due to women or minorities being inherently less naturally able to negotiate, but rather societal expectations that women should earn less.
By posting an average salary, this can hopefully decrease this gap by allowing employees to avoid voluntarily short-changing themselves by asking for less. Standardizing pay ranges can absolutely prevent disadvantaged groups, as it prevents them from asking for what amounts to somewhere around 8-10% less than their white male counterparts.
> Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.
The meta-analysis I linked [2] indicates that aggressive behaviors negatively impact women from both a likeability and hireability standpoint, with the effect size on hireability showing a solid relationship. I fully believe that you haven't perceived a woman as being less hireable or likable, but the evidence indicates that as a whole this type of behavior is perceived more negatively in women.
I would agree that so far, my personal experiences wouldn't lead me to feel that women are disadvantaged by this process. But, based on personal experience, I also wouldn't have assumed that women are seen as less likable if they exhibit more dominant behaviors (as that isn't something that I personally feel). But there is evidence that some behaviors can be perceived differently by gender. I can't ignore this even if it's not something that I've personally experienced.
You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job.
Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1].
> Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have.
The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
> people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise.
I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
[1] https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases...
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001
[3] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...