But, if we can assume that the "rare talent" is anything other than straight out of college, they will have discovered that they are a rare talent, be aware of it themselves, and barring some sort of crippling neurosis, want to cash in on it. They might not even be skilled at negotiating... they'll just be aware that they have leverage.
We might even phrase the problem that way... that it's not so important that they have "negotiating skill", as it is that they have "leverage awareness".
But that said, not every company is trying to hire the best people. As you note, they're expensive.
Once an HR culture develops, anything sane or intelligent probably goes out the window.
I guarantee when Google hires someone like Ken Thompson, they do not get the normal Google hiring experience.
That said, the author of Homebrew would be the top authority in the field of OSX package management yeah? I mean, Apple hasn't even bothered to create a competitor and yet every tech bro at Google using a MBP is going to need to install and use it..
If there is a one off person who can command a higher salary, its unlikely they alone will make a huge difference to the company anyway.
If there are a lot of people who could command a higher salary in that role, the pay is too low.
Overall it seems like a pretty good system. You could argue that the current system favors people who are good at negotiating, and not necessarily more skilled workers.
IME, talented people can spend an absurd proportion of their time bickering about how ${other_talented_person} makes ${trivial_number}/year more than they do, all because they're ${some_trait}.
Overall, I could imagine this filter being both good and bad. I'm not confident whether it nets out good or bad, but you can't argue it's not a dramatically simpler system, and simple systems are often surprisingly better better. :shrug:
people are overly assuming ingrained bias from a shadowy cabal of hiring managers and not looking at different gendered funnels, attrition, and personal contribution to the outcomes all within the same roles
HIRED’s recruitment report, for example, found very gendered compensations asks to begin with
similarly, people discount the risk many men take to skew it. for everyone worried about coming across as “too bitchy” there are a bunch of men that came across as “too cocky” and got fired or rejected and kept trying until they were hired at a company who needs someone to “to make the tough decisions” like tough to swallow decisions
the observation discounts how many people are overly focused on moving up in one company, versus not being married to any particular company at all, and how gendered even that is, when the latter has a 30% pay bump compared to eking out 5% discretionary promotions within the same company
also discounted is how many men would also leave the workforce if there was a reliable option of being subsidized for house work and unpaid emotional labor, you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace and acting confused when the same outcome persists
the incentives for men are work or homelessness, unsheltered, outside. there are no classified ads with discounted or free rent “for men only”, or working for the self accolade of proving you didn't do the easy option. these things are all connected to workplace outcomes
> “they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men”
when the incentive models are unequal the behaviors of the market participants will be unequal
you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace
To get a similar level of representation more commonly