Athenacapella wrote:
It is one of those social rules put in place by NTs. There's no good answer.
It allows employers to pay short people, fat people, gay people, minorities, or pretty much anybody they don't like, less money than someone else for doing the exact same job. Women still make less than men for the same job when all other variables are accounted for.
I think you have to draw a distinction between where the discussion is appropriate and where it is not. For example:
Among coworkers: It is often appropriate, if only to ensure that everyone is getting a fair wage for their work. Many employers attempt to squelch this type of discussion through use of confidentiality clauses, but in many jurisdictions such clauses are unenforcable.
Among family: It is generally appropriate. Spouses and partners should always know. It may be useful for parents to know the relative incomes of their children, if only to make decisions about how and when to provide financial help (such as contributing to a down payment for a house). With relatives more of more than one degree, however, the propriety becomes less likely.
Among friends: In my experience the conversation becomes more general. In my social group, I have far and away the highest salary. But I also have the largest mortgage, and I am a decade older than many of my friends. It is generally understood that my income is higher and my home is larger--but the actual dollar value is never the subject of discussion. On the other hand, when I have helped friends with their immigration applications for their foreign born spouses or partners, it was necessary to ask and evaluate their income as part of giving that help. Similarly, I am preparing someone else's income tax return this evening.
So it all comes down to context. My private life is my own, and no one, other than my partner, my employer and the tax authorities are entitled to know my income down to the penny. That being said, my friends and family all have a general idea of where my income lies, and I am comfortable with that.
_________________
--James