I think a "fair" distribution of pay for software engineers would more unequal than it is currently. (This is the logical financial conclusion of believing in the 3x, if not 10x, engineer, which I do.)

I have people who work on my teams who are absolutely fantastic and, while already well-paid, probably should make more. I have other people on my team, with the same title, same education, same on-paper responsibilities, same city, same years of experience, who might be below the median pay and are still overpaid based on my estimation of their contributions relative to their peers.

You can't look only at a spreadsheet and determine that it's "obvious that you are underpaid", IMO.

That only works the way you think it works if most people agree with you. I doubt that... Plus it's really hard to determine who is actually a 10x contributor, even more so universally (across projects, teams, companies).

It's really not that hard to see, on a single team, who's contributing twice as much as who else. You don't even have to be a manager - sometimes managers are the last to be sure, actually. Generally people who complain about lazy coworkers end up settling on a lot of the same people... Being a manager just gives you official venues like feedback requests to realize "oh everyone else sees it too."

Managers are usually terrible at knowing who is contributing on a software team and they're the ones who set pay.

This is 100% a red herring as far as pay transparency is concerned anyway. If you're not being unfair you have no reason to hide anything.

It would also prevent raises.

You're assuming that I'm a world were transparency goes up, good negotiators go extinct? :)

Logically, if I know that in giving one person a raise, everyone will ask for the same raise, I just won't give anyone a raise that isn't negotiated by the entire group, which takes longer and is less likely to occur without conflict.

It actually extends to the whole market, too - if all salaries are transparent, then an RN makes x. They can't make more than that, anywhere they go. It gives a floor, sure - if they get hired, they'll get paid the same as everyone else; it just also makes a ceiling, and, I believe, may slow income growth in general.

Salary growth for the past 30 years has been slower than productivity growth.

So I'd see your point as already happening, companies have already capped salaries, except for executives, who basically set their own salaries.

However consumer prices have gone down over the same period. A refrigerator today costs much less in terms of labor hours than it did 30 years ago. So productivity growth has led to a rise in living standards.

> So productivity growth has led to a rise in living standards.

I love seeing this statement. It's true but the people who post it never follow up evaluating whether or not productivity growth has far out-paced the rise in living standards. If productivity growth has been exponential while the rise in living standards has been linear that's a sign that there's a problem regardless of whether or not living standards have risen.

No the assumption is that a good negotiator now has to negotiate for everyone. Because if you give a raise to him, others will come to know and ask for similar treatment.