Doctor, Doctor....
It was the first day of administering my shot at home and it went well. Smallsteps was even keen to watch, as she is no stranger to getting injections herself and was interested to see how it went for me. It was good to have her there, as even though I was a little hesitant internally to do it (knowing that it doesn't hurt still, but the idea of it), I had to man-up and be the Daddy.
The process is easy.
- Press against skin on thigh
- Push down until it clicks
- Hold it down until it clicks again
- Wait a few seconds and remove it
Almost painless.
While not as bad as when I have had the full top-up every two months, I still get the headache for a day or two at a slightly lower level, so if it continues this way, it is about the same as having it every two months, just spread out over that time, which is better. Being "knocked out" for a week is a long time to be affected by the side-effects, but a day every fortnight is acceptable.
But, before the throb sets in fully, I thought I would write a little on my lunchbreak, as I came across an article from Australia where they are thinking about banning pay secrecy clauses, which is an interesting move. The ban isn't about full publishing of salaries, it just removes the gag order on being able to talk about what is earned, which is a funny thing considering, as when people talk about "my salary", but you can't even talk about it, is it yours?
The drive for financial transparency is growing, but it is going to be a slow process globally and for many industries and especially governments, because opaqueness is a competitive advantage. If there was full financial transparency, the level of financial literacy would go up and people would better be able to compete, lowering the potential for the few, spreading value among more.
But if you think that while we have every penny accounted for so we can pay our taxes, there are only estimates with a massive margin of error in the largest financial sector in the world, the derivative markets. The estimates range from around 500 trillion to 1.5 quadrillion - that is a quadrillion dollar spread between the low and high ends. How are the taxes being paid on that, if no one knows the values and most of the trading is done OTC?
Most of us are scared of transparency though, as we are scared of being judged on what we do or have, especially for those who either have a lot, or have very little. If we are in the middle (or feel we are) we are less likely to care that much, because we feel that we are much like everyone else, we blend into the group. It is the middle set that generally say things like this in terms of being monitored;
"you are safe as long as you aren't doing anything wrong"
Because they are in the middle, they get the sense that what they do is acceptable, because everyone is doing it, but don't factor in that everyone doing it doesn't mean the laws won't change. History tells us to be very wary.
The reasoning for the change away from pay secrecy clauses is that they increase pay disparity between men and women, which might be somewhat true. In Finland for example, all tax information is publicly available and every year they publish the highest earners in the newspaper. In some smaller municipalities, they publish everyone in the newspaper. These days, it is online and searchable too - which makes for some interesting conversations in companies like the one I work in, where there are generally several on the highest earner list - people who have been in a successful startup company since near the start.
It is generally ribbing more than anything, but there is often the underlying current of jealousy of outcome, without thinking about what went into getting that outcome. However, perhaps with more transparency in general, jealousy will subside accordingly over time, as people will also see more of the work behind the scenes. However, the outcomes will also likely lessen, because when you can see what goes on behind the scenes, even if it is a lot of work, more people will be able to follow in footsteps, which raises them up and trims the tops.
But, this is also one of the problems with pay transparency, because if it is just the outcomes without background, people will use it as a reasoning to improve their own outcomes, even if they are not taking the steps and doing the equivalent work. This then creates a spiral of "fairness" where those who are doing the most work, will want to be rewarded above those who do the least, but that means the work has to be transparent too, not just the salary. And it rarely is.
Of course, the intuition says that those who earn the most might not be doing the most work, but I also think that this is largely misguided, as at least from an hours perspective these days, the highest earners tend to work far more hours than those who earn significantly less. Yes, looking at the hourly rate it is inflated above the hour percentage worked, but this is not how business operates, where value generated isn't just coming from the amount of hours worked. The "quality" of those hours also have an effect, but it is not always easy to quantify, which sets up for all kinds of misalignments.
All in all, transparency is a good thing though, but I would suspect that it would also arrive with a few painful truths for many, where they might discover that they have been underpaid, or overpaid.
In regards to salary, I asked my wife;
Are there days that you feel underpaid for the job you do?
Yes.
Are there days that you feel overpaid for the job you do?
No.
If her appraisal is accurate, she has a case for a raise, or to look for alternate employment. However, would her evaluation differ if she knew what the person next to her doing the same job was getting? Would it change if she knew that the person next to her did higher quality work? If she was earning more than the person next to her, would she put her hand up and ask for a raise, or would she remain quiet, thankful she is getting what she is getting, considering her performance?
We might generally feel underpaid, but it is also dependent on our perspective. For example, the average small business owner earns less hourly than an employee and has a high level of responsibility, job scope creep and no one patting them on the back, but they might still feel that their salary is reflective of their work, because they have clarity on the background and, value what they do differently perhaps, with "freedom of action" high on the list. Also, they know the financial position of their business, so regardless of what they want, they get paid what they can be paid.
I am all for transparency, but like many, I am wary, because too often it is a one-sided affair. Just like all the data collected on my digital activity, I am transparent to them, but they are not transparent to me. It is the same with governments - They know all of my financial activity, but I am only allowed insight into broad brushstrokes of theirs - and they work for us. In my opinion, all government activity should be transparent, but which government would agree to that?
Regardless of the current situation however, there is a drive toward more transparency and eventually, questions are going to be raised as to the many double-standards that exist. They might want to confine it to pay inequalities, but once transparent financial conversation becomes the norm, it starts to spread into other domains, and demand of action will follow.
I jabbed myself in the leg, but some are unknowingly shooting themselves in the foot.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]