If you are applying for a job at a company, there is no chance you are going to change their entire compensation strategy as a precondition to getting the job. So it's either engage Warrior mode and negotiate, or move on and interview somewhere else.
If you found a company, or in a position in your current company that upper management will listen to you, that's a better opportunity to switch to Magi mode and discuss how to change the entire compensation policy to something better for everyone involved.
I think you're right. But the GP is apparently more comfortable as a Magi; so why not make it into an advantage?
I think it's fairly easy for these models to fail at bringing in experts because they put extreme downward pressure on the gains from expertise and aggressively enforce regression to the mean. If someone makes twice as much as someone else you have to justify it not just in terms of market demand and a personal outlook on the skillset but also in terms of the morale effects of paying someone else twice as much openly. I'm not sure that's good for many parties and I'm quite certain it's bad for at least some. I think the likely effect is fewer people in security and fewer people in AI at the companies that do these things.
Why does this sound backwards to me? If a position is hard to fill, wouldn't you want to pay the person more so that they don't leave?
Conversely, if a position is easy to fill, wouldn't the university pay less, since if the person leaves they'll be easy to replace?
How does paying someone less because their position is hard to fill make any kind of sense? What am I missing here?
I don't know if this strategy even has to pay off in actuality, in the long term, but that actual performance of the strategy isn't as important as maintaining that model of control of labor costs.
I don't think you're missing anything. Free markets (or supply and demand) are perfectly symmetric. That's why they cannot enforce any kind of morality, like meritocracy, whatever it is. Only people can do that and it will always have a cost in the completely free market.
The only way transparent salaries help the majority instead of being used as a tool for businesses to just say, "We only pay 100k/yr, that's what everyone makes" is if there is some body enforcing fair pay.
"Jane gets paid $X in the same position, it would be unfair to give you a raise and not her"
I don't work somewhere with transparent salaries and I already get that excuse — I've more than once heard "you're kind of already at the top of our range for X position" and "if we pay you anymore you'll be making more than me!"
It sounds like managers will be doing that either way. With open salaries they at least wouldn't be able to lie about it.
This stance fools the left into thinking they need to tell the working class that they are losers. People react badly to that; they will happily forgo new welfare programs and regulatory subsidies and will instead rail against the status assertions behind it all.
Which brings us to Trumpism...