Should it be mandated that all salaries and wages be publicly accessed? What is the point in hiding how much you make...

>Why should you hide how much you make? Insecure that you're poor?
Maybe, maybe you don't want gold digging roasties trying to scam you out of your money when they see you have a big paycheck.

It just makes the environment more competitive, and makes people more jealous of eachother. This makes the living environment less pleasant.

fuc of goy ukrainian paki pajeet

Revealing wages is good for workers because it gives them more negotiating power, making it more of an even fight when discussing working conditions and wages and shit. Knowing how much people are making at rival companies would be even more of that.
I'd support a semi-anonymous version where companies had to list out names of positions and how much they were paid that year. Instead of
>John Smith made 72,000 last year at FagCorp
It'd be
>Accountant #7 made 72,000 last year at FagCorp

I get the feeling op is a woman.

Actually they are in Finland.
There is yearly media hullabaloo about how much that and that guy made this year.
Nothing wrong with it I guess.

Attached: mehuu.jpg (374x535, 60K)

Prove those would ensue.

If you ever worked in some kind of bigger office environment or had a leadership position, you would know what happens when a single person openly starts talking about his salary.
It is to be avoided, solely on the fact of the administrative overhead this leads too.
You practically have to explain to every single person why salaries are the way they are. Every single time.

>Ukr*inian
You take that back you fucking scumbag. I will fucking find you and rape you to death. Don't ever call me that ever again

Attached: ukrainechoices.jpg (552x604, 60K)

Holy fuck, go make something of yourself and quit worrying about others so much you insecure, pathetic, authoraian, Commie faggot.

>to roastie who wants to marry up

Everybody knows it. You're a faggot. The thread is over.

Now you know why it is this way.

The only one who would think this is problematic would be the adminstration. The workers would gain leverage. Furthermore, why should workers at the same position be making different wages?

>why should workers at the same position be making different wages?
Some workers are more valuable than others. Even working at the same position.

Not all baseball pitchers can pitch the same fastball.

freedom to be lied to by your employer

unions exist and all our contract wages are public, don't see anyone experiencing any issue with 60/hr wages publicly available

you fucking dipshit losers don't even understand the conservative memes you parrot

Or perhaps everyone should make the same wage and instead of rewarding individuals for working better you fire the ones who are shit. If overall productivity increases the whole company gets a bonus/raise.

> instead of rewarding individuals for working better you fire the ones who are shit.
false dichotomy.
There's a vast range of ability/value that exists between "better" and "shit"... and people should be paid accordingly.

>If overall productivity increases the whole company gets a bonus/raise.
This encourages free riders. People will do the minimum to get by, and hope that somebody else works hard enough to carry the company forward.

>The only one who would think this is problematic would be the adminstration
That is mostly correct, but coworkers might get annoyed too.
You see, there are soooo many legitimate reasons salaries are different, even in the same positions.
Years of experience
Assigned responsibilites
Performance
Dependability
Initiative
Independence
Maybe stand-in function for the head of the department

Do you know how much administative overhead it is to explain to every single employee every other higher paid employee's history and why they earn more? Often, they won't even accept legitimate reasons and start to get insulted or stop working altogether.
Unless you imply everyone should be paid the same everywhere. If that is the case, i'll stop talking to you.

>This encourages free riders. People will do the minimum to get by, and hope that somebody else works hard enough to carry the company forward.

As I already said, they get fired.

>mandated

Government mandates are a communist concept.

The minimum to get by is the amount required to not get fired, by definition.

Yes the companies are always right . yes eheheheh

There is no minimum. There is no grey. You do it right and work your best or you get fired.

>Some workers are more valuable than others. Even working at the same position.
that's the case sometimes, but it is sometimes also because the company has no reason to pay you any more than what you're willing to work for.
You can be the best worker in the world but if everyone's wages are secret then you have no idea how you should price yourself. The ball is entirely in the company's court. If you know that a typical person in your position at this company makes $X per year, but you're eight times as productive and only making $1.2X, you have a decent case for a raise. If you don't know how much anyone's making then you don't have anything to stand on.

"work your best"
is literally unquantifiable nonsense.
How will you know when someone is not performing their best?

>If you know that a typical person in your position at this company makes $X per year, but you're eight times as productive and only making $1.2X, you have a decent case for a raise. If you don't know how much anyone's making then you don't have anything to stand on.
But that information is already available. OP is arguing for every individual's salary to be made public.

You compare them to everybody else? Are you fucking retarded?

>You compare them to everybody else? Are you fucking retarded?
So If i am doing as well as you, and we are both employed, how do you know that I'm doing my best? What if i'm just doing the minimum to get by?

Look I'm not going to argue with you with something so stupid. Just fucking monitor them and you can tell how much they are putting into their work.

How will we know that the monitors are doing their best?

YOU do it, YOU yourself. Just imagine being in that position, if you don't have experience in it.

You are nearing Sargon-Levels of evasion-hopping.
What is a black person?
How big is a lake?
How long is a piece of string?

>Be me
>Own corporation with 300 locations
>over 10,000 workers
>communist user advocates that I personally investigate the work product of every single worker

>YOU do it, YOU yourself.
Absolute brainlet

Well in Norgay it is publicly available information, so if you winaloto next year anyone that is curious enough can find out even that if they want. I am a fan of the idea that employees should talk about what they make in order to avoid big salary differences in the office for example. If no one knows others salary, will they ask for more? For sure not

Attached: 1528969287263.jpg (600x1000, 68K)

>Owns a company
>Being this retarded

Well well well

Are you daft?
You jumped again, this time from head of department to CEO / owner level.
Why do you suddenly imply that the CEO has to do every single business process himself.
Have you ever worked in a bigger company, seen delegation in action?

The thing your stupid commie brain can't grasp is that it's absolutely impossible to hire 10, or 100, or 1000 people who have the same capacity, drive, and learned skills.

Therefore it totally makes sense that some workers will be paid more or less depending on the value they bring to the company. It's total nonsense to expect that multiple people are going to both work their hardest AND deliver the same quality work product. People are not the same, they're very different... and it makes sense for employers to pay more for better workers.

>You jumped again, this time from head of department to CEO / owner level.
When was I head of the department?

>the only freedom is to jew others
Thanks for clarifying that for us, burger.

Give me one good reason aristocrats shouldn't simply be killed on sight.

Found the jew boss

>Give me one good reason aristocrats shouldn't simply be killed on sight.
Because then everybody would be killed. You cannot escape the phenomenon called "aristocrat"

>might
>might
Found the jew boss

You did, you imply the CEO has to judge every single person constantly.
You of course only judge the performance of people that are in your department. What's the problem with that?

you're a fucking idiot. Not everyone has the same strength's and weaknesses. Clearly your weakness is intelligence.

ITT: daddy issues

Oh, yes, yes you can. The idea that one class of people can abuse another class of people "for their own good" can be destroyed rather quickly.
Besides, the world needs fewer people.

Heh, I've been to Israel several times.
But no jew here, oy vey! My schnozz isn't bent enough.

>i only care about money and I want even more government control and insight into my life!
What a faggot you are.

>Oh, yes, yes you can.
No, for every set of aristocrats you kill, some other group will take power and take their place.

There will always be aristocrats no matter how many you kill. The question is whether society manages to kill the communists before the communists kill society.

>some other group will take power and take their place.
This is wishful thinking on your part. Aristocrats are 100% dispensable. Not every ruling class operates with the same sense of privilege and entitlement as an aristocracy.
>muh larp = society
This is exactly why aristocrats need to be killed.

Onlyin Germany it's not common to talk about salaries. In the rest of the world people share their amount of salaries and encourage each other. That's because in Germany you have the Neid Kultur and. The Geiz is geil mentality where no one wants the other person to be successful. That's why Germany is shit.

>What's the problem with that?
The problems are what I just laid out.

1. As the CEO, I can't know that the head of the department is putting in his best effort.
2. As a matter of empirical fact, humans are different, and are going to deliver a different work product.... so it's impossible to select a group of people who are going to deliver exactly the same work product.... even if they're somehow always doing their best work.

>Not every ruling class operates with the same sense of privilege and entitlement as an aristocracy.

The aristocracy is the ruling class by definition. The degree to which the aristocrats are entitled is a matter of subjective assessment.

The German won't be able to understand you bro.
In Germany the work culture is shit

Just reveal your flag, it's too late now anyway.
Don't be too hasty to judge. It's not only the german speaking countries.
There are the other extremes too of course, like Kurds screaming in a restaurant that they just took a multiple thousand € loan to finance a house to 30 strangers.
Both systems have merit.

Well of course I prefer white Germans to kurds and turks
That's not even a question bro

This. I worked at a youth group home a few years back and was able to get a raise and promotion in 4 months that was more than what my buddy was making after almost 6 years. Some people were not happy once word got out.

You're wrong. Most (or all?) government salaries in the US are publicly available. And our bureaucracies aren't constantly devolving into HR chaos.

Yeah, you can never read minds. You have to become a judge of character and the employees results.
That's the risk-component that is always there, the system can never be perfect.
The CEO strifes for business performance / output not to create an implementation or approximation of perfect ethical justice. There is no money in that, they would go broke on account of every other business not doing it.

>2. As a matter of empirical fact, humans are different, and are going to deliver a different work product.... so it's impossible to select a group of people who are going to deliver exactly the same work product.... even if they're somehow always doing their best work.
Well, as the groups become larger, productivity becomes an statistic of the average anyway, and if the productivity statistic becomes bad there will be layoffs, which at least theoretically should be aimed to the least productive members.
... which does not happen due fear of racism/misogyny/ect.

>The aristocracy is the ruling class by definition
False, again. Aristocracy is a MORAL system. Pic related:
>Aristocracy is a belief in the moral right of elites to rule and abuse everyone else *for their own good*.
The moral right to rule is a meme.
The moral right to abuse others is a meme.
The notion of "for their own good" is a meme.
The notion of a ruling class as a divinely ordained class of privileged jewniggers is a meme within a meme.
You're scared.

Attached: 1516481885771.png (575x1359, 106K)

Tell me again about Volkswagen and that fine German "ethical justice", kike.

>Nothing wrong with it I guess
Unless you try and make some scratch on the side without giving big brother his cut. He will then be able to look into your records and see that you have been holding out on him.

this

Sorry, talking about regular companies here.
Government/Public Service companies are the same over here. There's a fixed table of what you'll get, depending on position and years of employment.
But that leads to other bad scenarios. Like one young guy working his ass off, managing 2 branch offices at the same time for years, while only earning a third or quarter of the salary of a 50 year old lady only stamping documents in a comfortable office. Really sucks the ambition out of those people, unless incentives are created.

>kike
How absolutely dare you?

Anyway, i said ethics are explicitly not the goal, unless mandated by law or government. That company would be a fine example.

Governments aren't competitive businesses. They exist through taxpayer money. They don't produce products from which they have to entice the populace to buy.

Why couldn't a modified version of that work for private firms? Most large companies do annual reviews where managers rank employees are ranked on numerical scales. Each firm would just create their own pay scales with modifiers based on performance reviews. Then the salaries would be transparent, and it wouldn't be a problem because they would also be predictable and quantitative.

Because the government will steal my money easier

Meant to say government agencies and the like. Not governments in general

roasties could swipe you on tinder and then immediately check how much you make. obviously not a good idea

Uh guys, this thread with the exact same replies was already posted.

Attached: npc.jpg (572x960, 40K)

No, the governments created the money first. Taxation is what gives that money any value, as it is the main route by which governments control the money supply.
Learn some economics other than that larpy sociopathic neoclassical shit.

I don't know user. I have seen both sides from the inside and i prefer the one where you can reward people for their performance or give incentives without rubbing it in everyone else's faces. Might be bias though.

Read my amendment The salaries and funding of government agencies comes from taxpayer money. They do not produce products which have to compete with other companies products

>Aristocracy is a belief
So now you're talking about executing based on thought crimes.
That's pretty weird. That's not what people usually mean when they talk about aristocrats; and i'm tempted to just shut down the conversation here and accuse you of doing some marxist redefinition of words that is so common on the left. But now I'm curious:

Am I an aristocrat for believing that aristocracy is a better system, even though I have no political power myself?

I would prefer a system where wages haven't been stagnant for years lol. A big part of that is that workers are fundamentally unable to negotiate because they lack good data about what they should be earning. The information asymmetry between labor and employers is, in my opinion, the big un-discussed problem in the US economy.

Well, it is actually the government that publishes those based on the paid taxes so...
Schizophrenically I'm actually pretty sure that it is illegal for actual employers to publish the paid wages without explicit permission.

That sounds good. Always take inflation into account too in those talks.
Here in Krautland the average salaries are published annually in magazines or whatever.
The deviations are often enormous, but you always have to calmly take into account the legitimate reasons for those before jumping your superior's throat.

What does the end product of the organization have to do with this discussion?

Well not by me.
Did it contain
Kraut and Bratwurst
too?

>The salaries and funding of government agencies comes from taxpayer money
No, why does the Federal government need OUR money? It has a monopoly on issuing dollars. Money is taxed solely to create a demand for that money and to soak up excess dollars with no goods or services to chase.
Neoclassical economics is judaism. Lern2fiat.
>They do not produce products which have to compete with other companies products
They don't have to, and why should they? Competition is larpy cancer. Collusion is ALWAYS more efficient than competition, otherwise it wouldn't be the natural state of groups. Effectiveness (which is not the same as efficiency) is more important, anyway.
Again, everything you learned in neoclassical econ is wrong, and most of it is harmful. Lern2econ.

Executing a class of murderers? I fail to see the problem.
>anything that doesn't agree with common misusage is marxist
Sure kid.
>Am I an aristocrat for believing that aristocracy is a better system, even though I have no political power myself?
No, you're a useful idiot.

>No, you're a useful idiot.
Ok, so it's not JUST a belief system, then.

Good luck proving that anybody actually believes in your strawman ideology that you call aristocracy.

What do you earn by your salaries/wage being made public ?
That's right [spoiler]nothing[/spoiler]
because you can make that information public yourself.
the only other case is then the wage of other and that is and should remain none of your fucking business.

>It has a monopoly on issuing dollars.
Wasn't that some private company in the USA that issues the dollars?

It's a MORAL system. Read it again.

>earn
Solidarity.
Take your proxy off, burger.

I think you're referring to the actual printing of the currency, which is done by Crane Co. But they don't decide how much is pumped into the economy. That is up to policies set by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. On a secondary level, private banks also "create" money whenever they issue credit.

Businesses have to compete to survive. They decide who gets what salary in order to thrive. Governments, as you mentioned have equal pay since they do not compete on the open market. There is only one military, one judicial system, one CIA/FBI etcetera. Having government salaries publicly viewable to the people is probably also due to the scrutiny required when dealing with these agencies. Certainly you as a taxpayer would wish to know who or where your money is going, yes? It would make sense for all persons employed by the government to be paid the same when they're on the same level of promotion.

I'm just not even gonna deal with this. Have your (You)

The opposite actually. I make more money than anyone in my department, my manager included. It's a hassle having to explain it, and people's feelings get hurt and it's a whole thing, and then there's the endless amounts of resentment you have to deal with.

I get that Sven.
It's supply and demand. We had specific customizers for an ERP system almost earning as much as the head of the whole department. Try to explain that to everyone else. It's just the way it is, those people were rare and multiple companies needed them, offering higher salaries to be the one to pull them.

I can see that. I mean personally I have old static bonuses that don't really apply in our current pay system because of knowledge and loyalty, so a boss of mine long ago changed it into a generic type that there isn't really grounds for in our pay scale, if you understand me. The thing is that I know that if everyone's salary was public, it's not like everyone else would get a higher salary; my salary would be lowered instead. And I think this is what would happen everywhere.

Again everyone who desire it can make their own wage public at any time.
So what OP is asking for is 'can i see a public record about how much other get paid'.
Exept if you'r a robber, a PI or a golddigger this doesn't help.

4th amendment

The point is that, since wages are ultimately the ability to make other people do stuff for you, that we have a right to know how much of our labor you're sucking up.
You being too solipsistic to value the notion of public benefit is your own brain damage.