5 ms·

What competition is being hampered by this law?

bo1024 5y ago
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.
eplanit 5y ago
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.
- woeirua 5y ago
  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.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  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 5y ago
[deleted]
dominotw 5y ago
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.
- iudqnolq 5y ago
  All laws have downsides is about as interesting as "PI isn't always good. Sometimes you want to multiply by 2".
actually_a_dog 5y ago
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.
- dominotw 5y ago
  > 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.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    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.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      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.

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.

eplanit 5y ago

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.

woeirua 5y ago
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.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
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 5y ago

[deleted]

dominotw 5y ago

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.

iudqnolq 5y ago
All laws have downsides is about as interesting as "PI isn't always good. Sometimes you want to multiply by 2".

actually_a_dog 5y ago

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.

dominotw 5y ago
> 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.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  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.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    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.