Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges
https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/nh7s8f/but_not_in_colorado/
405 comments
>>With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house. If it falls of a cliff the minute you sign on the dotted line, it's your problem.
I'm in the UK and that's absolutely not true. If you think the owner knew about the problem and purposefully omitted telling you, then you definitely have a court case and any law firm worth their salt will win this. I bought a house recently and the documents the sellers had to fill out for the solicitors very clearly say there are are no known issues with this house, so if that's a lie then the sale can be rendered null and void.
>>You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.
I've had a few mortgages so far and I'm yet to find a bank not willing to cover the cost of a full survey, as the bank also wants to know the house they are securing the loan against is actually worth the money.
I'm in the UK and that's absolutely not true. If you think the owner knew about the problem and purposefully omitted telling you, then you definitely have a court case and any law firm worth their salt will win this. I bought a house recently and the documents the sellers had to fill out for the solicitors very clearly say there are are no known issues with this house, so if that's a lie then the sale can be rendered null and void.
>>You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.
I've had a few mortgages so far and I'm yet to find a bank not willing to cover the cost of a full survey, as the bank also wants to know the house they are securing the loan against is actually worth the money.
In sane countries the seller must comission a survey and provide it to the buyer. The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd.
I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket.
If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because at some poijt you run out of money
I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket.
If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because at some poijt you run out of money
That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.
Does anybody know if there is a secondary market for home inspection reports? I know that the two times I was involved with a home purchase in the U.S., I needed to hire a home inspector. But the interested party in front of me also had to hire a home inspector. Would it not make sense for the interested parties to split the cost for one home inspector rather than reproducing the work? After all, copying information is almost free, but paying for the time of multiple inspectors is a redundant cost.
Does anybody do this?
Does anybody do this?
A bit tangential:
Back in the early 90s — on a recommendation from a realtor who was a close friend of my brother's — I hired an inspector who was close to retirement. He worked with his wife who served as his assistant tasked with, in essence, taking dictation of her husband's near constant commentary as he conducted an incredibly thorough inspection. Every outlet tested for proper ground, every nook and cranny looked at, wood moisture content, HVAC pitot readings, masonry, roof … just a super-duper detailed inspection that took about 6 hours to complete.
At the end of the inspection, he summed up by saying the house was good and that he had no qualms recommending the house.
Two days later, he stopped by with a three-ring binder that contained his inspection report. It first contained a summary that concisely covered the positive and few negative aspects of the house. Then there was a section about the history of the house: the year built, the name of the builder, changes in the neighborhood since it had been built, earthquakes it had gone through, flood events in the area, and so on. It also included the manufacturer names of things such as the windows, door hardware, etc.
The third section was lengthy, covering the precise state of the electrical, plumbing, structural, envelope, etc, and included all the notes his wife had taken during the course of the inspection. It included a sub-section with warnings about certain materials that likely contained asbestos and would need to be dealt with if we ever did remodeling.
Finally, the largest section was what he called a "maintenance work order" arranged as a schedule for the ongoing, recurring upkeep of the house but beginning with things he thought needed to be done immediately, replacement of the circuit breaker box, splash blocks under each outdoor faucet, tuck-pointing some of the chimney's brickwork, etc. And then his estimates as to when he thought systems might need to be replaced, the water heater, furnace, roofing, etc. As I discovered when the water heater burst, his estimates were pretty much spot-on. Over time, I added notes as we upgraded things, added low-voltage wiring, and remodeled the basement.
Nine years later, when I sold the house, the buyer was elated to have this owner's manual and I am fairly certain that the book was key to a very fast sale of the house which we did without a realtor.
As I look back on it now, I realize that inspection was perhaps the best $350 I have ever spent.
When we bought our next house, the inspection took about an hour and produced a few page report, most of it boilerplate.
Back in the early 90s — on a recommendation from a realtor who was a close friend of my brother's — I hired an inspector who was close to retirement. He worked with his wife who served as his assistant tasked with, in essence, taking dictation of her husband's near constant commentary as he conducted an incredibly thorough inspection. Every outlet tested for proper ground, every nook and cranny looked at, wood moisture content, HVAC pitot readings, masonry, roof … just a super-duper detailed inspection that took about 6 hours to complete.
At the end of the inspection, he summed up by saying the house was good and that he had no qualms recommending the house.
Two days later, he stopped by with a three-ring binder that contained his inspection report. It first contained a summary that concisely covered the positive and few negative aspects of the house. Then there was a section about the history of the house: the year built, the name of the builder, changes in the neighborhood since it had been built, earthquakes it had gone through, flood events in the area, and so on. It also included the manufacturer names of things such as the windows, door hardware, etc.
The third section was lengthy, covering the precise state of the electrical, plumbing, structural, envelope, etc, and included all the notes his wife had taken during the course of the inspection. It included a sub-section with warnings about certain materials that likely contained asbestos and would need to be dealt with if we ever did remodeling.
Finally, the largest section was what he called a "maintenance work order" arranged as a schedule for the ongoing, recurring upkeep of the house but beginning with things he thought needed to be done immediately, replacement of the circuit breaker box, splash blocks under each outdoor faucet, tuck-pointing some of the chimney's brickwork, etc. And then his estimates as to when he thought systems might need to be replaced, the water heater, furnace, roofing, etc. As I discovered when the water heater burst, his estimates were pretty much spot-on. Over time, I added notes as we upgraded things, added low-voltage wiring, and remodeled the basement.
Nine years later, when I sold the house, the buyer was elated to have this owner's manual and I am fairly certain that the book was key to a very fast sale of the house which we did without a realtor.
As I look back on it now, I realize that inspection was perhaps the best $350 I have ever spent.
When we bought our next house, the inspection took about an hour and produced a few page report, most of it boilerplate.
> very fast sale of the house which we did without a realtor
How did you find a buyer without a realtor? Are you able get into the listing databases without using a realtor? Any special tips for selling without a realtor?
How did you find a buyer without a realtor? Are you able get into the listing databases without using a realtor? Any special tips for selling without a realtor?
Sorry, I missed this comment. Actually, I have sold two homes without a realtor. Both times were flukes more than anything I really planned.
The first time I mentioned to a co-worker that I was thinking about selling my (first) house. He said that he thought he could be interested. He came and saw the house and agreed on the spot to buy it. That was that. We established the price by asking the realtor who had sold us the house what the price should be and then reducing the price by an amount that was 50% of what the standard sales commission would have been. In essence, we split what would have been the commission with the buyer.
We also split the cost for a real-estate attorney — a few hundred dollars, total — and got it done in just a few days.
The second time was a little more planned. I carefully photographed the house and painstakingly built a website for it with tons of description. Whether or not we hired a realtor, I thought a website would help us sell. This was early 2001, a web presence for a house for sale was still fairly rare.
We contacted the same realtor who had sold us our first home and asked her for a market value for the house. I offered to pay her a fee for her expertise and she declined saying that she knew we'd end up hiring her anyway, and that, "You may have sold your first house on your own but you'll never be able to do it twice."
A few days after the website had gone up, I decided to put a small "for sale" sign in the yard and, no joke, as I was pounding the sign into the ground, a passing car stopped and, longer story short, within a few hours she and her husband agreed to buy the house. The husband was a building contractor and he was especially impressed by the aforementioned inspection report.
As we had done with our first house, we set the price at market minus half the commission so it was well-priced.
We hired the same real-estate attorney who put the sale together. It was super easy and done around the buyer's kitchen table in a single two-hour meeting, followed a few days later by an official closing at an escrow company.
Now that the market in our area is smoking red hot, I am pretty sure we could sell our present home on our own too. We might miss out on bidding war wins but, I think, in the end, we'd come out okay.
The first time I mentioned to a co-worker that I was thinking about selling my (first) house. He said that he thought he could be interested. He came and saw the house and agreed on the spot to buy it. That was that. We established the price by asking the realtor who had sold us the house what the price should be and then reducing the price by an amount that was 50% of what the standard sales commission would have been. In essence, we split what would have been the commission with the buyer.
We also split the cost for a real-estate attorney — a few hundred dollars, total — and got it done in just a few days.
The second time was a little more planned. I carefully photographed the house and painstakingly built a website for it with tons of description. Whether or not we hired a realtor, I thought a website would help us sell. This was early 2001, a web presence for a house for sale was still fairly rare.
We contacted the same realtor who had sold us our first home and asked her for a market value for the house. I offered to pay her a fee for her expertise and she declined saying that she knew we'd end up hiring her anyway, and that, "You may have sold your first house on your own but you'll never be able to do it twice."
A few days after the website had gone up, I decided to put a small "for sale" sign in the yard and, no joke, as I was pounding the sign into the ground, a passing car stopped and, longer story short, within a few hours she and her husband agreed to buy the house. The husband was a building contractor and he was especially impressed by the aforementioned inspection report.
As we had done with our first house, we set the price at market minus half the commission so it was well-priced.
We hired the same real-estate attorney who put the sale together. It was super easy and done around the buyer's kitchen table in a single two-hour meeting, followed a few days later by an official closing at an escrow company.
Now that the market in our area is smoking red hot, I am pretty sure we could sell our present home on our own too. We might miss out on bidding war wins but, I think, in the end, we'd come out okay.
If you happen to select the same home inspector as the other perspective buyer, you can rest assured that they will simply copy over the report and charge you the full amount. It's best to arrange to be there when the inspection happens to prevent this or drive-by inspections.
One of the issues that keeps there from being a neutral third party holding the inspection results is the vast difference in quality in home inspections. Since home inspectors are not liable for anything they miss in the inspections, there are some really poor quality inspectors out there. The third party hiring the inspectors isn't going to be aligned with your interest in hiring the best inspector. Most likely they're going to go with whoever is the cheapest so they can keep as most of the fee you and other buyers are paying them.
In states that license and regulate home inspectors, perhaps part of the requirements could be that every home inspection report has to be part of the public record for the property. If there are multiple inspections, each of them becomes part of the record. A sneaky seller might pose as a buyer and payoff an inspector to give them a good report that becomes part of the record so it would still be in the buyer's interest to hire their own inspector if there is only one inspection report. At some point though, there will be enough inspection reports that your risk of only seeing faulty reports becomes low.
One of the issues that keeps there from being a neutral third party holding the inspection results is the vast difference in quality in home inspections. Since home inspectors are not liable for anything they miss in the inspections, there are some really poor quality inspectors out there. The third party hiring the inspectors isn't going to be aligned with your interest in hiring the best inspector. Most likely they're going to go with whoever is the cheapest so they can keep as most of the fee you and other buyers are paying them.
In states that license and regulate home inspectors, perhaps part of the requirements could be that every home inspection report has to be part of the public record for the property. If there are multiple inspections, each of them becomes part of the record. A sneaky seller might pose as a buyer and payoff an inspector to give them a good report that becomes part of the record so it would still be in the buyer's interest to hire their own inspector if there is only one inspection report. At some point though, there will be enough inspection reports that your risk of only seeing faulty reports becomes low.
I doubt it … after I buy the home, it’s no longer in my interest to disclose any problems.
For the same reason you trust an auditor and accountant hired by Tesla to produce quartely earnings report - they are on the hook if they lie.
Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks?
Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks?
An auditor hired by the seller has an incentive to make the seller happy that you cannot eliminate, only reduce through legal threats.
An auditor hired by the buyer has no such incentive.
An auditor hired by the buyer has no such incentive.
You’re thinking of the monetary incentive only, which might be too narrow a view.
The “regulatory capture” principle might apply here – an auditor only meets any one client once in their life, but probably meets some landlords many times, presumably develops a relationship with them, and might want to tend to not upset that relationship.
The “regulatory capture” principle might apply here – an auditor only meets any one client once in their life, but probably meets some landlords many times, presumably develops a relationship with them, and might want to tend to not upset that relationship.
>Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks?
Of course not, I let the short sellers do it for me.
Of course not, I let the short sellers do it for me.
Then you'd miss out on GME, TSLA, and all the stocks that make the most money. That's obviously a viable strategy, but it's certainly not the best in terms of ROI.
You also probably miss out on the fraud and negative ROI that the investigations would conceivably uncover.
Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy.
Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy.
> Also, making decisions around catching Tesla or GME at the right timing in the market… that’s not a great starting point for investment strategy.
I thought the same thing for years, and just avoided the market except for a 401k and stock granted by companies I worked at. Then I got into trading because I thought I could make money trading volatile stocks and I've never looked back (I've already made enough to retire). So far I've only lost money on my value stocks.
To each his own.
I thought the same thing for years, and just avoided the market except for a 401k and stock granted by companies I worked at. Then I got into trading because I thought I could make money trading volatile stocks and I've never looked back (I've already made enough to retire). So far I've only lost money on my value stocks.
To each his own.
Do you work on your own accord then and do not need to subject yourself to a boss?
Yep, I quit my job in tech and just do whatever I want currently. I may take another regular job, I may not. I'd hardly even call what I do now "work," although I am still actively investing.
Do you think your case is a typical case? How much does experience count? How much did you need to educate yourself to reach this level? Were there any major stumbles or obstacles? I am encouraged by your story, but am also weary that it only sounds reasonable because all the harrowing details were left out.
I think I got lucky, but I think luck is required to be successful at anything (including coding). I actually haven't had any bad luck yet, the only stocks I've lost money on so far have been some of my value stocks. I fully expect some of my risky investments to go south.
The best advice I can give is pretty generic - follow the data. First of all actually find the data. Don't trust some finance news rag to tell you anything meaningful, some of them actually have a direct incentive to lie to you. Now that you have the data, what does it say? This sounds simple, but everyone told me I was an idiot to invest in GME in January. They said the same thing in March. So far my investment in GME has more than a 10x ROI. I'm just using GME as an example because it's topical - people tell me I'm in a cult while I'm actively making money betting against them.
"Buy the rumor, sell the news" is pretty easy to understand, just find a stock you know well (I would guess something in tech, like Alphabet or Amazon but whatever) and look at dates for stock movements, rumors, and announcements. You can do this retroactively to find a pattern then try to apply it moving forward. "Never invest in something you don't understand" is general advice outside of stocks, but just an extension of what I said initially - do your own research until it makes sense to you.
I think a huge amount of inertia is just people afraid to try it because they've been conditioned their entire lives to believe they can't make money doing it. I'm quickly realizing how much of this is bullshit (I realize I'm lucky and I understand I'm likely in a local maxima, but I am still extremely confident a lot of the things I've been told are just wrong). So take a small amount of money and invest it and see how it goes. Learn. Iterate. Improve. The goal is to start making money before you lose it. I actually started with just $10k and once I started to figure it out put in more money as I wanted to increase my profit.
At the end of the day it's your money and you should do what you want with it. So long as you understand you will definitely lose money sometimes and are willing to learn from it, give it a go with whatever money you're willing to lose.
The best advice I can give is pretty generic - follow the data. First of all actually find the data. Don't trust some finance news rag to tell you anything meaningful, some of them actually have a direct incentive to lie to you. Now that you have the data, what does it say? This sounds simple, but everyone told me I was an idiot to invest in GME in January. They said the same thing in March. So far my investment in GME has more than a 10x ROI. I'm just using GME as an example because it's topical - people tell me I'm in a cult while I'm actively making money betting against them.
"Buy the rumor, sell the news" is pretty easy to understand, just find a stock you know well (I would guess something in tech, like Alphabet or Amazon but whatever) and look at dates for stock movements, rumors, and announcements. You can do this retroactively to find a pattern then try to apply it moving forward. "Never invest in something you don't understand" is general advice outside of stocks, but just an extension of what I said initially - do your own research until it makes sense to you.
I think a huge amount of inertia is just people afraid to try it because they've been conditioned their entire lives to believe they can't make money doing it. I'm quickly realizing how much of this is bullshit (I realize I'm lucky and I understand I'm likely in a local maxima, but I am still extremely confident a lot of the things I've been told are just wrong). So take a small amount of money and invest it and see how it goes. Learn. Iterate. Improve. The goal is to start making money before you lose it. I actually started with just $10k and once I started to figure it out put in more money as I wanted to increase my profit.
At the end of the day it's your money and you should do what you want with it. So long as you understand you will definitely lose money sometimes and are willing to learn from it, give it a go with whatever money you're willing to lose.
> For the same reason you trust an auditor and accountant hired by Tesla to produce quartely earnings report - they are on the hook if they lie.
“On the hook” has different meanings when you have the enforcement power of the US federal government and criminal courts versus an individual who has to cough up tens of thousands for lawyers in civil court.
“On the hook” has different meanings when you have the enforcement power of the US federal government and criminal courts versus an individual who has to cough up tens of thousands for lawyers in civil court.
Lie vs. miss is relative. Every single inspector in the US at least has liability that only extends to the cost of their inspection (or, sometimes, 2x their inspection cost...). Hardly enough to cover any losses if there is major damage that is overlooked.
I had a friend who bought a house with major termite damage (i.e., every wall had to be removed to repair the studs basically), and 2 inspectors overlooked the damage. He said in retrospect (after doing a bunch of research on termite damage), it should have been obvious to inspectors, but they missed it.
He tried to pursue legal action against either the seller or the inspectors, and basically was told: impossible to prove seller knew (as there was no repairs done), and inspectors are not held liable.
I had a friend who bought a house with major termite damage (i.e., every wall had to be removed to repair the studs basically), and 2 inspectors overlooked the damage. He said in retrospect (after doing a bunch of research on termite damage), it should have been obvious to inspectors, but they missed it.
He tried to pursue legal action against either the seller or the inspectors, and basically was told: impossible to prove seller knew (as there was no repairs done), and inspectors are not held liable.
Hah yes, inspectors try to be as minimally liable as possible. Ours went to great lengths to get us to have someone come out and check the "stains" underneath a bathroom sink without actually saying the m-word that rhymes with cold :)
Home inspectors in the US are barely useful.
If you really don't know anything about houses (or feel as if you do not), then having someone walk you through some of the things you may have to face living in a particular house is probably a good idea.
However, even as just an enthusiastic amateur, I know more about home construction and repair than most home inspectors. When I bought my current house I skipped the home inspector, and hired an electrician, a roofer and a structural engineer. It cost me more, but I got seriously informed reports about the property, not just boilerplate fill-in-the-blank PDFs telling me that one of the windows rattled.
If you really don't know anything about houses (or feel as if you do not), then having someone walk you through some of the things you may have to face living in a particular house is probably a good idea.
However, even as just an enthusiastic amateur, I know more about home construction and repair than most home inspectors. When I bought my current house I skipped the home inspector, and hired an electrician, a roofer and a structural engineer. It cost me more, but I got seriously informed reports about the property, not just boilerplate fill-in-the-blank PDFs telling me that one of the windows rattled.
I like your solution of gathering subject matter experts and getting individual reports. Did the 3 of them cover all aspects of the house? I am not an expert so I don't know if anything is left out, does the structural engineer also cover plumbing? Or is that not an issue?
I know enough about home construction and repair to be able to assess other items. Actually, I can do my own residential wiring and stud framing etc., but I was moving into an adobe house. This required a knowledge of wiring, construction and roofing that I did not have from previous work that I've done. If the plumbing had been a part of the adobe construction itself, I'd have asked for a plumber too, but it was not.
If I was going to drop the kind of money that I did on my house on retail stocks, then you can bet that I'd be doing some due diligence on my end that's worth at least the same few hundred bucks
And in the US, the inspector is typically only liable up to the cost of the inspection, or some pre-arranged value. He also isn't an actual engineer, so is mostly worthless. He'll check the roof with a pain of binoculars, but not necessarily get onto the roof. He'll check the age of appliances, but that's mostly obvious to anybody willing to do a base amount of research. Etc.
If there's anything remotely questionable, they'll punt and tell the buyer to hire an actual engineer (or plumber or electrician), so even more money out of pocket.
If there's anything remotely questionable, they'll punt and tell the buyer to hire an actual engineer (or plumber or electrician), so even more money out of pocket.
It's similar with the survey. In a mortgage survey, they basically verify that a house of the specified construction and square footage is on the property where it is supposed to be. Nothing you really couldn't see by just driving by.
When I have bought a house, in order to get a proper survey with the property boundaries marked by stakes I had to pay for that myself.
When I have bought a house, in order to get a proper survey with the property boundaries marked by stakes I had to pay for that myself.
I live in Scotland, and the process here is the seller has to undertake a survey with someone who is accredited. In practice this means that the same 3-4 firms end up doing most of the surveys. It's not just some ranodmer saying "yeah, looks good mate".
> In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.
You know what's even better than _only_ a couple of hundred dollars? The seller paying it once.
> In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.
You know what's even better than _only_ a couple of hundred dollars? The seller paying it once.
The seller paying it once.
It's the same in Sweden, that the seller does and pays for a survey. Still common for the buyer to request to be allowed to get a second independent survey done. Of course the seller can refuse to allow a second survey, but that in itself is quite telling.
It's the same in Sweden, that the seller does and pays for a survey. Still common for the buyer to request to be allowed to get a second independent survey done. Of course the seller can refuse to allow a second survey, but that in itself is quite telling.
Suppose the seller got a bad report. Wouldn’t they just shop to a new surveyor to get a better one? The incentives are bad in this situation.
Also, even if the money first comes out of the sellers pocket, it’s still being paid by the buyer in the houses cost.
Also, even if the money first comes out of the sellers pocket, it’s still being paid by the buyer in the houses cost.
Easy way to solve that is making sure there’s a record of all accredited inspections that potential buyers can access. So you have a do-over after fixing something but there’s a trail for the buyer.
In they US there’s a very competitive market. But that also means big differences in quality.
I wouldn’t trust an inspector chosen at random, much less an inspector chosen by the seller.
To be clear, I don’t care who is paying - as long as I pick the inspector.
I wouldn’t trust an inspector chosen at random, much less an inspector chosen by the seller.
To be clear, I don’t care who is paying - as long as I pick the inspector.
In the current US housing market, you're expected to waive bringing in a house inspector because if you don't, the seller will sell to someone who will (and they likely have 3 all cash offers besides you ready to go).
That's what we're finding right now. Any attempt at negotiation just means your offer gets binned and the house will go to somebody who'll pony up the money, no questions asked.
In the US the buyer hires an inspector after the contract is agreed and the transfer can be voided if the inspector finds serious issues. Typically the price gets adjusted.
Home inspectors are a borderline scam. In my experience they never find any of the real problems and only surface superficial stuff that should be obvious even to a layman.
This probably is because many buyers go with the inspector recommendation of their realtor and realtors aren’t going to recommend someone that is too through to the point of risking the deal.
This probably is because many buyers go with the inspector recommendation of their realtor and realtors aren’t going to recommend someone that is too through to the point of risking the deal.
> Home inspectors are a borderline scam. In my experience they never find any of the real problems and only surface superficial stuff that should be obvious even to a layman.
In most states, home inspectors are licensed and insured professionals so they can be held liable for obvious omissions from their reports. But there are a lot of holes in the system, and there's no clear guide for inexperienced home buyers to vet inspectors.
The benefit of a good inspector is that they aren't the buyer and thus have no temptation to overlook things the buyer might miss. A good inspector is thorough and will take several hours to perform an inspection of even a small home.
If you can find a very reputable inspector, it's generally a good idea to use them both when selling or purchasing homes. Inspecting your home before sale can identify issues you can quickly address and it gives comfort to buyers to see an inspection report on the counter when they do a walk through.
I got burned with a home purchase early on in my life because I used my realtor's inspector who wasn't licensed in my state. When we later discovered a foundation issue we had no recourse because the inspection report had a disclosure on it.
A general problem in the US is that it's mostly ok to be misleading as long as you have a disclaimer, and that disclaimer doesn't necessarily have to be upfront or obvious. As a result of have a lot of "Administrations", "Bureaus", and "Authorities" that superficially appear to be governmental or reputable but turn out to be scams.
In most states, home inspectors are licensed and insured professionals so they can be held liable for obvious omissions from their reports. But there are a lot of holes in the system, and there's no clear guide for inexperienced home buyers to vet inspectors.
The benefit of a good inspector is that they aren't the buyer and thus have no temptation to overlook things the buyer might miss. A good inspector is thorough and will take several hours to perform an inspection of even a small home.
If you can find a very reputable inspector, it's generally a good idea to use them both when selling or purchasing homes. Inspecting your home before sale can identify issues you can quickly address and it gives comfort to buyers to see an inspection report on the counter when they do a walk through.
I got burned with a home purchase early on in my life because I used my realtor's inspector who wasn't licensed in my state. When we later discovered a foundation issue we had no recourse because the inspection report had a disclosure on it.
A general problem in the US is that it's mostly ok to be misleading as long as you have a disclaimer, and that disclaimer doesn't necessarily have to be upfront or obvious. As a result of have a lot of "Administrations", "Bureaus", and "Authorities" that superficially appear to be governmental or reputable but turn out to be scams.
In that vein realtors are basically a scam.
A decent inspector can and will find things, but true it may be difficult to find one.
I think the solution is going to be an unpopular take--learn about the world and be able to do a lot of this stuff yourself.
I bought my house without a realtor and without an inspection. My house needed work for sure, but I got a great deal and learning experience in both the buying and repair/maintenance. I spend my evenings working on the house instead of watching tv and eating garbage. Three years later I have a few 100k in equity.
I do wish the world was full of trustworthy people and life was easy, but no number of bureaucratic requirements are going to make these problems go away. If you live in a world you don't understand, you will be taken advantage of.
A decent inspector can and will find things, but true it may be difficult to find one.
I think the solution is going to be an unpopular take--learn about the world and be able to do a lot of this stuff yourself.
I bought my house without a realtor and without an inspection. My house needed work for sure, but I got a great deal and learning experience in both the buying and repair/maintenance. I spend my evenings working on the house instead of watching tv and eating garbage. Three years later I have a few 100k in equity.
I do wish the world was full of trustworthy people and life was easy, but no number of bureaucratic requirements are going to make these problems go away. If you live in a world you don't understand, you will be taken advantage of.
Realtors are a scam.
Home inspection was super useful for us when we bought our new built house, they found a major issue with the house which would have cost us thousands to fix later
In the US, there is a huge market for those peddling certainty and reduced risk while also taking on very little liability of risks associated with the work.
People love security theater where some professional swoops in and assures them everything is fine. In some cases you have to rely on an expert but in many cases, I've found that for anything significant, I can't outsource risk assessment because it's not worth it most of the time. No one doing the assessments have enough liability or incentive to do a deep assessment, it often simply costs too much relative to what you're assessing.
Now if you're completely naive or ignorant about something or the total risk is known and is relatively low, then it doesn't hurt to pay a small fee for the quick risk assessment passover made by an expert who will be more likely to spot things than you. Also, if someone really has significant liability for their assessment, they tend to be very direct to the point of pointing out low risks they normally would brush over.
I recently purchased a home and it was hooked up to a private well. The seller said it was fine, the inspector said everything looked fine based on old test data, and a private well inspector said it looked fine. Not a single one of them thought it was worth testing the water quality beyond the bare minimum, only concerned about quantity. It turns out, I spent a part of 4-6 years developing water quality monitoring infrastructure and performing water quality analyses and had it not been for the knowledge I had and always skeptical attitude, I wouldn't have batted an eye. I told them to all stuff it and perform a water quality test or I was rejecting on other terms. Good thing I was difficult because there were all sorts of issues (bacteria, organic and inorganic issues) and I may have even gotten sick or a guest could have gotten sick.
Years ago I had a health scare and saw three independent doctors that thought it was nothing, even after describing my symptoms but there were too many red flags for me to ignore accept their opinions. I suggested a specific condition to each of them and they brushed it off like I was crazy. They didn't have the same level of risk or incentive for their time in their assessments to push forward and didn't want to acknowledge that even a low level of uncertainty could be true. Sure enough, I found a fourth doctor to check, they listened, and did appropriate diagnostics eventually confirming via lab and in person diagnostics I was correct. This isn't something that frequently occurs, not a hypochondriac.
Professional risk assessment can be useful but you should always be skeptical of it given the lack of liability and incentives many have. They want to get paid and move to their next transaction. Such is our highly transactional society where people really don't care about other people or can't afford to care about other people in the name of efficiency.
People love security theater where some professional swoops in and assures them everything is fine. In some cases you have to rely on an expert but in many cases, I've found that for anything significant, I can't outsource risk assessment because it's not worth it most of the time. No one doing the assessments have enough liability or incentive to do a deep assessment, it often simply costs too much relative to what you're assessing.
Now if you're completely naive or ignorant about something or the total risk is known and is relatively low, then it doesn't hurt to pay a small fee for the quick risk assessment passover made by an expert who will be more likely to spot things than you. Also, if someone really has significant liability for their assessment, they tend to be very direct to the point of pointing out low risks they normally would brush over.
I recently purchased a home and it was hooked up to a private well. The seller said it was fine, the inspector said everything looked fine based on old test data, and a private well inspector said it looked fine. Not a single one of them thought it was worth testing the water quality beyond the bare minimum, only concerned about quantity. It turns out, I spent a part of 4-6 years developing water quality monitoring infrastructure and performing water quality analyses and had it not been for the knowledge I had and always skeptical attitude, I wouldn't have batted an eye. I told them to all stuff it and perform a water quality test or I was rejecting on other terms. Good thing I was difficult because there were all sorts of issues (bacteria, organic and inorganic issues) and I may have even gotten sick or a guest could have gotten sick.
Years ago I had a health scare and saw three independent doctors that thought it was nothing, even after describing my symptoms but there were too many red flags for me to ignore accept their opinions. I suggested a specific condition to each of them and they brushed it off like I was crazy. They didn't have the same level of risk or incentive for their time in their assessments to push forward and didn't want to acknowledge that even a low level of uncertainty could be true. Sure enough, I found a fourth doctor to check, they listened, and did appropriate diagnostics eventually confirming via lab and in person diagnostics I was correct. This isn't something that frequently occurs, not a hypochondriac.
Professional risk assessment can be useful but you should always be skeptical of it given the lack of liability and incentives many have. They want to get paid and move to their next transaction. Such is our highly transactional society where people really don't care about other people or can't afford to care about other people in the name of efficiency.
I've had the pleasure of working with 3 excellent home inspectors over the past 20 years. They tested and checked things that I never would have thought of. One of them flagged the water heater in our current house for immediate replacement. Sure enough, it started leaking the day after we moved in.
We had asked for various fixes to be made but the seller only did a sewer repair and I think that is/was required for the house to be in sellable condition.
With everybody looking for houses now, a big thing is to put in a bid without requiring an inspection. I'm sure it works out almost all of the time but I'd hate to do it.
We had asked for various fixes to be made but the seller only did a sewer repair and I think that is/was required for the house to be in sellable condition.
With everybody looking for houses now, a big thing is to put in a bid without requiring an inspection. I'm sure it works out almost all of the time but I'd hate to do it.
> The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd.
In the US if a buyer does provide an inspection report to the seller and backs out, then the seller does at least have to disclose any issues found.
In the US if a buyer does provide an inspection report to the seller and backs out, then the seller does at least have to disclose any issues found.
> The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd.
UK excluding Scotland.
UK excluding Scotland.
The bank may be requiring the survey but you are paying for it. If not directly then at least in a very clear indirect way.
The last mortgage I took was with Bank of Ireland, they offered a full survey for £400 but I rang them and asked if they would do it for free if I took their mortgage on completion - they said yes, so I paid nothing for the survey. Other mortgages I had the survey was just included in the mortgage, no extra cost.
[deleted]
I’m looking at 5 houses and want to pick the best one. Of course I need to see the surveys now. Tell me which bank is this that will pay for the 5 surveys?
What does a survey consist of and why are they so expensive?
In the US we have home inspectors, and we have surveyors. A home inspector is generally responsible for auditing the structure and mechanicals of the home for issues. A surveyor is only responsible for identifying property boundaries.
A home inspection is under $1000, usually $250-500. I don't know what a survey costs as I've never been involved in a property boundary dispute as US homes are generally on large enough plots that encroachment issues aren't that common.
In the US we have home inspectors, and we have surveyors. A home inspector is generally responsible for auditing the structure and mechanicals of the home for issues. A surveyor is only responsible for identifying property boundaries.
A home inspection is under $1000, usually $250-500. I don't know what a survey costs as I've never been involved in a property boundary dispute as US homes are generally on large enough plots that encroachment issues aren't that common.
>>What does a survey consist of and why are they so expensive?
They aren't, OP makes it sound like it costs an arm and a leg. The costs are around £300-400, about £500 if you want to pull out all the environmental reports as well, which while not insignificant in itself, is not really a big deal when buying a house for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
They aren't, OP makes it sound like it costs an arm and a leg. The costs are around £300-400, about £500 if you want to pull out all the environmental reports as well, which while not insignificant in itself, is not really a big deal when buying a house for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
>> Of course I need to see the surveys now
Fair enough, I don't know anyone who bought a house this way though. For me personally it was always 1) find a house 2) ask the bank to do the survey 3) based on the survey either carry on with the mortgage or retract my offer. Yes I probably couldn't do 5 houses at once, but I have done 3 houses consecutively this way before, no issues whatsoever with the banks.
Fair enough, I don't know anyone who bought a house this way though. For me personally it was always 1) find a house 2) ask the bank to do the survey 3) based on the survey either carry on with the mortgage or retract my offer. Yes I probably couldn't do 5 houses at once, but I have done 3 houses consecutively this way before, no issues whatsoever with the banks.
You make the offer contingent upon the inspection and have the inspection performed prior to signing. The purpose of inspection is not the find 'the best one' but to determine if there are any major problems that should shift the sale price for the house you have already selected.
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job.
I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table.
In a way, I think there's a bit of "you don't know what you don't know" principle at play here. If someone has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work, they may really believe that the big problem is "I can't sort my opportunities by salary." Someone with more experience and understanding may recognize how non-fungible people and roles can be in a way that a simple "sort by price" cannot capture.
To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort? No, you'd both want to really understand the nuances of the house (location, condition, etc.) and how it compares to your needs and your ability to pay. IE, you'd often take "not the best price" because either there's something wrong with the property or it's just not suitable to your needs." Hiring is much the same.
I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table.
In a way, I think there's a bit of "you don't know what you don't know" principle at play here. If someone has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work, they may really believe that the big problem is "I can't sort my opportunities by salary." Someone with more experience and understanding may recognize how non-fungible people and roles can be in a way that a simple "sort by price" cannot capture.
To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort? No, you'd both want to really understand the nuances of the house (location, condition, etc.) and how it compares to your needs and your ability to pay. IE, you'd often take "not the best price" because either there's something wrong with the property or it's just not suitable to your needs." Hiring is much the same.
We do recognise that, and that's why you publish a salary range. If your salary range for a dev is 50k - 90k, then publish that. The point, a candidate who know they are a good developer can know what to expect.
If someone shows up for interview with leadrship skills so amazing they can run the whole company and you want to pay them 4x, then it's probably a different job, maybe a TeamLead.
Publish several jobs and just fill one of them, cancell others.
But the argument is bordering on "we are so flexible we have no structure at all and we have no clue what we are doing" and is difficult to taje seriously.
If someone shows up for interview with leadrship skills so amazing they can run the whole company and you want to pay them 4x, then it's probably a different job, maybe a TeamLead.
Publish several jobs and just fill one of them, cancell others.
But the argument is bordering on "we are so flexible we have no structure at all and we have no clue what we are doing" and is difficult to taje seriously.
It's a bit presumptuous to suggest the OP "has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work".
Also, I most certainly do sort by price when I'm looking for real estate: I have a budget, after all. Same thing with employment: most people have needs that salary requirements can meet, and it's pointless to look for jobs outside the range one can accept. Therefore it's almost certainly the best and most useful first thing to sort by.
Others have more freedom. For example, thanks to a recent IPO I can literally work for no salary and be fine. I have far more freedom to consider other details about a job than 99% of the population.
Also, I most certainly do sort by price when I'm looking for real estate: I have a budget, after all. Same thing with employment: most people have needs that salary requirements can meet, and it's pointless to look for jobs outside the range one can accept. Therefore it's almost certainly the best and most useful first thing to sort by.
Others have more freedom. For example, thanks to a recent IPO I can literally work for no salary and be fine. I have far more freedom to consider other details about a job than 99% of the population.
> It's a bit presumptuous to suggest the OP "has limited perspective ...
This is going to be very meta and not about salary so feel free to skip :)
When I disagree with someone, I try to find where we are disconnected. It's usually one of two things: we reach divergent conclusions either because we are aware of different facts, or because we're interpreting those facts through different values lens.
A good quick heuristic of a fact missing if when someone talks about either one side of the equation or even worse, makes both sides line up to their conclusion.
For example: "we should use Python - it's the best dev experience, we are only using C++ cuz our lead engineer is stupid" versus "We use C++ because of performance attributes, but I argue we can be fast-enough in Python and get better dev-experience"
The 2nd statement shows awareness of both sides of the argument and then proposes a solution that accounts for them. The 1st side is missing the context for why someone would do something other than what they want to do - suggesting they don't have perspective on that and making it likely that their solution doesn't account for it (or if it does, only by accident.)
In the discussion at hand, the original poster clearly prefers salary ranges and his model for why companies don't publish them is that they are evil. To me that suggests that they are lacking perspectives on the cases where salary ranges are either impossible to share or end up working in the employee's favor. Having had this conversation many times before, I attribute this lack of perspective on not having the senior hiring experience either from candidate or company side where one would have picked up the perspective.
To sum it all up, yet there's a bit of presumption in my suggestion but at the same time - you have to be able to assert things or else you'd never be able to make any points.
This is going to be very meta and not about salary so feel free to skip :)
When I disagree with someone, I try to find where we are disconnected. It's usually one of two things: we reach divergent conclusions either because we are aware of different facts, or because we're interpreting those facts through different values lens.
A good quick heuristic of a fact missing if when someone talks about either one side of the equation or even worse, makes both sides line up to their conclusion.
For example: "we should use Python - it's the best dev experience, we are only using C++ cuz our lead engineer is stupid" versus "We use C++ because of performance attributes, but I argue we can be fast-enough in Python and get better dev-experience"
The 2nd statement shows awareness of both sides of the argument and then proposes a solution that accounts for them. The 1st side is missing the context for why someone would do something other than what they want to do - suggesting they don't have perspective on that and making it likely that their solution doesn't account for it (or if it does, only by accident.)
In the discussion at hand, the original poster clearly prefers salary ranges and his model for why companies don't publish them is that they are evil. To me that suggests that they are lacking perspectives on the cases where salary ranges are either impossible to share or end up working in the employee's favor. Having had this conversation many times before, I attribute this lack of perspective on not having the senior hiring experience either from candidate or company side where one would have picked up the perspective.
To sum it all up, yet there's a bit of presumption in my suggestion but at the same time - you have to be able to assert things or else you'd never be able to make any points.
> I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
I highly doubt that the parent comment meant that he would literally apply to the job with the biggest number with no other consideration.
I read it as the far more modest claim that, if even _seeing_ the number requires a significant investment of time and effort on your side, the efficiency of the market is highly restricted. Especially since, once you do see the number, you usually need to take it or leave it within a short time frame; you can't "open up" a lot of job offers and then pick the best.
To use the real-estate analogy again, how would the housing market be affected if buyers had to put down a deposit to even _see_ the listed price? And if the sellers had the ability to get a complete profile of the buyer before revealing their price? It seems pretty clear to me that the average house price would significantly increase, despite the supply and demand both staying the same.
I highly doubt that the parent comment meant that he would literally apply to the job with the biggest number with no other consideration.
I read it as the far more modest claim that, if even _seeing_ the number requires a significant investment of time and effort on your side, the efficiency of the market is highly restricted. Especially since, once you do see the number, you usually need to take it or leave it within a short time frame; you can't "open up" a lot of job offers and then pick the best.
To use the real-estate analogy again, how would the housing market be affected if buyers had to put down a deposit to even _see_ the listed price? And if the sellers had the ability to get a complete profile of the buyer before revealing their price? It seems pretty clear to me that the average house price would significantly increase, despite the supply and demand both staying the same.
Eh. I wouldnt buy a house that came up first based on price sort but I would rule out most/all houses that cost less than X. Salaries are the same thing. I'm not going to consider a job that is X amount do if the top range is below that I'll skip it. It's a time saving tool.
Sure there are about a billion other factors to look at but if the salary is a non starter then why waste the time to interview even if everything else was perfect?
Sure there are about a billion other factors to look at but if the salary is a non starter then why waste the time to interview even if everything else was perfect?
Interestingly, I use price-sort extensively when doing online shopping. I don't often buy the thing that comes up first, but I certainly use it to help figure out the tradeoff between price and quality, and to filter out items that I have no reason to consider. Also, price-sort eliminates one of the psychological burdens of shopping, which is the manipulative presentation of products by the vendor.
Price-sort is a very crude version of an even more powerful tool, which is: "Show me everything about every product, without trying to manipulate me, and let me organize the data by criteria that I choose, not that you choose." This is why Excel pivot tables are so popular in business.
Anything that makes the job search function less psychological has to be beneficial. Nothing prevents me from taking a pay cut for a particular job that I absolutely love, in a favored location, etc.
Oddly enough, product marketing and hiring share a common feature, which is that both fields have endless amounts of verbiage about how psychological manipulation is actually beneficial to the person being manipulated. If so, it should be an opt-in feature, perhaps even one that people are willing to pay for.
Price-sort is a very crude version of an even more powerful tool, which is: "Show me everything about every product, without trying to manipulate me, and let me organize the data by criteria that I choose, not that you choose." This is why Excel pivot tables are so popular in business.
Anything that makes the job search function less psychological has to be beneficial. Nothing prevents me from taking a pay cut for a particular job that I absolutely love, in a favored location, etc.
Oddly enough, product marketing and hiring share a common feature, which is that both fields have endless amounts of verbiage about how psychological manipulation is actually beneficial to the person being manipulated. If so, it should be an opt-in feature, perhaps even one that people are willing to pay for.
> two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
What do you think makes this a problem here? You apply, you interview, the company either gives you the position or not. I don't think anyone would use the salary range as the one and only factor to decide where to apply. It can help to decide where to make more effort or what the comp potential is if I improve my skills.
What do you think makes this a problem here? You apply, you interview, the company either gives you the position or not. I don't think anyone would use the salary range as the one and only factor to decide where to apply. It can help to decide where to make more effort or what the comp potential is if I improve my skills.
If I’m looking for a job, it’s already on me to try to limit my search to positions I’m qualified for. Providing me with the salary information for each job doesn’t make that task any more difficult.
But they don't and yet you still have a job (I hope).
And the reason is because when you are looking for a job other things are more important than knowing the salary even before you apply or they seriously consider you.
Everyone does whatever they can get away with, and the moment we accept that everything becomes clear. They are all trying to benefit themselves, just as you are by trying to learn some information before the other party feel the need to share it with you.
And the reason is because when you are looking for a job other things are more important than knowing the salary even before you apply or they seriously consider you.
Everyone does whatever they can get away with, and the moment we accept that everything becomes clear. They are all trying to benefit themselves, just as you are by trying to learn some information before the other party feel the need to share it with you.
Salary is the single most important thing to know about a position. If a job doesn't pay enough to cover my mortgage, I couldn't care less about the commute, the inclusive culture or how great their lunchroom is or even whether I'm qualified. It's a non-starter before I even read the description.
Having to write a cover letter, customize a resume and sit through multiple interviews just to find out if I can literally afford to work for you is not acceptable and the only reason companies get away with it is because all the other companies do it. This trend needs to die and it needs to die a decade ago.
Having to write a cover letter, customize a resume and sit through multiple interviews just to find out if I can literally afford to work for you is not acceptable and the only reason companies get away with it is because all the other companies do it. This trend needs to die and it needs to die a decade ago.
> Salary is the single most important thing to know about a position.
That's like, your opinion. Millions of people go on job interviews everyday without first knowing the salary offered and in fact in most meetings the salary is the last thing discussed.
That's like, your opinion. Millions of people go on job interviews everyday without first knowing the salary offered and in fact in most meetings the salary is the last thing discussed.
Of course the final salary is the last thing negotiated, I don't think anyone is going to argue against that point.
What job seekers are begging for is a salary range being included with the job posting. Not doing so just wastes everyone's time when the company low-balls after the 3rd interview and the interviewee walks out the door.
If you want a junior worker for a junior's salary, that's fine, there are plenty of juniors looking to get their foot in the door, but include a junior's salary range so you don't waste everyone's time interviewing someone who's never going to accept your junior offer.
If you want a senior for a junior's salary and think you'll get one by leaving the salary range blank, go pound sand.
What job seekers are begging for is a salary range being included with the job posting. Not doing so just wastes everyone's time when the company low-balls after the 3rd interview and the interviewee walks out the door.
If you want a junior worker for a junior's salary, that's fine, there are plenty of juniors looking to get their foot in the door, but include a junior's salary range so you don't waste everyone's time interviewing someone who's never going to accept your junior offer.
If you want a senior for a junior's salary and think you'll get one by leaving the salary range blank, go pound sand.
> If you want a senior for a junior's salary and think you'll get one by leaving the salary range blank, go pound sand.
No one thinks they are getting away with anything but you. I don't get why you are so mad most people don't consider not knowing the salary beforehand a reason not to go on an interview. Not posting the salary on the job ad has never been the reason a position has been left unfilled.
No one thinks they are getting away with anything but you. I don't get why you are so mad most people don't consider not knowing the salary beforehand a reason not to go on an interview. Not posting the salary on the job ad has never been the reason a position has been left unfilled.
People don't consider it a reason not to go on an interview because 95-99% of job postings don't include it because they know nobody else does and they can get away with it and applicants don't have a choice. If a reasonable number of postings included a salary range, omitting one would tank an ad's response rates and you'd see the trend change very quickly.
If things were different, yes, things would be different.
> Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table.
You're making it sound like the companies are being forced to pay the same salary for the same role - they are not, and this is a straw man argument. The companies should publish the salary range - they are free to adjust the offers within the range depending on skills & experience of the successful candidate. If the range is $20k - $180k to cater for the "rockstar" who brings a lot - then they ought to publish that range and be prepared to explain to a candidate why the company thinks a candidate deserves $20k/yr and see how that goes.
An equivalent scenario to what's happening on the job market outside Colorado would be houses being sold without displaying the asking prices - all potential buyers would be expected to jump through all the hoops and be asked to "make an offer" without being able to make comparisons on how much other similar houses on the market are going for. Instead, they'd be asked "How much did you pay for the last house you bought?" or "How much are you currently paying in rent?"
You're making it sound like the companies are being forced to pay the same salary for the same role - they are not, and this is a straw man argument. The companies should publish the salary range - they are free to adjust the offers within the range depending on skills & experience of the successful candidate. If the range is $20k - $180k to cater for the "rockstar" who brings a lot - then they ought to publish that range and be prepared to explain to a candidate why the company thinks a candidate deserves $20k/yr and see how that goes.
An equivalent scenario to what's happening on the job market outside Colorado would be houses being sold without displaying the asking prices - all potential buyers would be expected to jump through all the hoops and be asked to "make an offer" without being able to make comparisons on how much other similar houses on the market are going for. Instead, they'd be asked "How much did you pay for the last house you bought?" or "How much are you currently paying in rent?"
My friend interviewed for an SDE 1 position but after interview, was then offered a role of SDE 2 on the team, since the team was hiring for both, and he was more qualified as a 2.
I think this is an example of flexibility that people bring up. Not that they shouldn't publish the range, but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him.
TO be clear, i agree that they should have to explain "why" if they chose the part of the range, like you say, but i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
I think this is an example of flexibility that people bring up. Not that they shouldn't publish the range, but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him.
TO be clear, i agree that they should have to explain "why" if they chose the part of the range, like you say, but i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
> [...]but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him.
This asymmetric information is the intention of the employer, but sadly, in most cases it goes the other way: person gets hired as an SDE 2, but earns less than some/all SDE 1's because they are terrible at negotiating, or their salary history was always below market rate and they do not know it. I'm all for companies paying commensurate salaries and having the flexibility to do so - publishing salaries ranges when posting jobs is orthogonal to that.
> i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
In your friends case, I hope/wish the law covers that scenario whereby the employer is forced to disclose the range for the upgraded when asked - so that all your friend needed to do was ask.
This asymmetric information is the intention of the employer, but sadly, in most cases it goes the other way: person gets hired as an SDE 2, but earns less than some/all SDE 1's because they are terrible at negotiating, or their salary history was always below market rate and they do not know it. I'm all for companies paying commensurate salaries and having the flexibility to do so - publishing salaries ranges when posting jobs is orthogonal to that.
> i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
In your friends case, I hope/wish the law covers that scenario whereby the employer is forced to disclose the range for the upgraded when asked - so that all your friend needed to do was ask.
> One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
That's because software engineering suffers from tittle inflation (same way grade inflation works really).
Internally there are several "levels" of Senior Engineers at most companies. But what the levels map to is completely arbitrary. I've seen places where senior really means 20 years of industry experience and others where it's more like 5.
That's because software engineering suffers from tittle inflation (same way grade inflation works really).
Internally there are several "levels" of Senior Engineers at most companies. But what the levels map to is completely arbitrary. I've seen places where senior really means 20 years of industry experience and others where it's more like 5.
You sort of point this out, but title inflation in itself isn't a problem. If everyone could agree that "senior staff developer" in 2021 is what everyone meant by "senior developer" in 2005, we'd be fine.
The real problem, as you point out, is there is no consistency. In reviewing resumes basically ignore titles from any company I'm not very familiar with, and rely on their description of what they have done.
As an aside, many engineers, especially less experienced ones, are terrible at this. As a piece of advice, think about what your resume says about your work if the titles are blacked out.
The real problem, as you point out, is there is no consistency. In reviewing resumes basically ignore titles from any company I'm not very familiar with, and rely on their description of what they have done.
As an aside, many engineers, especially less experienced ones, are terrible at this. As a piece of advice, think about what your resume says about your work if the titles are blacked out.
> In reviewing resumes basically ignore titles from any company I'm not very familiar with, and rely on their description of what they have done.
That's the correct approach. Same holds for job descriptions: what have others at this level band shipped and what were their contributions.
That's the correct approach. Same holds for job descriptions: what have others at this level band shipped and what were their contributions.
> So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
I don't do this, and I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't do this either.
Let's say you manage to actually get a job that you're not qualified for. There's a strong possibility that you'll be fired, maybe within the 90 day probationary period. At a some large companies, you might get some cover and get passed around from department to department for years. But I've definitely seen a fair number of people fired for non-performance in my career; it's not exactly rare.
I don't do this, and I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't do this either.
Let's say you manage to actually get a job that you're not qualified for. There's a strong possibility that you'll be fired, maybe within the 90 day probationary period. At a some large companies, you might get some cover and get passed around from department to department for years. But I've definitely seen a fair number of people fired for non-performance in my career; it's not exactly rare.
> To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort?
No, but if they also weren't giving me an asking price, that's a huge red flag.
You're right that price is but one attribute of a job, but it is an important attribute. Its not the only thing i am evaluating, but it is one of the things, even one of the more important things.
So yes, i would like to know what the salary range is at the get-go.
Also this is true for pretty much everything - when buying a car, you dont generally go with the cheapest option, there's lots of attributes to evaluate, but if someone refused to tell you the price you wouldn't go with them either.
No, but if they also weren't giving me an asking price, that's a huge red flag.
You're right that price is but one attribute of a job, but it is an important attribute. Its not the only thing i am evaluating, but it is one of the things, even one of the more important things.
So yes, i would like to know what the salary range is at the get-go.
Also this is true for pretty much everything - when buying a car, you dont generally go with the cheapest option, there's lots of attributes to evaluate, but if someone refused to tell you the price you wouldn't go with them either.
Exactly. And to emphasize your point, a company (or car sale) who is being coy with the price/salary is a huge red flag. They know it's not good and are trying to lure you far enough down the path that you won't turn around.
> I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
This!!
- At every company and institution I've worked for, I've never really been in a situation where two people, even if they have the same job title, are line-replacable for one another (unless they are very junior). Everyone has extremely distinct skills, experiences, capabilities whose value is extremely contingent on the needs of the moment.
- Making rules to make things for fair or transparent has the opposite effect. A major institution I worked for came up with an impossible-to-game, no-human-in-the-loop formula for bias-free and discrimination-free compensation. The result? People with equal responsibilities ended up getting paid _vastly_ different amounts. Similarly, people with equal salaries had vastly different levels of responsibility. I don't think a uniform compensation scheme simply works, other than just negotiating 1-on-1 with staff until agreements are reached, and when it no longer works out they ask Mr. Market.
- A company not disclosing salary already gives you enough information. Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary.
This!!
- At every company and institution I've worked for, I've never really been in a situation where two people, even if they have the same job title, are line-replacable for one another (unless they are very junior). Everyone has extremely distinct skills, experiences, capabilities whose value is extremely contingent on the needs of the moment.
- Making rules to make things for fair or transparent has the opposite effect. A major institution I worked for came up with an impossible-to-game, no-human-in-the-loop formula for bias-free and discrimination-free compensation. The result? People with equal responsibilities ended up getting paid _vastly_ different amounts. Similarly, people with equal salaries had vastly different levels of responsibility. I don't think a uniform compensation scheme simply works, other than just negotiating 1-on-1 with staff until agreements are reached, and when it no longer works out they ask Mr. Market.
- A company not disclosing salary already gives you enough information. Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary.
Agree with your first point.
> Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary.
Frankly that's not been my experience. I find that especially on the senior level, the variance is so high for what a person could make in a role that publishing the range would just be meaningless. Thus, I take the "lack of range" as a non-signal.
> Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary.
Frankly that's not been my experience. I find that especially on the senior level, the variance is so high for what a person could make in a role that publishing the range would just be meaningless. Thus, I take the "lack of range" as a non-signal.
I see what you mean. If I could refine what I said, I'd put it that for those flagship mega corps, you generally know that it will _at least_ be competitive, and it's just a matter of how far beyond it.
Thats just nonsense. There absolutely is a requirement to disclose known faults with the property, and if a survey (which every buyer does) shows up something serious, there is a legal requirement to disclose it to all parties. Also most banks will cover the cost of a survey.
The buyer is the only one bringing money into the transaction. Regardless of who signs the check, the buyer is paying for all of the things.
Thats true, but you really can't have it both ways. You either want a professional opinion on the quality of the house or you're willing to run the risk. Anyway, the banks aren't doing inspections for the benefit of the buyer. They want to know that should the house be repossessed they are likely to recoup their investment. The fact the buyer might find something out about the house is a happy side effect.
>> The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side.
The market is free, it just isn't a healthy market. Those are different concepts. Participants in a totally free market are free to use their size/power/leverage as they wish. A free market is one where the little guy, the job applicant, will be hammered by the big guy. A 'healthy' market is one that is regulated in such a way that the little guy has at least a hope in the negotiation process. This then fosters competition, innovation, yielding a free-but-healthy market. Regulation needed to do those things that the "free" market cannot.
The market is free, it just isn't a healthy market. Those are different concepts. Participants in a totally free market are free to use their size/power/leverage as they wish. A free market is one where the little guy, the job applicant, will be hammered by the big guy. A 'healthy' market is one that is regulated in such a way that the little guy has at least a hope in the negotiation process. This then fosters competition, innovation, yielding a free-but-healthy market. Regulation needed to do those things that the "free" market cannot.
Exactly - if you are free to manipulate the market, then it decends into Mafia game.
If you call that 'free market', then its like communism - a concept that never works in the real world
If you call that 'free market', then its like communism - a concept that never works in the real world
> With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house.
Note that that's an issue on England (and presumably Wales too?). It's not the case in Scotland. Not sure about NI.
Note that that's an issue on England (and presumably Wales too?). It's not the case in Scotland. Not sure about NI.
In the US, real estate sellers have to disclose known problems, but they can claim they didn't know, and then you might have to fight it out in court. It's still in your interest to get an inspection before closing.
That's why people include inspection clauses in their offer contracts. If the inspection reveals an issue it must then be disclosed by the seller going forward, if the buyer can back out due to the clause.
[deleted]
This varies somewhat by state, as I understand. Some states only require disclosure for specific classes of problems.
> You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.
How much are you paying for surveys? Even a full structural survey -- which would be considered over the top for most purchases -- should only cost £1,500 or so.
And you're not going to get any sort of survey for most of the houses you view. You only usually bother with one once you've made an offer and the vendor's accepted it: if the survey reveals anything significant, you either pull out or try to renegotiate the price.
How much are you paying for surveys? Even a full structural survey -- which would be considered over the top for most purchases -- should only cost £1,500 or so.
And you're not going to get any sort of survey for most of the houses you view. You only usually bother with one once you've made an offer and the vendor's accepted it: if the survey reveals anything significant, you either pull out or try to renegotiate the price.
> You only usually bother with one once you've made an offer and the vendor's accepted it.
This is no longer the case in most of North America, where your offer only has a chance of being accepted if it's unconditional.
This is no longer the case in most of North America, where your offer only has a chance of being accepted if it's unconditional.
You know it'd break the cartel-like control companies have over employees if a law were made that all jobs must payout within the salary range posted for the job.
That prevents people from negotiating higher pay than is advertised publicly, so employers would have to tell everyone what their maximum salary could be. Employers would have an incentive to post high maximums rather than miss out on quality candidates.
That prevents people from negotiating higher pay than is advertised publicly, so employers would have to tell everyone what their maximum salary could be. Employers would have an incentive to post high maximums rather than miss out on quality candidates.
The bedrock truth behind this is that companies, even 20 years ago, were far more concerned about both retaining dedicated employees and maintaining customer satisfaction. Has anyone had to try to contact Paypal about a pending payment in the past few years? What about getting a human with authority over minimum wage on the phone at an insurance company?
What has taken place is that the mass of people who were "consumers" have become "users", and are replaceable and disposable; while the employees have been downgraded to associates.
It's not just the feeling of outrage you get when you're trying to establish, with a person, where $1000 someone sent you disappeared to for a month. It's the anti-human system underpinning the idea that we should build an algorithm to keep people on hold longer, the more pissed off they sound about an unwarranted charge.
There are a lot of points at which business logic taken to its fullest fruition turns out not to be good business. We tend to hope the market will rebel against the excesses of companies that treat users as interchangeable parts. But the reality is we (coders) are contributing to the de-humanization of the majority of humanity, in many of these small interactions and small-change money collecting circumstances. That's our job. But at some point we should be able to see the circle closing around us; we're exempt because we can hack our way through the thicket of junk it takes to get our identity back if it's stolen, a new job if our startup shuts down; we are constantly re-inventing ourselves and innovating.
But we are not our users. We wouldn't even want our users to be us.
The point as I take it, of this, is that screwing your employees is treating them as users; and treating users the way we have, for a long time, is also self-defeating and bad for society.
What has taken place is that the mass of people who were "consumers" have become "users", and are replaceable and disposable; while the employees have been downgraded to associates.
It's not just the feeling of outrage you get when you're trying to establish, with a person, where $1000 someone sent you disappeared to for a month. It's the anti-human system underpinning the idea that we should build an algorithm to keep people on hold longer, the more pissed off they sound about an unwarranted charge.
There are a lot of points at which business logic taken to its fullest fruition turns out not to be good business. We tend to hope the market will rebel against the excesses of companies that treat users as interchangeable parts. But the reality is we (coders) are contributing to the de-humanization of the majority of humanity, in many of these small interactions and small-change money collecting circumstances. That's our job. But at some point we should be able to see the circle closing around us; we're exempt because we can hack our way through the thicket of junk it takes to get our identity back if it's stolen, a new job if our startup shuts down; we are constantly re-inventing ourselves and innovating.
But we are not our users. We wouldn't even want our users to be us.
The point as I take it, of this, is that screwing your employees is treating them as users; and treating users the way we have, for a long time, is also self-defeating and bad for society.
Weekly reminder that sometimes a functioning market can only be maintained via regulation.
Hmm. I lived in the UK (both England and Scotland, which are slightly different) for 1st 1/2 of my life then moved to USA. In my experience the housing market is one of the few things that is handled pretty much the same.
This is a strong signal that this law must be expanded to the other states.
Sort of, except recruiters definitely know salary ranges. I don't always use recruiters but I did previously and was placed well every time. They're a annoying middleman that can really help.
There should be a job board exactly like that, with base salary x + y% per year specific experience for 1-10y, z% 11-20y etc. and u% per year for general industry experience.
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job.
There is no fixed salary for a job. That's the whole point. It's a negotiation, where candidates with unique skills can negotiate higher compensation that reflects their unique skill-sets and contributions. What you want is to impose a one-size-fits-all rule on the market. That's going to produce misallocation and inefficiency.
> view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees
Surveys and inspections cost a few hundred dollars. Houses cost several hundred thousand dollars at least.
There is no fixed salary for a job. That's the whole point. It's a negotiation, where candidates with unique skills can negotiate higher compensation that reflects their unique skill-sets and contributions. What you want is to impose a one-size-fits-all rule on the market. That's going to produce misallocation and inefficiency.
> view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees
Surveys and inspections cost a few hundred dollars. Houses cost several hundred thousand dollars at least.
"It's a negotiation, where candidates with unique skills can negotiate"
Every snowflake is special and unique too, but nobody cares when they are shovelling their driveways. Stop spreading incredulous fantasies, companies that hire 3000 JS-React mashing "agile' dev have salary ranges, HR has them, and you can find out about them once you are hired. They just don't want to publish them upfront.
Maybe if we are talking top leadership positions this argument has credence, but for most of us they aren't bending over backwards and putting together unique compensation packages.
Every snowflake is special and unique too, but nobody cares when they are shovelling their driveways. Stop spreading incredulous fantasies, companies that hire 3000 JS-React mashing "agile' dev have salary ranges, HR has them, and you can find out about them once you are hired. They just don't want to publish them upfront.
Maybe if we are talking top leadership positions this argument has credence, but for most of us they aren't bending over backwards and putting together unique compensation packages.
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job.
The idea that there would be a bunch of generic job listings with fixed salaries makes you essentially a replacable drone with no unique value, and sounds horrible to me.
Also a free market doesn't need to be absolutely transparent. That's just something you would want because it sounds like it would be easier, but uncertainties about the future, unknowns, and consumer wants is what drives the whole pricing game to begin with.
The idea that there would be a bunch of generic job listings with fixed salaries makes you essentially a replacable drone with no unique value, and sounds horrible to me.
Also a free market doesn't need to be absolutely transparent. That's just something you would want because it sounds like it would be easier, but uncertainties about the future, unknowns, and consumer wants is what drives the whole pricing game to begin with.
[deleted]
Profit most often rests on the asymmetry of information, thats why monopolies are so profitable
Monopoly profits are based on dominant market power, not asymmetry of information.
Where is the "dominant market power" coming from?
Asymmetry of information is what got you to the top. You know more than your competition, more on a productive process, on consumer behavior, on business partners, on leveraging financial avenues, on political "contributions", on questionable use of insider information, etc.
And Information is what keeps you at the top: knowing who to "lobby" to create convenient regulation that hurts your competition the most, is the most effective way monopolies use to stay that way.
Monopolies are not monopolies in the abstract, they have to fight everyday to keep being a monopoly and they do that by leveraging information asymmetry.
Asymmetry of information is what got you to the top. You know more than your competition, more on a productive process, on consumer behavior, on business partners, on leveraging financial avenues, on political "contributions", on questionable use of insider information, etc.
And Information is what keeps you at the top: knowing who to "lobby" to create convenient regulation that hurts your competition the most, is the most effective way monopolies use to stay that way.
Monopolies are not monopolies in the abstract, they have to fight everyday to keep being a monopoly and they do that by leveraging information asymmetry.
It’s not simply asymmetry of information though. Monopolies often have an incredible amount of financial power that they deploy against people trying to enter their market. Or maybe a company is on top because of their execution. I really don’t think the entire phenomenon can be explained by information asymmetry.
The financial power comes from somewhere.
> Or maybe a company is on top because of their execution.
I already explained that part.
> Or maybe a company is on top because of their execution.
I already explained that part.
The at&t monopoly came about via government power, and the only fighting it did was to keep the government enforcing and maintaining the monopoly.
> The at&t monopoly came about via government power,...
That is what I wrote, yes. AT&T knew who to "lobby". That is information asymmetry.
That is what I wrote, yes. AT&T knew who to "lobby". That is information asymmetry.
You would have to establish that no one else knew who to lobby, which is far from clear. Also I know exactly who to lobby for certain things I need from the city, but that clearly isn’t enough, because my lobbying efforts have failed miserably.
The asymmetry is in more than one area, those where only examples, and they probably have an asymmetric advantage over you in all areas.
That is why, even if you know who to lobby you can't get a meeting, but they meet everyday. You don't know who to bribe to get a meeting. And on and on.
That is why, even if you know who to lobby you can't get a meeting, but they meet everyday. You don't know who to bribe to get a meeting. And on and on.
Dominant market power is maintained by having control of information in a market. Google has control on the information about advertising and user searches that competitors don't. Amazon uses comprehensive sales data that others don't. Apple uses its power to enforce ignorance of competition to its customers.
You can only get dominant market power with an asymmetry of information (about how to produce whatever thing it is that gets you dominant market power). This is why we have IP laws...
The at&t monopoly obtained power via government grant. There are many others. We have IP laws to avoid monopolies among other reasons, but they aren’t the only way to get monopoly power.
If people want to better negotiate their salaries, they have to unionize. Everything else is just unproven, speculative, untested pitter patter.
why do you think a union would help in this ?
I live in france and all big enough companies are mandated to have union, doesn't mean that they help with salaries.
I live in france and all big enough companies are mandated to have union, doesn't mean that they help with salaries.
Is this a managerial / professional union?
Those normally negotiate the banding and the COL increases and also know what the rates are.
Unions in the entertainment industries do :-) underpay or stiff workers and you get put on the "call first list" this is the PC name for another type of list.
Those normally negotiate the banding and the COL increases and also know what the rates are.
Unions in the entertainment industries do :-) underpay or stiff workers and you get put on the "call first list" this is the PC name for another type of list.
I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone too experienced is pushing the envelope on age discrimination laws....
So if they're willing to hire someone with 2-20 years of experience, the salary range may be so broad as to be meaningless. $80-180k doesn't really tell anyone anything, and I'd imagine regulators can't do much if that's what companies put down as their range. I find that a lot of people imagine an open job & job description to be Very Rigid Categories, whereas in practice companies hiring in high-demand fields have to be flexible to find people. From the employer's point of view, that's why we find demands for the salary range to be frustrating- lots of companies really don't have a specific range in mind!
If you mandate that companies use a tight salary band, they'll simply say OK, our Software Developer 1 pays $70-90k, Software Developer 2 pays $90-11k, etc. However- we haven't decided which level of software developer we're going to hire you for. Tough for regulators to beat that approach too
So if they're willing to hire someone with 2-20 years of experience, the salary range may be so broad as to be meaningless. $80-180k doesn't really tell anyone anything, and I'd imagine regulators can't do much if that's what companies put down as their range. I find that a lot of people imagine an open job & job description to be Very Rigid Categories, whereas in practice companies hiring in high-demand fields have to be flexible to find people. From the employer's point of view, that's why we find demands for the salary range to be frustrating- lots of companies really don't have a specific range in mind!
If you mandate that companies use a tight salary band, they'll simply say OK, our Software Developer 1 pays $70-90k, Software Developer 2 pays $90-11k, etc. However- we haven't decided which level of software developer we're going to hire you for. Tough for regulators to beat that approach too
> $80-180k doesn't really tell anyone anything
Not meaningless at all. The company is at least saying they are willing to pay senior level salaries. I think the companies really pushing back are those who want 2-20 years experience with a range of $50-$80k. The other group of companies pushing back are those who let their current employees get too far out of the current range, and can only keep them happy through hoping they don't find out.
Both are signs of companies I want to avoid.
Not meaningless at all. The company is at least saying they are willing to pay senior level salaries. I think the companies really pushing back are those who want 2-20 years experience with a range of $50-$80k. The other group of companies pushing back are those who let their current employees get too far out of the current range, and can only keep them happy through hoping they don't find out.
Both are signs of companies I want to avoid.
If I saw $80-180k on a job posting, I wouldn't think it was meaningless. I would think it means that they will pay $80k, maybe a bit more, but definitely nowhere near $180k.
Except now they have to actually give you some reason why it's not the top. Without the listing the common reason I would hear about my salary request was 'not budgeted'. Well if 180k is listed, not budgeted doesn't fly. They either need to explain why I didn't get the max in a way that makes sense, or I move on.
Is it perfect for employees? No, but it's much better than no information. Also, keep in mind they will not just throw some crazy high number on their either because then they have to explain it to existing employees.
Is it perfect for employees? No, but it's much better than no information. Also, keep in mind they will not just throw some crazy high number on their either because then they have to explain it to existing employees.
Do they actually have to explain this? Is this part of the Colorado law? I can’t find anything about that.
Of course they don't have to, but it opens the door to make it easier for existing employees and candidates to ask.
So many people are uncomfortable talking about money, and companies push that it's taboo. This law does a tiny bit to push the information asymmetry back to the employee.
EDIT I've always been a pretty aggressive (not in a bad way) negotiator. So for me, asking why not the max would be question one and probing the answer would be the next set of questions. Maybe this wasn't obvious to those less apt to negotiate?
So many people are uncomfortable talking about money, and companies push that it's taboo. This law does a tiny bit to push the information asymmetry back to the employee.
EDIT I've always been a pretty aggressive (not in a bad way) negotiator. So for me, asking why not the max would be question one and probing the answer would be the next set of questions. Maybe this wasn't obvious to those less apt to negotiate?
Here in Austria we have a similar law that requires disclosing minimum salary for a role.
Companies usually just post multiple ads if they are hiring for junior or senior roles.
I don't think a job posting for both junior and senior developers would be appealing to a senior developer.
I think the market in Austria is different. If your job ad isn't compelling enough, you won't get any applications.
Companies usually just post multiple ads if they are hiring for junior or senior roles.
I don't think a job posting for both junior and senior developers would be appealing to a senior developer.
I think the market in Austria is different. If your job ad isn't compelling enough, you won't get any applications.
> ...our Software Developer 1 pays $70-90k, Software Developer 2 pays $90-11k, etc. However- we haven't decided which level of software developer we're going to hire you for.
I have seen some companies do this in a sense. They will post their salary "grades" A1, A2, A3, B1, etc. But there isn't really any correlation to say a Software Developer 1 will be a grade A3 or B1 or whatever.
I have seen some companies do this in a sense. They will post their salary "grades" A1, A2, A3, B1, etc. But there isn't really any correlation to say a Software Developer 1 will be a grade A3 or B1 or whatever.
So why not just list the position for a software engineer, along with 3 different salary bands for 3 different experience levels? Or does that not comply with the law?
They can. The companies not wanting to do it just don’t want to give more information to the sellers (labor), especially their current labor who might be being paid less while the buyer (employer) profits from the arbitrage.
I don't think it's that massive, especially because you should be figuring out a salary range within the first 1 or 2 conversations with the company regardless. For software engineers anyway, not sure about other less-hot markets.
Yes, this law will disproportionately benefit sellers of labor with a worse supply/demand situation. Price transparency is always better for the party (buyer or seller) in the worse supply/demand situation.
So maybe it should be limited to certain industries, like low skilled laborers and not white collar office jobs
Why? Prices are the signal to market participants for allocating resources. It is the whole basis of free markets and why they work.
What would society gain by obfuscated pricing? Assuming the goal is to benefit all of society, and not certain individuals who happen to be able to take advantage of arbitrage scenarios.
What would society gain by obfuscated pricing? Assuming the goal is to benefit all of society, and not certain individuals who happen to be able to take advantage of arbitrage scenarios.
If you list three levels, you end up with [i] a lot more applications to sift through especially at the extreme end of the spectrum (which might be an advantage sometimes, but often isn't) and [ii] otherwise perfectly hire-able people applying to the wrong bracket or anchoring their expectations to the top end of a bracket they're actually not at the top end of. Worse still, your existing employees see top ends of ranges too.
You also create the impression of massive growth (or team turnover) when actually you only want the one engineer.
You also create the impression of massive growth (or team turnover) when actually you only want the one engineer.
You only list one position, with 3 different bands, but ofc we know nobody is gonna read that part.
It doesn't really matter. Particularly if you are looking for (actually) senior people with specific experience, unless you are very careful with postings you will end up with an avalanche of inappropriate submissions. Either someone has to wade through them, or you use a terrible filter that everyone hates.
You’d only list 3 levels if you’re actually intending to hire 3 different people, each at 1 of those levels.
Because then somebody applies for the top band, the company says they're slotted in the bottom band, and they've effectively recreated the situation as it stands before Colorado's worthless regulation, since they now have some 80k - 200k range which is effectively useless information.
Doesn't this happen already? In fact, that's how I got my current job, I applied for tech lead and they gave me an offer for senior and I took it.
The difference being I know the salary ranges of the bands before I apply and talk to HR
The idea is they have 3 ranges for 3 experience levels for 1 position, not a 80-200k range
The difference being I know the salary ranges of the bands before I apply and talk to HR
The idea is they have 3 ranges for 3 experience levels for 1 position, not a 80-200k range
It absolutely happens today, except today people in Colorado can also apply for remote jobs. It's an example of government trying to regulate and failing to solve the problem while only creating new ones.
It's expected/appreciated that applicants should put in the effort to tailor their resumes and cover letters for each job posting they apply. So why are companies taking the lazy route?
A single job posting shouldn't aim for all levels of devs. There should be separate postings for each level with specific requirements/expectations and a salary range to go with it.
Bigger companies do/should know how many devs they need for each level. Smaller companies would benefit from being more organized too.
A single job posting shouldn't aim for all levels of devs. There should be separate postings for each level with specific requirements/expectations and a salary range to go with it.
Bigger companies do/should know how many devs they need for each level. Smaller companies would benefit from being more organized too.
Couldn't they just advertise multiple positions with different ranges? I don't really see the issue with them having to do that if it is just a matter of tweaking how many years of experience they list as required on each one along with the salary band for that level of experience.
I'd also be ok with a minimum rather than a band, which means that they wouldn't be scaring away a best of the best type candidate by setting the ceiling too low.
I'd also be ok with a minimum rather than a band, which means that they wouldn't be scaring away a best of the best type candidate by setting the ceiling too low.
These might be good workarounds, but they all assume that employers have some incentive to look for a workaround. This may be true for highly paid roles that are hard to fill, but for more competitive roles, they'll just skip CO entirely and avoid any risk. SO it'll be lower paid workers that suffer as a result of this regulation, as usual.
I find it very difficult to believe that an employer that would be happy to fill a certain position at $80k would also be willing to fill that same position at $180k.
I am actively interviewing someone with 4 years and someone with 20 years of experience for the same role. Our needs are quite specific but it is not our first or last hire in that area; as long as someone can fill them we are willing to be flexible about to what extent this particular hire fills our overall need and will adjust accordingly down the line.
Given the stage of my company, our hiring plan, and the fact we hire remote across the US, we absolutely could have a role with a salary range of $80k or more.
Given the stage of my company, our hiring plan, and the fact we hire remote across the US, we absolutely could have a role with a salary range of $80k or more.
Did you happen to see the part where I explained that a company could hire someone at a relatively junior, mid-level or senior opening- in an extremely competitive market for software developers? Like, let's say you're X Startup, you desperately need a Golang developer, not having another good Golang developer on your team is costing you Y amounts of money per month, and you just can't find one in your preferred experience range. Do you A) do nothing and just continue to lose money each month for lack of a good developer, or B) hire someone who knows Golang, regardless of whether they're more junior or more senior than you were hoping? Does that kinda make sense?
I understand that some companies might want to do this, but it’s explicitly not giving clear salary ranges for certain positions. It’s basically saying “we will pay you whatever, based on what we determine you are worth,” which is precisely the status quo that transparent salary advocates want to change.
I know this is a bit of a loaded term, and I'm trying to use this in a non-political/nonpartisan context here- but isn't paying people based on rigid salary bands a bit, uh, Communistic? Like yes the company should pay you, an individual, based on what they're worth- if someone has 3 years of experience but they're better than someone with 10 years, shouldn't they be paid more? I thought tech culture was about individualism.
You know who definitely has preset salary ranges for years of experience and isn't paying based on individual ability? The government & heavily unionized jobs. Seniority Trumps Everything there. I dunno, is that the world we want? I thought tech was philosophically opposed to that kind of mediocrity?
You know who definitely has preset salary ranges for years of experience and isn't paying based on individual ability? The government & heavily unionized jobs. Seniority Trumps Everything there. I dunno, is that the world we want? I thought tech was philosophically opposed to that kind of mediocrity?
As a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this).
Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. Consulting companies Accenture, PwC, Deloitte are doing that one.
A few companies are completely rejecting this whole law too. I've spoken with a few that still won't disclose (usually "We aren't CO based and it doesn't apply") or they just straight up aren't doing it with no comment. Experienced many recruiters completely flustered by it.
Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing. Consulting companies Accenture, PwC, Deloitte are doing that one.
A few companies are completely rejecting this whole law too. I've spoken with a few that still won't disclose (usually "We aren't CO based and it doesn't apply") or they just straight up aren't doing it with no comment. Experienced many recruiters completely flustered by it.
> Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing.
This feels like a losing strategy as other employers will be posting tighter ranges which will get more applications. Especially if the lower bounds is too low. Hopefully this sorts itself out.
This feels like a losing strategy as other employers will be posting tighter ranges which will get more applications. Especially if the lower bounds is too low. Hopefully this sorts itself out.
A higher upper limit encourages more applications because people see the company has room to grow.
A lower floor encourages more people to accept mid-range offers because nobody likes getting an offer in the middle of the range.
If someone gets an $80K offer for a job with a $40K-$250K range, they are happy to be paid twice as much as what they assume entry-level employees get, and they’re happy because they think they can grow into the $250K range if they work hard enough.
However if someone receives the same $80K offer on a listing with an $80K to $110K range, they’re going to be upset that they were given the lowest possible value and also concerned that there isn’t much room to grow.
In our case, we have a wide salary range because we hire everywhere from juniors without college degrees up through ex-FAANG employees. We don’t set out with an exact compensation or seniority in mind when we start recruiting.
A lower floor encourages more people to accept mid-range offers because nobody likes getting an offer in the middle of the range.
If someone gets an $80K offer for a job with a $40K-$250K range, they are happy to be paid twice as much as what they assume entry-level employees get, and they’re happy because they think they can grow into the $250K range if they work hard enough.
However if someone receives the same $80K offer on a listing with an $80K to $110K range, they’re going to be upset that they were given the lowest possible value and also concerned that there isn’t much room to grow.
In our case, we have a wide salary range because we hire everywhere from juniors without college degrees up through ex-FAANG employees. We don’t set out with an exact compensation or seniority in mind when we start recruiting.
The ones that post wider ranges will still benefit from the power imbalance.
Many people looking for jobs don't have the means to be choosy, and many companies aren't looking for the best of the best, they just need people.
Many people looking for jobs don't have the means to be choosy, and many companies aren't looking for the best of the best, they just need people.
Data about how those job posts perform with large vs small ranges would be helpful in dissuading smaller companies from doing it. I think larger companies are going to do it regardless though.
A lot of the problem is what the job pays is highly dependent on who is chosen for the role, especially for those catch all job postings that are just Software Engineer -- All Levels.
So it genuinely could be anywhere between 40-250K.
So it genuinely could be anywhere between 40-250K.
The law only requires a minimum for the specific title. So it does fail if a company is just looking generically and they don't wish to follow the law in spirit by listing the minimums per level. And once you are in discussion and land at a level the recruiter is essentially obligated to tell you, so it's not just job listings.
That's either a defect in the law or it's HR people thinking they're more clever than the legal system and violating the rule in a spirit which a court could easily find actionable.
The law also requires that Colorado employees be informed of all promotional opportunities. A promotional opportunity is "a vacancy in an existing or new position that could be considered a promotion for one or more employees in terms of compensation, benefits, status, duties, or access to further advancement."
If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employee in CO that requires special treatment.
If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employee in CO that requires special treatment.
>If a company doesn't already have Colorado employees, they may not be interested in having a remote employee in CO that requires special treatment.
Generalize even further. If the company doesn't already have employees in <different regulatory jurisdiction> then they won't incur the cost of compliance in <different regulatory jurisdiction> all else being equal.
If CO had very cheap labor it would pencil out and they'd gladly jump through the hoops to comply. But CO doesn't have particularly cheap labor for the kinds of jobs in question.
Heck, my company wanted to hire a specific expert in a specific field. They were willing to pay the moon but but still almost didn't do it because of the compliance headache from having international employees. They hired a 3rd party intermediary to hire this person.
Generalize even further. If the company doesn't already have employees in <different regulatory jurisdiction> then they won't incur the cost of compliance in <different regulatory jurisdiction> all else being equal.
If CO had very cheap labor it would pencil out and they'd gladly jump through the hoops to comply. But CO doesn't have particularly cheap labor for the kinds of jobs in question.
Heck, my company wanted to hire a specific expert in a specific field. They were willing to pay the moon but but still almost didn't do it because of the compliance headache from having international employees. They hired a 3rd party intermediary to hire this person.
Any company over 1 billion in market cap probably already does this. Every company I've worked for has (mid sized to fortune 10). HR has to justify their existence by actually doing work.
It's also in the company's interest to provide advancement opportunities internally, otherwise your employees just leave. In this case the regulations are in line with the incentives.
It's also in the company's interest to provide advancement opportunities internally, otherwise your employees just leave. In this case the regulations are in line with the incentives.
True, but the most of the examples people found are of companies that already have Colorado employees.
Right, but this applies to job postings. Current employees don’t require any additional work as they’re already hired.
Here's the act, it looks like it does have some additional requirements for companies with CO employees: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085
If remote work sticks around (I think it will), it will be interesting to see how employers handle the additional burden of having employees in dozens or even hundreds of jurisdictions. I don't think it's insurmountable, but it's certainly something many companies have not had to deal with before.
If remote work sticks around (I think it will), it will be interesting to see how employers handle the additional burden of having employees in dozens or even hundreds of jurisdictions. I don't think it's insurmountable, but it's certainly something many companies have not had to deal with before.
The same way they deal with the asinine US sales taxes or how international companies deal with hiring internationally.
They'll outsource it to companies that look after it for them. This is the "resources" bit of "human resources".
In the meantime, maybe the actual HR people could get back to being "people and culture" managers and stop thinking of staff as "resources".
They'll outsource it to companies that look after it for them. This is the "resources" bit of "human resources".
In the meantime, maybe the actual HR people could get back to being "people and culture" managers and stop thinking of staff as "resources".
There are companies that automate a lot of this, specifically to support remote-first companies.
...
Who says the CO remote employee requires special treatment? That would be a terrible leadership decision. The easy and obvious approach would be to treat all employees under the CO standard. It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally. Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally. I have a hard time believing most companies aren’t already doing this with the exception maybe of retail/labor-intensive positions where employees aren’t regularly using a computer. Certainly most companies hiring remote workers would be though.
Context: startup, 50ish employees.
We don't necessarily want to advertise all open positions to an internal selection process, particularly more senior managers.
The record keeping requirements in CO are concerning, particularly job description records. In particular, we don't yet have a full time HR person (there is a dedicated person, but that person has other job duties).
There's 49 other states.
edit: one more reason. We had a failing exec. Not enough to merit immediate firing, but failing enough that it was clear he or she was not going to last through the next round. We needed that person to continue doing a mildly-failing job while we found a replacement, due to lack of another person who could take on those responsibilities.
Not sure how you manage something like that with an internal hiring announcement.
We don't necessarily want to advertise all open positions to an internal selection process, particularly more senior managers.
The record keeping requirements in CO are concerning, particularly job description records. In particular, we don't yet have a full time HR person (there is a dedicated person, but that person has other job duties).
There's 49 other states.
edit: one more reason. We had a failing exec. Not enough to merit immediate firing, but failing enough that it was clear he or she was not going to last through the next round. We needed that person to continue doing a mildly-failing job while we found a replacement, due to lack of another person who could take on those responsibilities.
Not sure how you manage something like that with an internal hiring announcement.
Yeah, I don't quite get the rub here. The corporations I've worked for always post jobs internally first and normally they email the entire org with open positions. In general I've found most corporations want to hire internally since it's cheaper overall.
I think it depends on the company.
In a past organization a friend was HR at, there were branch office jobs and corporate jobs. Officially you could get promoted to the corporate office. Unofficially, don't bother as they optimized for different things for each hiring pool.
So they tried to keep the corporate jobs only available to the corporate people as otherwise the branch people would get excited and then end up having their dreams dashed from repeatedly applying and having their resumes chucked while an external hire filled their job.
In a past organization a friend was HR at, there were branch office jobs and corporate jobs. Officially you could get promoted to the corporate office. Unofficially, don't bother as they optimized for different things for each hiring pool.
So they tried to keep the corporate jobs only available to the corporate people as otherwise the branch people would get excited and then end up having their dreams dashed from repeatedly applying and having their resumes chucked while an external hire filled their job.
Yeah, you especially don't want to proactively push out a bunch of job postings to people who have exactly zero chance of landing the position because the decision has already been made.
That too.
Plenty of job postings exist merely for compliance. So all you are doing is wasting a lot of time.
Plenty of job postings exist merely for compliance. So all you are doing is wasting a lot of time.
The worst is when the hiring managers have to go thru with interviewing N people who applied to comply with policy.
Many organizations just aren’t structured that way. I had a coworker who worked alone on what was a small project, gradually transitioning to a technical leadership role over the project as it got larger, until eventually he became the manager of the team that owns it. So he got a promotion opportunity, but there was never an opening as such; it would be pretty unfair for the company to open up applications for anyone to come in and take his project away.
I don't know how HR departments typically deal with this sort of thing. There's an obvious downside to posting a bunch of job openings that have effectively already been filled. The same applies to outside hires that effectively have had positions created for them (and job descriptions written with them in mind).
We have something like 15,000 employees and 20 some odd brand companies that operate largely independently. There is no reasonable way for us to wrangle every single opening into a single process to comply with a CO law (times all the other jurisdictions who’d like to put their own thumbprint on it).
I would always rather take a qualified internal candidate rather than spend months to land someone outside. So, I do shop jobs internally now, but Even without reading the CO law, I’m pretty sure I’m not fully complying with it if I had an employee in CO.
I would always rather take a qualified internal candidate rather than spend months to land someone outside. So, I do shop jobs internally now, but Even without reading the CO law, I’m pretty sure I’m not fully complying with it if I had an employee in CO.
At that size, I imagine you're already operating across several states, and HR already has processes in place to deal with differing regulatory requirements. Adding the latest CO rules to these processes isn't all that onerous in the overall scheme of things. It's not like "post a minimum salary" and "post listings internally" are crazy or complicated ideas.
I can't see why the number of employees or companies complicates this. I work for an enterprise with over 60,000 employees and they have decided to apply the Colorado standard to all job openings.
Editing This was poor word choice in the morning; I should say I can clearly see how the size or scope of a company could complicate this. I just don't have any sympathy for them; you adapt your processes to match the desired state.
Editing This was poor word choice in the morning; I should say I can clearly see how the size or scope of a company could complicate this. I just don't have any sympathy for them; you adapt your processes to match the desired state.
>Or even sending a firm-wide email when a new position is posted externally.
Please. No more emails.
>It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally.
One of the problems that happens (today) with this is that companies decide to hire someone external for a position essentially created for them. So they may create a job posting as a formality. But it's effectively a fake posting. No one else actually has a shot at an interview, much less getting the position.
Please. No more emails.
>It’s as simple as posting all open positions internally.
One of the problems that happens (today) with this is that companies decide to hire someone external for a position essentially created for them. So they may create a job posting as a formality. But it's effectively a fake posting. No one else actually has a shot at an interview, much less getting the position.
Ah the CEO's golfing buddy's son or daughter.
Don't try this in Northern Ireland btw. I know of US mangers getting into some serious hot water over not advertising the job in Catholic and Protestant publications.
Don't try this in Northern Ireland btw. I know of US mangers getting into some serious hot water over not advertising the job in Catholic and Protestant publications.
Or just someone senior people have worked with before in some capacity. I had a job description written for me in my current US role.
Hey -- opened your profile because I was curious. If you're working on a company and interested in chatting, email in my profile.
Wow. I could see companies excluding CO just due to the regulatory burden alone, even if they agree with the spirit of the law.
I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?
I mean why create new HR processes when you have 49 other states to hire from?
My curent company shares an email about open promotional opportunities every 6 months. I am continously amazon how on hackernews expecting basic decensy from corporates is a 'terrible burden'
Excuse me. You're not expecting, quote, "basic decency." You are expecting compliance with a specific regulatory framework. One of these requires a soul, the other requires lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping.
By that view, does anyone expect "basic decency"?
For example, I could say that I expect "basic decency" to not kill each other. But I also support having a law making murder illegal. As part of that law, you have the possibility of people being jailed, possible for months are years, before we even get to a court case. They may be able to pay a large fee to get back to their daily life (while part of the money is sometimes returned, there are plenty exceptions to this). Then you get to the court case, where people are expected to spend days in courts and small fortunes on lawyers to prove they didn't murder someone. Lots and lots of lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping, not to mention the costs to an innocent individual wrongly accused. Good luck getting any payments to make up the debt you incurred.
Yet as a society we accept that we have to do things the legal way because just the expectation alone does nothing to stop bad people. As such the concept of "basic decency" is completely gone from the modern world, so I think it is safe to give it a new definition which includes the enforcement of a legal framework.
For example, I could say that I expect "basic decency" to not kill each other. But I also support having a law making murder illegal. As part of that law, you have the possibility of people being jailed, possible for months are years, before we even get to a court case. They may be able to pay a large fee to get back to their daily life (while part of the money is sometimes returned, there are plenty exceptions to this). Then you get to the court case, where people are expected to spend days in courts and small fortunes on lawyers to prove they didn't murder someone. Lots and lots of lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping, not to mention the costs to an innocent individual wrongly accused. Good luck getting any payments to make up the debt you incurred.
Yet as a society we accept that we have to do things the legal way because just the expectation alone does nothing to stop bad people. As such the concept of "basic decency" is completely gone from the modern world, so I think it is safe to give it a new definition which includes the enforcement of a legal framework.
The is nothing profitable a corporate bureaucracy won't do out of 'basic decency'
Before we had 'spesific regulatory framework' companies enslaved people, exploited children, commercialised rape and commited serial murder to break up unions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Before we had 'spesific regulatory framework' companies enslaved people, exploited children, commercialised rape and commited serial murder to break up unions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
I am having trouble reconciling your assertions, in which you seem to think HN should expect "basic decency" from corporations while simultaneously asserting that "'basic decency'" has never actually served as a meaningful barrier. It seems to me that the later statement rather undermines the original.
Maybe "basic decency" is a very bad phrase to describe things here, and we should just leave it out. It's probably useful as invective, and if one is already predisposed to sympathize with the point, can galvanize one to action, but it serves poorly as a tool to actually communicate.
I propose that if we avoid it, we can talk meaningfully about how the company finds it more convenient to avoid business than comply with regulatory burdens without the distraction of moralizing the matter, and draw conclusions about whether the passage of the law was wise under these particular circumstances, or what circumstances or structure might have made it better, and the like.
Perhaps your vintage-1921 blue-collar labor dispute is more of a distraction than a help, as well :)
Maybe "basic decency" is a very bad phrase to describe things here, and we should just leave it out. It's probably useful as invective, and if one is already predisposed to sympathize with the point, can galvanize one to action, but it serves poorly as a tool to actually communicate.
I propose that if we avoid it, we can talk meaningfully about how the company finds it more convenient to avoid business than comply with regulatory burdens without the distraction of moralizing the matter, and draw conclusions about whether the passage of the law was wise under these particular circumstances, or what circumstances or structure might have made it better, and the like.
Perhaps your vintage-1921 blue-collar labor dispute is more of a distraction than a help, as well :)
Since companies lack souls, the only way to get them to behave with decency is lawyers and paperwork and record-keeping.
Is 6 months enough? Can't spots get filled between that time?
6 months is not compliant. Employees have to be made aware of the posting on the same calendar day the job is posted. For jobs that are in constant demand, the company has to either send a daily email or have some kind of banner on its corporate intranet.
There is also no geographic restriction so if a company has any offshore service centers, it would need to post any promotional jobs to its Colorado employees as well.
There is also no geographic restriction so if a company has any offshore service centers, it would need to post any promotional jobs to its Colorado employees as well.
Amazing, they have to notify about jobs in Thailand to Colorado employees?
Love it.
Love it.
Why not? When I worked at BT they did - a nice one or two year posting abroad on full ride expat status looks good on the CV.
BT has operations in Thailand?
All over the world, this was in Kuala Lumpur I did some rereading up on the country and decided to pass, I would have had to cut my hair short for one.
One of my co-workers did this but his asthma could not stand the humidity and he had to come back.
One of my co-workers did this but his asthma could not stand the humidity and he had to come back.
We're talking about a spreadsheet that is posted to an intranet. If someone in Colorado wants to apply for a Thailand based job and is willing to relocate for the position, then why shouldn't they know about it.
Of course, Thai employers can still discriminate on the basis of gender, sex, religion and a bunch of other things that Colorado employers can't.
And any company operating in Thailand has a local Thai company established, which would be the actual employer for the local employees. So the Colorado law would not apply.
Of course, Thai employers can still discriminate on the basis of gender, sex, religion and a bunch of other things that Colorado employers can't.
And any company operating in Thailand has a local Thai company established, which would be the actual employer for the local employees. So the Colorado law would not apply.
Our promotions happen every 6 months, so position appear and are filled on that cycle.
There is also an internal jobs portal where you can search whatever you want
There is also an internal jobs portal where you can search whatever you want
I am amazed that people do not understand that difference between Voluntary Action and Mandatory / Regulatory Burden.
A Company could 100% already being doing everything to be in compliance with a regulation and still oppose the regulation, and take actions to ensure they are bound by that regulation
A Company could 100% already being doing everything to be in compliance with a regulation and still oppose the regulation, and take actions to ensure they are bound by that regulation
Granted. But which of the following happens more often?
A) Companies oppose regulation because of filing and compliance costs, despite already doing the required behavior
B) Companies oppose regulation because they don't want to have a requirement to do and maintain the behavior
It feels like really we're talking about (B) as a primary motivator, and (A) is a smoke screen for PR palatability.
A) Companies oppose regulation because of filing and compliance costs, despite already doing the required behavior
B) Companies oppose regulation because they don't want to have a requirement to do and maintain the behavior
It feels like really we're talking about (B) as a primary motivator, and (A) is a smoke screen for PR palatability.
Don't forget about C: companies that propose regulations because they know they can handle them and competitors cannot.
Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it.
This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but isn't.
Big companies will have no problem with these regulations. However small and medium sized companies need a bunch more busy work that needs to be done and so will avoid it.
This last is hard to measure - regulations have a cost in this form but it is hard to figure out what would have been done but isn't.
A huge point!
IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).
IMHO, the US should have much more "larger than X" laws (and clauses that enfold organized subcontractors working for larger corporations).
Beware of the unintended consequences of those laws (I have no idea what they are, but beware)
On of the consequences of those provisions is often either
1. Companies do weird divisions to keep under the limits
2. Companies are artificially restricted in their growth as they need to add employees but are unable to, for example if the cut of was 50 employees, adding the 49th employee is easy, adding the 50th employee is $$$$$ thus it will not happen, this would mean few companies grow to 50, rather you would see several 50+ employee companies merge as the cost burden for the new 100 employee company would spread over all 100 employees, vs the regulatory cost being hit with the single employee add
1. Companies do weird divisions to keep under the limits
2. Companies are artificially restricted in their growth as they need to add employees but are unable to, for example if the cut of was 50 employees, adding the 49th employee is easy, adding the 50th employee is $$$$$ thus it will not happen, this would mean few companies grow to 50, rather you would see several 50+ employee companies merge as the cost burden for the new 100 employee company would spread over all 100 employees, vs the regulatory cost being hit with the single employee add
Of course B primary motivator and I do not see that as a bad thing
I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you
As a culture have we so lost the respect for freedom and liberty that is now bad if you want to have said freedom?
I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you
As a culture have we so lost the respect for freedom and liberty that is now bad if you want to have said freedom?
>I am not sure why you think anyone or any company would DESIRE to have external actors imposes requirements on their actions or why it would be unpalatable to say you do not want to have regulatory burdens imposes on you
Of course they desire to have external actors impose requirements on their own actions and other people's actions and other companies' actions. Just so long as they think those requirements benefit their bottom lines.
Ever hear of the business lobby opposing union-busting laws on the basis that they create regulatory burden?
Of course they desire to have external actors impose requirements on their own actions and other people's actions and other companies' actions. Just so long as they think those requirements benefit their bottom lines.
Ever hear of the business lobby opposing union-busting laws on the basis that they create regulatory burden?
union "busting" laws generally speaking are about REMOVING regulations around who is required by law to negotiate with and/or join a union. So these laws by definition are not imposing any regulatory burden on anyone they are removing regulatory burdens
Freedom and liberty to discriminate is a slippery freedom. For whom? When?
In a choice between maximizing efficiency for good actors, and curtailing behavior by bad actors, I tend to weight the latter.
In a choice between maximizing efficiency for good actors, and curtailing behavior by bad actors, I tend to weight the latter.
Only as long as Colorado is the only state with this law. If California or New York adopts it, employers will probably just accept it nationwide.
"This offer only valid in the former Confederate states, where they know how to treat labor."
Though it does seem like the promotion opportunity is one that any sane company will want to have anyway. It takes some time to learn the companies internal systems, and promoting from within saves a lot of that time.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Apparently now it's a "burden" to do the ethical thing because one state requires it even though you should be doing it anyway.
I'm actually not a fan of this law. My first salary position was for job which advertised a range of something like 80 to 90k a year. The highest I had made previously was $10 an hour, the CEO of the company was a nice guy who brought me in for an interview anyway.
I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these ideas sound great on paper, but in reality you've completely eliminated any room to negotiate salaries downward in case an applicant isn't all that experienced.
I imagine what's going to happen is you'll see companies become much stricter with documentable requirements. Such as a bachelor's degree, which I also lacked back then. Saying please I need a job, I'll take 50% less since I don't have a bachelor's will open up companies to lawsuits
I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k. With laws like this in play I'm not sure if that would still be legal. A lot of these ideas sound great on paper, but in reality you've completely eliminated any room to negotiate salaries downward in case an applicant isn't all that experienced.
I imagine what's going to happen is you'll see companies become much stricter with documentable requirements. Such as a bachelor's degree, which I also lacked back then. Saying please I need a job, I'll take 50% less since I don't have a bachelor's will open up companies to lawsuits
Does this law say that you cant offer someone below the salary posted in the job? I thought it was just a referance point more than anything.
I'd imagine companies wouldn't want to do that, because you could come up with an argument that you're being discriminated against.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
You could always hire the person for a different role. Say its a SE position in the company but then the person doesn't meet the requirements. The company can offer a jr position.
Especially in your situation it would make sense to have a separate title at the start.
Especially in your situation it would make sense to have a separate title at the start.
The company is free to offer you a different job with the lower salary: that is, nothing requires a person to be offered the job to which they applied.
This law is about ending pay disparity for two people doing the same work. This is not what you are describing. In your scenario a new title could simply be created more appropriate for the experience/skill. That would then establish what is appropriate pay for that skill/experience level for future candidates.
The act allows exceptions to the prohibition against a wage differential based on sex if the employer demonstrates that a wage differential is not based on wage rate history and is based upon one or more of the following factors, so long as the employer applies the factors reasonably and they account for the entire wage rate differential:
- A seniority system;
- A merit system;
- A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
- The geographic location where the work is performed;
- Education, training, or experience to the extent that they are reasonably related to the work in question; or
- Travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the work performed.
The things you listed, like taking the job for less because you lack the relevant education are actual exceptions written into the law.
- A seniority system;
- A merit system;
- A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
- The geographic location where the work is performed;
- Education, training, or experience to the extent that they are reasonably related to the work in question; or
- Travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the work performed.
The things you listed, like taking the job for less because you lack the relevant education are actual exceptions written into the law.
> I took an offer at 40K or so, and within 3 years I was at 100k.
These are not the same jobs. You took a junior position and in 3 years were promoted once, or maybe twice, into more senior position(s).
These are not the same jobs. You took a junior position and in 3 years were promoted once, or maybe twice, into more senior position(s).
>These are not the same jobs. You took a junior position and in 3 years were promoted once, or maybe twice, into more senior position(s).
Nope, I switched to a new company. You can't really expect a company to take care of you
Nope, I switched to a new company. You can't really expect a company to take care of you
I remember when NY/NJ came out with law preventing employers asking your previous wages (they used to ask for W2!!!). People were saying, oh, employers just won't hire in NY/NJ anymore! Guess what, job market is still hot as the sun and salary range went up across all my job searches and I don't have to deal with bullshit recruiters trying to play with comps.
Are the labor markets in New York and New Jersey substantially similar to the labor markets in Colorado?
(And should we expect the specific regulations in NY/NJ (forbidding certain questions) and those in Colorado (requiring disclosure of information, and, requiring certain notifications of existing employees) to have the same effect?)
(And should we expect the specific regulations in NY/NJ (forbidding certain questions) and those in Colorado (requiring disclosure of information, and, requiring certain notifications of existing employees) to have the same effect?)
In terms of overall job market, no idea. In technology, I would imagine yes. I work in NYC, every job except capital market type I got reached out by recruiters have CO listed.
As a small business owner and someone who is currently hiring for remote positions, I will say the CO law will not in any way dissuade me from considering candidates from CO.
Every jurisdiction has laws and compliance regulations specific to that jurisdiction. These requirements seem in no way onerous or out of line to me.
I think the companies that will avoid CO applicants for jobs will be doing so because they want to avoid the wage transparency more than they want to avoid the regulatory burden.
Every jurisdiction has laws and compliance regulations specific to that jurisdiction. These requirements seem in no way onerous or out of line to me.
I think the companies that will avoid CO applicants for jobs will be doing so because they want to avoid the wage transparency more than they want to avoid the regulatory burden.
How does that even work?
Do they actually check that the data is real?
Do they actually check that the data is real?
How does what work? Asking for previous salary? I've been asked to provide W2s to prove my salary prior to the law. You can probably fake W2s but I just think that's too much work for 99.9% of job applicants.
> You can probably fake W2s but I just think that's too much work for 99.9% of job applicants.
That was my question too.
That was my question too.
So it' s basically a corporate boycott against labor laws favorable to employees?!
I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s
I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s
> favorable to employees
Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.
Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.
It worked for CEOs. Their salaries were disclosed due to a new law, and their salaries skyrocketed.
Competition is good, not bad.
Competition is good, not bad.
Can things that happen to CEOs be extrapolated and applied successfully to regular workers?
Companies already buy salary information from brokers. So they already know what the competition is paying and generally try to keep in line with that. And that's pretty much a type of collusion. If everyone seeks to pay "market rates" based on these salary reports, then everyone will aim to pay about the same amount.
Companies already buy salary information from brokers. So they already know what the competition is paying and generally try to keep in line with that. And that's pretty much a type of collusion. If everyone seeks to pay "market rates" based on these salary reports, then everyone will aim to pay about the same amount.
Competition is fairer, not so much good nor bad.
but fairer is considered better, all things being equal.
Fairness is an objective good to most people.
I would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.
The alternative also has a name: The "Tyranny of the Majority".
Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?
Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?
I would in the abstract.
But then in the specific I would also tend to support policies that are good for me, even to the detriment of others.
And since I'm a member of many majority classes... well, there you have my point.
But then in the specific I would also tend to support policies that are good for me, even to the detriment of others.
And since I'm a member of many majority classes... well, there you have my point.
That stance is also known as, "Fuck you, I've got mine."
I personally, despite also being in a number of majority classes, prefer to avoid being an asshole because of an accident of birth.
I personally, despite also being in a number of majority classes, prefer to avoid being an asshole because of an accident of birth.
Be that as it may in your case, are you arguing that most people will act contrary to their own best interests?
That seems a shaky foundation to build policy on.
That seems a shaky foundation to build policy on.
[deleted]
That depends on how 'fairness' is defined. Your definition of fairness appears to exclude a set of concepts which you see as unfair.
It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".
It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".
I would define fairness as equality of opportunity, for every person.
Hence the previous comment's tautology that fairness will not be an objective good for most people, because (a) most people prefer their own self interest, (b) the status quo provides majorities advantages that minorities do not share, and (c) objective fairness will thus come at the expense of the majority (who are by definition more numerous than the minority).
It's interesting most people are interpreting my comment as a preference, vs an observation.
Hence the previous comment's tautology that fairness will not be an objective good for most people, because (a) most people prefer their own self interest, (b) the status quo provides majorities advantages that minorities do not share, and (c) objective fairness will thus come at the expense of the majority (who are by definition more numerous than the minority).
It's interesting most people are interpreting my comment as a preference, vs an observation.
If wages were going to be driven down by this then corporations would not only be all for it, but would probably lobby to make it a law everywhere.
Corporations (at least mid-size and large corporations) already have a pretty good idea of what their competition is offering.
There are companies that survey employees for salary information, collect all that knowledge, and then sell it to corporations.
Medium and large businesses already have a very good understanding of the job market and what a competitive salary range is.
There are companies that survey employees for salary information, collect all that knowledge, and then sell it to corporations.
Medium and large businesses already have a very good understanding of the job market and what a competitive salary range is.
Exactly, the problem is that they keep lowballing it because these ranges are somewhat not so much public knowledge
Good luck in a competitive field like tech.
Companies might not advertise salary ranges at a few big tech companies, but the vast majority of recruiters tell you the salary range as soon as you talk to them (or you name your price and they say "that will work"). I already totally ignore the bottom 75% of salaries.
The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals, and there are always new opportunities for them. If you pay enough, you benefit from them. If you don't, somebody else does, or worse, they become new competition.
Companies might not advertise salary ranges at a few big tech companies, but the vast majority of recruiters tell you the salary range as soon as you talk to them (or you name your price and they say "that will work"). I already totally ignore the bottom 75% of salaries.
The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals, and there are always new opportunities for them. If you pay enough, you benefit from them. If you don't, somebody else does, or worse, they become new competition.
>The problem tech companies have is that many of them can be disrupted by a few motivated individuals
I'm convinced a primary motivation for hiring in mega-tech companies is to keep people from making startups to dethrone them. You can't legally compete with Google, etc if you've signed a non-compete.
I'm convinced a primary motivation for hiring in mega-tech companies is to keep people from making startups to dethrone them. You can't legally compete with Google, etc if you've signed a non-compete.
Non-competes are unenforceable in a lot of places. And even if they weren't, the time scales for a startup to evolve into a serious market mover is longer than most non-compete contracts last anyway.
A founder of a now-popular startup worked for Google eight years ago, so what? Let's say Google remembers and decides to pursue action. They'd spend another 3-4 years suing a person who has a mountain of plausible deniability to hide behind. And for what? There's no real gain to Google for this.
A founder of a now-popular startup worked for Google eight years ago, so what? Let's say Google remembers and decides to pursue action. They'd spend another 3-4 years suing a person who has a mountain of plausible deniability to hide behind. And for what? There's no real gain to Google for this.
The point is they go to and stay at Google instead of starting their own company.
You can once you leave - just don't take the piss like the self driving car idiot did.
more like they bribe potentially competent founders with a high salary and “perks”, which effectively raises the opportunity cost of making a competing startup.
in this hypothesis most people working for google are actually not needed, but employed there primarily to waste their time
in this hypothesis most people working for google are actually not needed, but employed there primarily to waste their time
Then said remote employees could go work for companies in other states. Or the companies that are actually willing to pay above the market because they need the talent. Which will cause more people to pay and that level and then eventually we are in the same situation we are in now where swe salaries are very strong in general.
This already happens. If you look at most job postings, many will say "market value," for the salary. They are typically horrendously low.
Cartels are illegal ask the companies in SV that got caught.
The existence of levels.fyi doesn't appear to have hurt Total Comp thus far.
This is quite common. Corporations know the long game and are willing to pay in the short term to get it. Another example is those grocery stores that closed last year after hazard pay was mandated at the height of the pandemic, citing unprofitability. Unprofitability! Of a grocery store, one of like three places where people were spending money in 2020!
Volume doesn’t matter if your margins are negative. Grocery stores typically run on very slim margins (3% or less) so it’s pretty reasonable to think that raising employee pay significantly would make them lose money.
Maybe I'm not thinking about this right, but if they are getting way more business because of the pandemic and their costs have more or less stayed put, it's practically impossible that their revenue hasn't gone up considerably. Despite thin margins on their product, if they sell more of it they should be making more money (eliding some growing pains which should be surmountable). In that light, I have to say I kind of doubt their margins would be negative if they offered more pay during the pandemic.
Surely, it’s easier to believe that than that some non-chain grocer is protesting paying more by shutting down entirely.
Would it be fair to say that the ones shutting down are not the ones receiving more business during the pandemic? Or are you saying that their new found success has actually killed them? Because the claim by the original comment here is that volume doesn't matter.
Well, I suspect they're saying volume increases are coupled with margin decreases to zero. Certainly I find it more believable that people are closing honestly because they can't make money rather than people are closing to protest hazard pay.
The latter seems unlikely. If the business is viable, the business owner is going to want to run it. It's his baby and his life, he won't kill it just because he disagrees politically.
The latter seems unlikely. If the business is viable, the business owner is going to want to run it. It's his baby and his life, he won't kill it just because he disagrees politically.
They didn't close all locations with the hazard pay increase. They closed a few locations that were already struggling to be profitable, and had now become even more unprofitable.
Yes, that's what they said. There is no way to verify that. Punishing certain communities by withdrawing service to scare off future such wage increases is another explanation.
What are you arguing happened instead? That they closed still-profitable stores just to send a message?
Absolutely. Corporations do things like this all the time. Amazon orders a crash-halt to office building construction projects whenever Seattle threatens to tax them, for example. As I said in my original comment - corporations can afford to play the long game and take the hit.
Why would they close profitable stores instead of unprofitable stores?
Not a boycott, it's perfectly explainable as just companies acting in self-interest.
A boycott is a more planned, deliberate thing and usually punitive (i.e. boycotting usually has a cost to the boycotter, but greater cost to the one being boycotted)
A boycott is a more planned, deliberate thing and usually punitive (i.e. boycotting usually has a cost to the boycotter, but greater cost to the one being boycotted)
Companies are using salary secrecy to benefit themselves and to lower salaries/competition/transparency. This is clear evidence.
Huh I didn’t realize that Colorado had passed this law. I was looking at various remote jobs the other day and kept seeing notes about the pay range for people if they worked in Colorado. The first time, I figured it must be a Colorado based company providing information on what they would normally pay for workers in the state, but I kept seeing it more and more.
I would hope this would work itself out. People (me at least) are more likely to apply to jobs that have the salary listed, so companies that try this would have a smaller pool of talent.
My favorite comment on that Reddit post is one where the guy says his company is on Digital Ocean and this news about how the company engages in antiworker practices is enough to push him into migrating to AWS.
I have no dog or pony in the show on either side but if I was writing a fiction story I wouldn't be able to include something like that because no one would believe that decision making...of that caliber...actually exists out in the wild.
I have no dog or pony in the show on either side but if I was writing a fiction story I wouldn't be able to include something like that because no one would believe that decision making...of that caliber...actually exists out in the wild.
My current employer migrated from AWS to GCP (Before my employment with them) because they don't like Jeff Bezos, things are sometimes... odd when dealing with very small businesses.
Insightful to see DigitalOcean as the example company here.
I have a couple of droplets that I use to play around with things. Part of this weekend will be spent moving to a different provider.
I was surprised. I wasn't expecting a major tech company who's website is plastered with things about "valuing diversity" to be one to pick a fight over a such a minor requirement in a gender equality law.
Most of this act seems pretty similar to what already exists in CA where employers are required to provide a salary range to applicants who ask and employers aren't allowed to ask candidates for salary history.
The "salary range in job posting" is new but, as others have noted, ranges cam be broad and based on experience.
The recent "no CO" disclaimers feel like a short-term reaction to uncertainty and they'll probably be phased out as companies/recruiters/HR providers verify their processes and policies are compliant.
The "salary range in job posting" is new but, as others have noted, ranges cam be broad and based on experience.
The recent "no CO" disclaimers feel like a short-term reaction to uncertainty and they'll probably be phased out as companies/recruiters/HR providers verify their processes and policies are compliant.
Yeah, I was looking for this reply in this thread and I'm shocked that it took this long to find it and that it's not upvoted to the top. CA has a similar law (and in fact I link it to every recruiter who tries to play coy about salary bands). The actual text of the CA law doesn't hold all that much teeth - but just linking the relevant legal code is helpful
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
"An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. For purposes of this section, “pay scale” means a salary or hourly wage range. For purposes of this section “reasonable request” means a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer."
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
"An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. For purposes of this section, “pay scale” means a salary or hourly wage range. For purposes of this section “reasonable request” means a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer."
Don't all companies have to share it for H1B listings anyway, as federal law, which legally are supposed to be commensurate with non-H1Bs (not that they necessarily are in practice)?
https://h1bdata.info/
https://h1bdata.info/
But these numbers can be very deceptive, since they don't include RSUs or bonuses. e.g. when you look at Amazon you won't see any salaries about $200k even though total compensation goes much higher than that.
Only companies that hire H1B have to do those filings, AFAIK. Lots of companies don't hire H1B because it's a lot of work.
I'm making PredictSalary (https://predictsalary.com). It's a tool to predict the salary ranges from job opportunities. I collect job opportunities with salaries and create a Deep Learning model. Right now, it only supports three job opportunities websites.
Soon I will create a tool to share the salaries. I'm inspired by the story below.
https://www.axios.com/salaries-game-developers-break-silence...
Soon I will create a tool to share the salaries. I'm inspired by the story below.
https://www.axios.com/salaries-game-developers-break-silence...
What is the likelihood someone in Colorado sues for discrimination? I think 100% at some point in the next 5 years.
You mean, sue an employer in another state who doesn't want to be subject to Colorado laws? Good luck with that. When CA passed AB5, lots of employers refused to hire people in CA because they didn't want to be subject to AB 5. This is how it works, employers choose whether the hassle of dealing with the state's regulations is worth the benefit of hiring employees in that state.
I think it's legal to discriminate based on geographic location.
It is. Afaict, protected classes and characteristics as of 2021 are:
Sex, race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy and childbirth (and related medical conditions), age (including mandatory retirement), disability (including requiring reasonable accommodation), black lung disease (mine operators), bankruptcy and bad debt, citizenship status, & genetic information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_la...
Sex, race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy and childbirth (and related medical conditions), age (including mandatory retirement), disability (including requiring reasonable accommodation), black lung disease (mine operators), bankruptcy and bad debt, citizenship status, & genetic information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_la...
>citizenship status
It's a little more complicated. The person needs to have the legal right to work in the country of course. And, if there are any legal restrictions related to e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens.
It's a little more complicated. The person needs to have the legal right to work in the country of course. And, if there are any legal restrictions related to e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens.
"e.g. Federal contracts such as defense contractors often have, a job may be restricted to US citizens."
While true, that seems like a rare occurrence. Most jobs I've seen just require US Persons (e.g. to work on space / defense technology) which includes permanent residents.
While true, that seems like a rare occurrence. Most jobs I've seen just require US Persons (e.g. to work on space / defense technology) which includes permanent residents.
So it's legal to discriminate people living in certain neighborhoods?
Requiring that employees live at within X minutes of the job site - likely legal.
Forbidding employees from certain locations as a proxy for a protected class - likely illegal.
An example: during the sales tax wars many companies would refuse to hire from a state that would could the employee as a tax nexus. This is mostly gone now as the sales tax fight seems mostly over.
Forbidding employees from certain locations as a proxy for a protected class - likely illegal.
An example: during the sales tax wars many companies would refuse to hire from a state that would could the employee as a tax nexus. This is mostly gone now as the sales tax fight seems mostly over.
Is it? Even outside of sales tax, it's additional accounting overhead to handle the withholding and filing for states you aren't in. No idea how much, I would imagine it's dependent on the systems in use, but the organizational incentives for allowing and enabling it are probably horribly misaligned for many companies.
It's a hassle but not an huge one, and any company that is in a population center that straddles a state border already deals with this (think New York, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis/St Paul) - once you can handle two states handling additional isn't that painful.
More importantly the COST associated is fixed per employee roughly - having an employee in another state doesn't usually change the amount of tax paid, etc - just who it's paid to.
This won't be entirely true, but it's close enough - and for companies with outsourced HR (think: ADP) it's even easier.
Any company big enough to have a significant number of employees that this applies to would be big enough to eat the cost (and probably already has offices/etc in multiple states as is).
More importantly the COST associated is fixed per employee roughly - having an employee in another state doesn't usually change the amount of tax paid, etc - just who it's paid to.
This won't be entirely true, but it's close enough - and for companies with outsourced HR (think: ADP) it's even easier.
Any company big enough to have a significant number of employees that this applies to would be big enough to eat the cost (and probably already has offices/etc in multiple states as is).
The thing you're looking for is the legal doctrine of "Disparate Impact."
Discrimination against a protected class (like race) is illegal. Geography is not a protected class, and discrimination based on geography is not inherently illegal. But under the doctrine of Disparate Impact, a particular policy of geographic exclusion is illegal if it happens to have outsized effect on a protected class (and has no business justification).
Note that Disparate Impact does not require intention!
Discrimination against a protected class (like race) is illegal. Geography is not a protected class, and discrimination based on geography is not inherently illegal. But under the doctrine of Disparate Impact, a particular policy of geographic exclusion is illegal if it happens to have outsized effect on a protected class (and has no business justification).
Note that Disparate Impact does not require intention!
It seems in some cases, yes. For instance many police and fire departments require you to live within X miles of the station. It also wouldn't seem odd if a company decided to exclude remote workers from places in which the company does not have a nexus, to avoid further complicating taxes.
Presumably that's legal, as long as there isn't a clear correlation between excluded neighborhoods and protected classes.
I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Why not? Neighbourhood is not a protected status like race, gender, national origin, age, disability, etc.
Except in America our neighborhoods are heavily influenced by race so I doubt you could legally ban against hiring from a neighborhood made up 90%+ African Americans.
Well, you wouldn't be sued because you banned hiring from the neighborhood. You would be sued for discriminating against a protected class under a paper thin veil of banning a location.
Not if the woke crowd gets their way. They got a guy fired from AAPL because they felt "unsafe" due to a book he wrote 6 years ago where he called some SF women useless in a zombie apocalypse.
Feeling "threatened" or "violated" by not being able to apply to a job seems just as reasonable.
Feeling "threatened" or "violated" by not being able to apply to a job seems just as reasonable.
this feels a little disingenuous. the dude is a public facing exec that said shitty stuff about women, working at a company that heavily signals it won’t be like that. it seems like a lower level employee with the same views wouldn’t write a book including them or be liable for those views.
context is important
context is important
> context is important
Funny you say that while clearly knowing nothing about the context of his comments!
Funny you say that while clearly knowing nothing about the context of his comments!
It shouldn't matter what his role is. Saying some off the cuff stuff a few years ago in an obscure book doesn't make a workplace unsafe. That is disingenuous.
I've seen people fired for similar "unsafe" bullshit. Literally anything can trigger these deranged individuals. They're just out to play victim and get attention.
And no, I don't think all toxic workplace behaviour is like this, many places have narcissists and similar types roaming the halls making things extremely traumatic for many people. That stuff is real and I feel for the people that get out through the ringer by these environments.
But a book? 6 years ago? In the context of a zombie apocalypse hypothetical? Get the fuck outa here.
I've seen people fired for similar "unsafe" bullshit. Literally anything can trigger these deranged individuals. They're just out to play victim and get attention.
And no, I don't think all toxic workplace behaviour is like this, many places have narcissists and similar types roaming the halls making things extremely traumatic for many people. That stuff is real and I feel for the people that get out through the ringer by these environments.
But a book? 6 years ago? In the context of a zombie apocalypse hypothetical? Get the fuck outa here.
Dude was hired as a senior exec. Part of the job description is being a public persona representing the company. And the majority of the public disagrees with him. What are we taught to do as engineers when we don't agree with the majority? Disagree and commit. What did he do? Throw a temper tantrum along the lines of "how come Dre gets to be sexist and I don't". Forget opinions, he screwed up a basic job requirement. It's OK, we all make mistakes, and his was big enough to get canned. Life goes on.
“ They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.”
so this is ok because he’s saying they’re only useless in an apocalyptic scenario? he’s literally saying that the core of women is useless in the “real world”.
i understand that it can feel like there’s a group of anonymous “woke thugs” wondering the internet trying to get people. if you feel that way it might be useful for you to try and empathize with why someone would feel that way.
so this is ok because he’s saying they’re only useless in an apocalyptic scenario? he’s literally saying that the core of women is useless in the “real world”.
i understand that it can feel like there’s a group of anonymous “woke thugs” wondering the internet trying to get people. if you feel that way it might be useful for you to try and empathize with why someone would feel that way.
If I recall, the context was that he was dating a woman who was a bit of a tomboy and saying how cool it was that she was better at power tools and such than he was, and this comparison to typical SF tech women was part of that extended riff. It wasn't part of an incel monologue about 'femoids' or something.
Ultimately, if we let this continue, it becomes a war on flavor and humor, where no rhetorical fun is allowed lest someone take it the wrong way.
Ultimately, if we let this continue, it becomes a war on flavor and humor, where no rhetorical fun is allowed lest someone take it the wrong way.
your point is fair. i agree with the idea that allowing outrage to drive all conversations is terrible.
at the same time, i feel like i’d have known better than to generalize like this and publish it. i understand there’s context about how/why it was said.
i’d really love to be able to express my thoughts that border on “anti-woke” but i don’t. i feel like the only way for us to be honest about our feelings is to be anonymous.
i guess at some level i would hope this person would’ve been smart enough to know that. there’s a social game we all have to play, and just because it sucks we can’t not deal with it.
at the same time, i feel like i’d have known better than to generalize like this and publish it. i understand there’s context about how/why it was said.
i’d really love to be able to express my thoughts that border on “anti-woke” but i don’t. i feel like the only way for us to be honest about our feelings is to be anonymous.
i guess at some level i would hope this person would’ve been smart enough to know that. there’s a social game we all have to play, and just because it sucks we can’t not deal with it.
In a modern social media world, it's generally a pretty bad idea to make over the top controversial statements even if they have a context and you don't intend them to be taken seriously. And it's probably worth noting that in this case, it became an issue because the person in question wrote them in a published book and was being hired for a fairly high-profile position. But it can just as easily be some 20-something who posts something on Twitter (or gets captured for YouTube)that goes viral, given they're essentially disposable from the perspective of their current (and potential future) employers.
And I don't even blame the companies. They're just looking out for their own interests and individual current or potential future employees have pretty much zero weight as balanced against any public PR hit.
And I don't even blame the companies. They're just looking out for their own interests and individual current or potential future employees have pretty much zero weight as balanced against any public PR hit.
Only part of 1 passage was in the context of an apocalypse hypothetical.
I'm sure how this is relevant to the discussion of possible discrimination on the basis of geographical location.
either way, for others who want more context to what you are referring to - you're speaking about the rapid hiring then firing of Antonio García Martínez by Apple due to several excerpts from his book "Chaos Monkeys" that many employees took as racist and sexist. The most notable of which being:
"Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel…British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work—be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast to someone’s back—required doing."
“PMMess, as we’ll call her, was composed of alternating Bézier curves from top to bottom: convex, then concave, and then convex again, in a vertical undulation you couldn’t take your eyes off of. Unlike most women at Facebook (or in the Bay Area, really) she knew how to dress; forties-style, form-fitting dresses from neck to knee were her mainstay.”
“In his ill-fitting polyester polo shirts with color palettes stolen from the late seventies, he reminded me of the bored auto-rickshaw drivers in front of Connaught Place, Delhi, who’d overcharge you a hundred rupees to go down the street to Paharganj. “So is there anything we can do compensation-wise, Antonio?” asked Chander in his thick Indian accent.”
Feel free to interpret this how you may.
[1] https://jezebel.com/apple-hires-gets-rid-of-man-who-called-w...
either way, for others who want more context to what you are referring to - you're speaking about the rapid hiring then firing of Antonio García Martínez by Apple due to several excerpts from his book "Chaos Monkeys" that many employees took as racist and sexist. The most notable of which being:
"Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel…British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work—be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast to someone’s back—required doing."
“PMMess, as we’ll call her, was composed of alternating Bézier curves from top to bottom: convex, then concave, and then convex again, in a vertical undulation you couldn’t take your eyes off of. Unlike most women at Facebook (or in the Bay Area, really) she knew how to dress; forties-style, form-fitting dresses from neck to knee were her mainstay.”
“In his ill-fitting polyester polo shirts with color palettes stolen from the late seventies, he reminded me of the bored auto-rickshaw drivers in front of Connaught Place, Delhi, who’d overcharge you a hundred rupees to go down the street to Paharganj. “So is there anything we can do compensation-wise, Antonio?” asked Chander in his thick Indian accent.”
Feel free to interpret this how you may.
[1] https://jezebel.com/apple-hires-gets-rid-of-man-who-called-w...
The message is loud and clear. If you write a book or say anything and then want a job after that you should expect no one to read the book except with the goal of finding the most offensive sentence and interpreting that as the most racist or sexist way possible.
Look at it another way. What if someone said "I am not a supporter of gay marriage", would it be OK to call that person homophobic and cancel that person? What about people who were supporters of that person at one time? Should they be canceled too?
Look at it another way. What if someone said "I am not a supporter of gay marriage", would it be OK to call that person homophobic and cancel that person? What about people who were supporters of that person at one time? Should they be canceled too?
Saying "I am not a supporter of gay marriage" in passing is very different than writing a book publicizing an opinion that gay people are somehow inferior to straights.
A more applicable comparision would be someone who publicized that they thought that gays were weak minded. I wouldn't say you should 'cancel' that person (what does that mean?), but I would say that person should be disqualified from the opportunity to lead a team that includes gay people. And any business should always assume that their team could include gay people.
A more applicable comparision would be someone who publicized that they thought that gays were weak minded. I wouldn't say you should 'cancel' that person (what does that mean?), but I would say that person should be disqualified from the opportunity to lead a team that includes gay people. And any business should always assume that their team could include gay people.
So what should happen to someone who doesn't support gay marriage? Can they be a leader?
That seems irrelevant, unless your company weds people
it is very relevant because it is an opinion that implies they view one set of people less than another set of people
which has implications for things like biased hiring, promotions, workplace relationships, etc.
and this is not the sort of thing that can be "disproven" by past actions, because it still implies the potential for workplace discrimination
as someone who is LGBT+, I would never be able to work with a manager or coworker who expressed views like this for this reason
which has implications for things like biased hiring, promotions, workplace relationships, etc.
and this is not the sort of thing that can be "disproven" by past actions, because it still implies the potential for workplace discrimination
as someone who is LGBT+, I would never be able to work with a manager or coworker who expressed views like this for this reason
I'd like to leave some room for those with strong religious beliefs who practice tolerance to still be leaders.
If your belief is that failing to support gay marriage is in itself an act of discrimination, than I could see how you would reach a different conclusion.
If your belief is that failing to support gay marriage is in itself an act of discrimination, than I could see how you would reach a different conclusion.
Literally yesterday, conservatives pressured AP into firing someone because of her social media history [1]. If you want to take that stance, at least stop pretending it’s a “woke” issue.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Emily-Wilder-Associa...
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Emily-Wilder-Associa...
Is discrimination based on current location illegal? I’m curious what case they would have given that many companies require certain time zones for remote employees.
Geographic location is not a protected class.
Yeah, they should sue the state of Colorado. Or just leave and go to another state.
Could California contractors sue when the job postings came out banning them from applying? I doubt it.
I used to think keeping salaries secret was a racket. And maybe it is.
But I also think there might be people you work with who try hard, do decent work slowly, and are compensated accordingly. (Fairly) And who are delighted with their job and salary.
How would it benefit that person to be confronted with the fact that someone else makes double or triple what they do?
But I also think there might be people you work with who try hard, do decent work slowly, and are compensated accordingly. (Fairly) And who are delighted with their job and salary.
How would it benefit that person to be confronted with the fact that someone else makes double or triple what they do?
CEO salaries are made public. We object to them, but most of us don't intentionally avoid working for companies that have that outsized pay discrepancy.
Likewise, if I'm making more than I could at any other company, but then found out a coworker was making twice as much as me, I'd still not leave.
How much coworkers are paid doesn't affect whether or not we leave the company; it's how we're paid compared to the rest of the market that does. Just taking that off the table.
What it DOES affect is our morale and our own performance. To that end, it benefits companies to either keep it secret, or to try and ensure that pay discrepancies within the same role match the actual performance. If that person making double or triple what you do is actually delivering 2x or 3x what you are, and you know that if your own performance increases, your comp will too, that seems like solid incentive. If it's completely disconnected, your morale will drop, and your performance likely -will- drop to be half or a third of what that person's is, and it becomes self-fulfilling.
I think the main benefit to making compensation transparent is that it also forces the company to be very mindful about how compensation and performance are tied. They're supposed to be anyway; that's already a goal. It just raises the stakes for getting it right.
Likewise, if I'm making more than I could at any other company, but then found out a coworker was making twice as much as me, I'd still not leave.
How much coworkers are paid doesn't affect whether or not we leave the company; it's how we're paid compared to the rest of the market that does. Just taking that off the table.
What it DOES affect is our morale and our own performance. To that end, it benefits companies to either keep it secret, or to try and ensure that pay discrepancies within the same role match the actual performance. If that person making double or triple what you do is actually delivering 2x or 3x what you are, and you know that if your own performance increases, your comp will too, that seems like solid incentive. If it's completely disconnected, your morale will drop, and your performance likely -will- drop to be half or a third of what that person's is, and it becomes self-fulfilling.
I think the main benefit to making compensation transparent is that it also forces the company to be very mindful about how compensation and performance are tied. They're supposed to be anyway; that's already a goal. It just raises the stakes for getting it right.
Maybe it could serve as a much needed wake-up call to that person. I was him long ago, and finding out someone made 50% more than me for doing essentially the same job provided exactly the kick in the ass I needed to start job hunting again.
Well, I think there's a difference transparency with salaries of existing employees, and transparency with the salary being offered to new employees.
And it would benefit that person by giving them the information they need to decide whether to pursue a higher salary or not.
And it would benefit that person by giving them the information they need to decide whether to pursue a higher salary or not.
Interesting since this coincides with a different issue I am facing. I had an employee move to California (we are a single-site business on the east coast) and everything was fine during covid. Now I'm being told that there are concerns about California's employment laws since they are out of sync with the laws in our state and might require HR to do some additional work and the organization to incur added expenses. Currently, we are awaiting a decision from HR. Our mitigation plan centers around moving this person from employee to contractor. It might be the only option for us - the employee has plenty of other opportunities.
Would this have the effect of revitalizing local Colorado businesses as Colorado employees would no longer have the option of outsourcing their own talent out of state?
Although not exactly the same thing, California already requires employers to give pay scales for jobs when requested by an applicant and bars asking about their salary history: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Asking for pay scales is a problem though. Do it at the start of the interview and you're flying in the face of all interview advice (i.e., don't ask about pay during the initial phone screen; the companies smart enough to save their own time will mention it upfront, and the companies that want to negotiate you as low as possible by hiding information will take it as a red flag), and at the end I don't care what the range for the position is; I want to know what they're going to offer -me-.
I guess if at the end I felt especially lowballed, but at that point I don't really care what their scale is; it's too low for me to want to take it. I guess if I didn't have a job, felt like I had to take it, it provides some extra information at that point to try and negotiate with?
I guess if at the end I felt especially lowballed, but at that point I don't really care what their scale is; it's too low for me to want to take it. I guess if I didn't have a job, felt like I had to take it, it provides some extra information at that point to try and negotiate with?
Seems pretty straightforward to me. "For alignment, can you provide the salary range for this position?" If they hedge, just tell them you want to make sure we're not waisting time.
Hmm...looks like a good way to filter out companies not worth applying to.
That's easy for me to say, though. I am not looking for work; especially not with corporations that want to begin our relationship on a platform of dishonesty. I'm fairly big on that whole "Integrity" thing. I know it's not in fashion, these days, but I'm a bit "old-skool."
That's easy for me to say, though. I am not looking for work; especially not with corporations that want to begin our relationship on a platform of dishonesty. I'm fairly big on that whole "Integrity" thing. I know it's not in fashion, these days, but I'm a bit "old-skool."
I also would prefer to know salaries (while not minding letting other know mine) but I certainly don't think this should be mandated. And, unless regulations force all my competitors to disclose this information (even those outside of these regulations jurisdictios) I don't see the point of these regulations at all.
If you'd like some talking points to help you start this conversation with your HR team, here's an article I wrote:
https://dtrejo.com/why-share-salary
https://dtrejo.com/why-share-salary
Those companies should be named and shamed.
I say this as an employer BTW.
I say this as an employer BTW.
Sherwin Williams
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2553879764/
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2553879764/
It’s all about maintaining a monopsony-like advantage in bargaining position by maintaining information asymmetry with (current and potential) employees.
How is this expected to work in the real world?
When I'm hiring, which I always am for software engineering roles, I am looking for talent at levels between college intern and multi-decade veteran.
I don't necessarily have a roster of specific positions I need to fill; I have an idea of what kind of skills and experience mix I would like to see over time, but there's always going to be turnover at every level.
Talent acquisition is multi-modal through campus programs, referrals, recruiters (both for targeted skill needs and passive candidates), and I guess probably some advertised positions.
When I'm hiring, which I always am for software engineering roles, I am looking for talent at levels between college intern and multi-decade veteran.
I don't necessarily have a roster of specific positions I need to fill; I have an idea of what kind of skills and experience mix I would like to see over time, but there's always going to be turnover at every level.
Talent acquisition is multi-modal through campus programs, referrals, recruiters (both for targeted skill needs and passive candidates), and I guess probably some advertised positions.
Couldn’t you could hack it and put a ridiculously large range of salaries? For example: $1 to $10M just to comply.
Curious how wide the salary ranges can be. Are there ways companies can just provide a wide range and get away?
Might be counterproductive. If I, as an applicant, see a wide range and think there's a good chance that it's in bad faith, I might just skip them altogether in my search.
This law mainly benefits the lower end who are trying to find out if the fast food place will pay a dollar more than the hotel.
People that already had the option of switching high paying jobs don’t need this law, they can simply shop around themselves. Although they are also helped.
People that already had the option of switching high paying jobs don’t need this law, they can simply shop around themselves. Although they are also helped.
This is exactly what's happening and how a few companies are getting around it, specifically big consulting companies.
It looks like DigitalOcean changed their policies, I can’t find the same messaging on the linked job post.
I get why companies are increasingly focusing on referral hiring. it lets you sidestep so much compliance.
Compliance is one thing but if you trust your employees, then a referral hire also potentially lets you skip a ton of vetting.
>> Some companies however have decided that excluding all Colorado residents for a remote job that can be filled by someone in any of the other 49 US states is better than sharing how much they're willing to pay.
Well, yes obviously that is better. If 2% of all poker games required you to hold your cards the other way around, would it be better to just avoid those games? Yes, it would.
Well, yes obviously that is better. If 2% of all poker games required you to hold your cards the other way around, would it be better to just avoid those games? Yes, it would.
“Man plans, God laughs”.
Centrally planned well meaning ideas seem to invariably fail.
Centrally planned well meaning ideas seem to invariably fail.
We should build a blacklist of companies that do this.
My sympathy is with the employers. Colorado did this to itself with such an anticompetitive law. Beyond this effect, it also encourages sending the work offshore altogether.
I've been taught in school that perfect competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition ) requires perfect information ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information ), so I assume giving more information would increase competition. Could you share why this is anti-competitive?
Competition doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the amount of information. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition
"Perfect competition" is a specific economic concept. The dictionary definition of "competition" doesn't really apply to this discussion.
That's like responding to an article about new Python language features by pointing out that the author doesn't know anything because actually pythons are big snakes: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/python
[deleted]
Merriam-webster, the height of technical excellency. We should all strive to educate ourselves using this indubitable resource.
What competition is being hampered by this law?
Indeed, the definition of "perfect competition" in economics includes that all participants have perfect information.
But, that's actually the reason companies hate this law: in "perfect competition" no long-term economic profit is possible. Long-term profits are the result of when a market disobeys the definition of "perfect competition," such as when there's information asymmetry, patents and trade secrets to protect innovation, or when barriers to entry are significant.
In this case, hiding salary ranges from employees provides the employer an obvious benefit in that they know how much is budgeted for the position, but a candidate doesn't get that information when giving their salary requirements. I recently had to play a round of "don't give a number" with a recruiter last week. Needless to say, that didn't go very far.
But, that's actually the reason companies hate this law: in "perfect competition" no long-term economic profit is possible. Long-term profits are the result of when a market disobeys the definition of "perfect competition," such as when there's information asymmetry, patents and trade secrets to protect innovation, or when barriers to entry are significant.
In this case, hiding salary ranges from employees provides the employer an obvious benefit in that they know how much is budgeted for the position, but a candidate doesn't get that information when giving their salary requirements. I recently had to play a round of "don't give a number" with a recruiter last week. Needless to say, that didn't go very far.
> I recently had to play a round of "don't give a number" with a recruiter last week. Needless to say, that didn't go very far.
I had this happen to be last week too. I am not sure what ppl say to recruiters when they keep asking this question.
I had this happen to be last week too. I am not sure what ppl say to recruiters when they keep asking this question.
In my case, it was more that the recruiter wouldn't give any sense of what their number was. I told them it was like they were selling a home and advertising an open house without an asking price or any pictures of the inside. I wouldn't waste 20 minutes on an open house for a place that wouldn't work for me, would you?
They just clamped down on "I'm not at liberty to say." So, I told them to get back to me when they have a little more liberty.
What I usually say in those initial conversations is something like "I don't have any real requirements beyond the amount that pays my bills. And, at this point, I don't know enough about the job, the team, management, benefits, etc. or the value I could bring, to give an educated number."
That usually satisfies them on the first phone call.
They just clamped down on "I'm not at liberty to say." So, I told them to get back to me when they have a little more liberty.
What I usually say in those initial conversations is something like "I don't have any real requirements beyond the amount that pays my bills. And, at this point, I don't know enough about the job, the team, management, benefits, etc. or the value I could bring, to give an educated number."
That usually satisfies them on the first phone call.
This "you say a number first" game has to end. I had a memorably surreal conversation with a recruiter that kind of went like this:
RECRUITER: Tell me what your current salary is.
ME: No. I'm not going to disclose this. Why don't you tell me what the range is for this role.
RECRUITER: It depends on what you're currently making.
ME: How does what I'm currently making change what value I'm offering to the company? I have a range, you have a range, let's just figure out where it overlaps.
RECRUITER: OK then you tell me how much do you want.
ME: $500K (knowing this was a ridiculous number)
RECRUITER: HAHAHAHAROTFL
ME: See how stupid this is? You obviously have a range and that number is outside of it. I'm not going to negotiate against myself.
We didn't get much farther than that.
RECRUITER: Tell me what your current salary is.
ME: No. I'm not going to disclose this. Why don't you tell me what the range is for this role.
RECRUITER: It depends on what you're currently making.
ME: How does what I'm currently making change what value I'm offering to the company? I have a range, you have a range, let's just figure out where it overlaps.
RECRUITER: OK then you tell me how much do you want.
ME: $500K (knowing this was a ridiculous number)
RECRUITER: HAHAHAHAROTFL
ME: See how stupid this is? You obviously have a range and that number is outside of it. I'm not going to negotiate against myself.
We didn't get much farther than that.
Yeah, that's roughly how my conversation went, too. It's too bad, because if the role had had competitive comp (and, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have been competitive, based on what little info I was able to drag out of the recruiter), I would have totally gone through with the interview process. Oh well.
The only way I know of to break through that kind of BS gamesmanship is to do a lot of research and determine what the market salary distribution is for comparable roles. Sites like comp.fyi and payscale.com have been helpful for me here.
BTW, if you just want to get offer numbers on comp.fyi, use 0 years at company. If you need more data, you can try including 1 or 2 years at company, but, if you start including too much, you're going to lose the original offer numbers in the noise.
The only way I know of to break through that kind of BS gamesmanship is to do a lot of research and determine what the market salary distribution is for comparable roles. Sites like comp.fyi and payscale.com have been helpful for me here.
BTW, if you just want to get offer numbers on comp.fyi, use 0 years at company. If you need more data, you can try including 1 or 2 years at company, but, if you start including too much, you're going to lose the original offer numbers in the noise.
I would think more information about the jobs improves competition and efficiency of the labor market. Unfortunately politics uses the term anticompetitive to mean bad for big businesses, which is almost the opposite meaning.
Coloradoans looking for remote work will now be competing in a smaller pool (with each other), and for fewer positions, than if the whole country were open to them. If other states start this then more will go to India and China.
LOL. What? If other states do this, then employers will just have to comply. The only problem right now is that CO is kind of by itself.
If a company is going to outsource they were going to do it anyways.
If a company is going to outsource they were going to do it anyways.
Companies hiring remotely that avoid Colorado forfeit the good talent there. I'm skeptical that this law scares every company, as plenty put salary ranges on job postings.
[deleted]
I don't know what is being hampered but in general there is no free lunch. You always are making a tradeoff when you make a law, there is no such thing as only good law.
So there has to be some downside for even this law.
So there has to be some downside for even this law.
All laws have downsides is about as interesting as "PI isn't always good. Sometimes you want to multiply by 2".
Open transparency is bad for the labour market?
What is anticompetitive about requiring salary disclosure?
Oh no, how can these companies underpay their employees now?
Why?
"Anticompetitive" is an invalid concept invented to manipulate people. It's not a coherent concept; it doesn't describe something specific in reality; it doesn't have a useful purpose in honest thinking.
But I agree with you that CO has committed a rights violation.
But I agree with you that CO has committed a rights violation.
While that’s employee friendly..
This is why you need to organize and self report salaries. Like the game devs from a few days back or leverage sites like levels.fyi
Reminds me of the outrage™ when US newspapers blocked connections from Europe over the GDPR.
Regulations have consequences. Not all those consequences are the consequences you want. Sometimes exiting a small market looks like a better option than compliance.
Sometimes HN downvotes posts for challenging a political crusade by pointing out what it did to those who promoted it. ;)
Regulations have consequences. Not all those consequences are the consequences you want. Sometimes exiting a small market looks like a better option than compliance.
Sometimes HN downvotes posts for challenging a political crusade by pointing out what it did to those who promoted it. ;)
[deleted]
Is Europe a small market?
For many U.S. businesses I'm sure it's pretty much irrelevant. For others, not so much. That's why you see some U.S. businesses complying with EU directives, while others simply block visitors from the EU.
Yes, if you are a local US newspaper.
"European readers of American newspapers" is.
When America asserts itself as the dominant power, international readers American newspapers is not a small market. At the very least, it doesn't match the spirit of the web to have region locked content.
Yeah, but international readers of the Lacrosse Tribune are probably few and far between.
Similar to GDPR it's waving a giant flag announcing how shady you're being.
Reminder: people respond to (dis)incentives.
You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life.
I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is importing their attitude.
You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life.
I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is importing their attitude.
In the meantime, those looking for work in Colorado, particularly for low paid work, will be able to find out whether they can make more per hour at one place than another.
This is the "intended consequences" and the slight impact on remote IT workers in Colorado is an unfortunate side-effect that is likely to be allieviated when the power of labor vs capital swings back towards labor, after 40 years of swinging in the other direction.
This is the "intended consequences" and the slight impact on remote IT workers in Colorado is an unfortunate side-effect that is likely to be allieviated when the power of labor vs capital swings back towards labor, after 40 years of swinging in the other direction.
The way to fix this is by enacting similar laws everywhere else, not to go for the lowest common denominator on workers rights (or "feel good laws" as you refer to them here.) Somebody has always got to be the first to outlaw slavery.
I can’t even argue with someone who thinks so highly of some half-baked piece of local legislation that they’re comparing it to the 13th Amendment. Lol.
The 13th Amendment decidedly wasn't the first law banning slavery. In fact, it was preceded was a rather notable war between states that already had laws banning it and those that didn't.
I understand the public reasoning why the law was passed. I am not sure it is the right solution.
As a business I would be very concerned that the cost/compensation for those few individuals with the qualification in Colorado will become very expensive as my competitors outbid each other to the sky (CO pop. 5.759mm US Census 2019). I remember the pre-dot com boom. IT was "rolling in money"...
As an employee, I am now concerned that I will be targeted because of the job I have. The criminal elements can now pretend to be "Robin Hood".
As an employee, how will this "race to the top" salary battle backfire? Will I be stuck in Colorado? Are there loopholes (and there always are) where CO companies can hire outsiders cheaper?
And, so on...
As a business I would be very concerned that the cost/compensation for those few individuals with the qualification in Colorado will become very expensive as my competitors outbid each other to the sky (CO pop. 5.759mm US Census 2019). I remember the pre-dot com boom. IT was "rolling in money"...
As an employee, I am now concerned that I will be targeted because of the job I have. The criminal elements can now pretend to be "Robin Hood".
As an employee, how will this "race to the top" salary battle backfire? Will I be stuck in Colorado? Are there loopholes (and there always are) where CO companies can hire outsiders cheaper?
And, so on...
[deleted]
Compensation doesn't have to be only the salary. The company can offer you other non-tangible things that might be worth work with them even for a lower salary. Maybe more free time, or more flexibility in your life it is worth less money in the salary.
Agree & I understand regarding creative compensation.
Is this true for most jobs, or just for above a certain level? What percentage of CO workers fall below that threshold?
I do not know. The average annual salary in CO in 2019 was $61,819 according to Statista. It will be interesting to see how this law impacts it over time.
Is this true for most jobs, or just for above a certain level? What percentage of CO workers fall below that threshold?
I do not know. The average annual salary in CO in 2019 was $61,819 according to Statista. It will be interesting to see how this law impacts it over time.
However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky.
The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side.
Similarly with healthcare you don't know how much you will be charged upfront, so there is no competition on price.
With housing (in UK) there is no competition on quality because the seller doesn't have to disclose any problems with the house. If it falls of a cliff the minute you sign on the dotted line, it's your problem.
You have to pay for the surveyor to find out any issues the house might have, and that means you can only view a few houses before you've paid the house price in survey fees.