5 ms·

The Colorado law to me strikes me as a pretty huge government overreach. I fully believe in minimum wage laws, and that feels like an appropriate regulation to

The Colorado law to me strikes me as a pretty huge government overreach. I fully believe in minimum wage laws, and that feels like an appropriate regulation to me, but this just feels like it's almost attacking these companies, interfering with their hiring processes, and I fully see why companies would rather not bother hiring in what boils down to 1 mid-sized metro area than deal with the consequences.

kdmccormick 5y ago
Could you explain why minimum wage laws aren't overreach but this is?
- whiddershins 5y ago
  I’ve come 180 on minimum wage. How can anyone come between me and another adult trying to exchange services and money like this? It’s kind of insane if you think about it through that lens.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    It doesn't. If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can. Unmediated transactions of a certain scale don't require any government oversight, it's only when you start breaking out taxable income that it become a problem.
    - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
      > If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can That's illegal just unlikely to be enforced.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      > If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can. The fact that it isn't enforced doesn't make it not-illegal.
    - macksd 5y ago
      >> Unmediated transactions of a certain scale don't require any government oversight What is this scale? As far as I know you only get away with this because no one knows or cares to enforce the law in that case. But police have been known to shut down kids lemonade stands for not having all the right permits, so I don't believe this is actually true in the law. I would be happy if this was the case: I used to hire people all the time to do odd jobs for me, but I feel like it's too costly and too legally risky to actually be worth it for me, so I just don't do it anymore. And the people I used to hire aren't exactly relieved.
      - jimbob45 5y ago
        The scale is usually < 50 employees has lesser rules applied to them.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can. Can you, though, legally? Or is it just unlikely that you'd get in trouble for it? This also raises the question of why it's even ok to do this. Isn't this is why labor laws exist? I imagine if you called up a local landscaping company and asked them to come do 3 hours of lawn mowing, they'd charge you something on the order of $300. I think it's pretty safe to say that they're not doing 20x the work your neighbor's kid would do, or would do it 20x better. Even if you were to find an adult handyman on Craigslist or whatever, I expect you're not paying less than $15/hr for that, and often will be paying quite a bit more. So for some reason it's socially acceptable to pay kids a pittance because they have no leverage or negotiating power, and because they're "learning responsibility" (sounds like "we should be able to use your professional photographs for free because it gives you exposure" or "this unpaid internship will give you valuable experience!"), and well... they're just kids, so who cares? It's kinda gross when I think about it. When I was in high school (14-17 years old), I was a referee for my local youth soccer club. I took the same training (with annual refreshers) the adults took, worked alongside them, and got paid the same amount for the same work. The pay varied by the age level of players (older kids play longer games and the expectations for referee rigor are higher), but for most games ended up being around $25-30/hr, which was pretty good for a part-time weekend job in the mid/late 90s.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    Because the two adults aren't coming together from equal positions. The worker needs to work to make money to buy food and shelter. Without a minimum wage, unskilled labor reaches a race to the bottom on wages. It's exploitative to allow an employer to pay $1/hr because no matter how low you go, you'll find someone willing to accept less because they're that desperate to survive.
  - jrwoodruff 5y ago
    It seems insane to you because you have a very valuable skill and the means to easily shop around. It's less insane when the job market is restricted to a single employer in an area, employees lack the means to relocate, or really anytime there's a massive power imbalance between employer and employee. See the company store on wikipedia. Minimum wage basically states "A human's time is worth at least this"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Do you see a better solution to sweatshops and other indentured-servitude-like setups? (If you don't think those sorts of things need solutions, then I expect we're not going to find any common ground, though.) > It’s kind of insane if you think about it through that lens. No, it's not. If that's the case, then you also have to believe that any kind of regulated commerce is insane, and I don't think that's a reasonable position to take.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Look at it from another angle. We know, as a fact, that if companies pay below a certain level, then their workers end up using public funds for help - food vouchers, subsidies, housing benefits.....all because they aren't being paid enough. So basically, you as a tax payer, as subsidizing someone's business so they can have cheap labour. It's kind of insane if you think about it through that lens. Social benefits exist to help those who fall on hard times, not to give shitty companies cheap workers.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I also think minimum wage laws are BS - but unfortunately if your society doesn't ensure social services then minimum wage steps in to pick up the slack - ideally earned income could be directed entirely toward luxuries, then workers would be empowered to properly balance their life and work... However, at the moment you can end up working a job that results in you not being able to sustain yourself - that's silly, you might say, nobody would take that offer! But someone will accept it without realizing the full depth of pain the debt forced on them will end up extracting and they will suffer for it.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Minimum wages protect people from exploitation. This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Just let the employee and employer figure out wages!
  - kdmccormick 5y ago
    > This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, Colorado's new law applies to salaried jobs in all income brackets. For someone who's poor and desperately job hunting, knowing whether a job's salary range is 20k-30k versus 25k-35k before having to go through a gauntlet of interviews sounds like it could make a big difference.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      I don't believe that's up to the government. The government regulates the lowest allowable wage, anything above that should be between the employer and the employee.
      - kdmccormick 5y ago
        What is and isn't government overreach is a contentious topic, and I can't say your personal opinion is invalid. But to be clear, you're just saying one of those is OK for the government to do and the other isn't. That's not an argument. Do you have some rationale behind that, like a philosophy or a reference to some constitutional clause? Or is that just how you feel?
        thehappypm 5y ago
        It's my opinion.
ilikecakeandpie 5y ago
It might be gov't overreach, but it might save both the employer and the job seeker's time if the range is listed.
rory 5y ago
> this just feels like it's almost attacking these companies Can you explain why you feel that way? It just seems like something similar to price transparency to me.
Spartan-S63 5y ago
If nothing else, this is ensuring a fair, competitive marketplace. Requiring employers to share more of their information with prospective employees makes a more efficient market. This is a move preserving and encouraging competition. It only stands to make markets more efficient and I hope more states follow suit and make such a rule the de facto standard.
obviouslynotme 5y ago
Anything that brings clarity with no cost is not an overreach. I don't even apply for companies that do not list salaries. Why would I waste days of time going through an interview process only to be offered burger flipper wages? The only companies complaining about this are shady scum who are embarrassed by their salary offers.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I think companies should be free to post their salary ranges. If you’re talented, and you care about posted salary ranges, and companies want talent, that could be a useful tool. I don’t see any value in mandating it.
nostrademons 5y ago
I think transparency laws are a lot more important than minimum-wage laws. Give people information and you give them options; they can see at a glance if there's a better job out there than their current position, and avoid wasting time applying to jobs that won't pay better. Force people not to work at certain prices and you take away options.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Minimum wage employees aren't earning minimum wage because they are unaware other jobs pay more, they're earning minimum wage because they're unable to get those jobs. At that end of the market the pay rates are generally pretty transparent anyway, because there's no negotiation and no "10x dishwasher" that the company worries about deterring if they disclose what the existing staff earn.
macksd 5y ago
If one believes in the theory of free markets, this moves the labor market closer to the ideal market by forcing more transparency. I don't like government overreach because it usually makes the market less efficient, but in this case I believe it's doing the opposite. Or at least, it WOULD be doing the opposite if it was universal, but it's not, so yeah some Prisoner's Dilemma-like game theory comes into play.
unethical_ban 5y ago
It it applying symmetry to an asymmetrical relationship. One company can go pretty long without hiring a given position. One person cannot go very long without taking a job. It is a detriment to the worker to not have good salary information, and the cards are clearly stacked in the employers' favor. Thus, government action.
bjourne 5y ago
This is analogous to disclosure laws which forces companies to disclose company information that may influence investors decisions. If it makes sense to force companies to disclose financial information to potential investors then it makes sense to force companies to similarly disclose salary ranges to prospective employees.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Increasing transparency makes markets much more efficient.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Regulation rarely leads to more efficient markets. If you believe in markets, then if pay transparency was beneficial, companies would already be doing it. The market clearly does not favor it. And forcing it already has negative consequences -- see the article for companies that are refusing to play ball in Colorado.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    > If you believe in markets, then if pay transparency was beneficial, companies would already be doing it. Companies are the ones gaining from the market failure. Why would they want to empower employees to better know their worth? Obviously companies don't want to support legislation that hurts their bottom line, even if it makes markets more efficient.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Do you also feel that it is "overreach" for food to come with nutritional/calorie information?
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I don't disagree with government regulation, it certainly has its place. I think employers should be forced to pay a living wage if they want to hire employees in America. That's a regulation I think is fair and helps prevent exploration. I also think it's useful for consumers to know how many calories are in their food. And for small restaurants, the overhead of computing calories is actually onerous. They are exempt. With wages, the bar is that you must pay the minimum. Anything more I think is onerous and not the role of government to get involved in, and should not be applied.

kdmccormick 5y ago

Could you explain why minimum wage laws aren't overreach but this is?

whiddershins 5y ago
I’ve come 180 on minimum wage. How can anyone come between me and another adult trying to exchange services and money like this? It’s kind of insane if you think about it through that lens.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  It doesn't. If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can. Unmediated transactions of a certain scale don't require any government oversight, it's only when you start breaking out taxable income that it become a problem.
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    > If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can That's illegal just unlikely to be enforced.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    > If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can. The fact that it isn't enforced doesn't make it not-illegal.
  - macksd 5y ago
    >> Unmediated transactions of a certain scale don't require any government oversight What is this scale? As far as I know you only get away with this because no one knows or cares to enforce the law in that case. But police have been known to shut down kids lemonade stands for not having all the right permits, so I don't believe this is actually true in the law. I would be happy if this was the case: I used to hire people all the time to do odd jobs for me, but I feel like it's too costly and too legally risky to actually be worth it for me, so I just don't do it anymore. And the people I used to hire aren't exactly relieved.
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      The scale is usually < 50 employees has lesser rules applied to them.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > If you wanna pay your neighbor's kid $15 for 3 hours of lawn mowing, you still can. Can you, though, legally? Or is it just unlikely that you'd get in trouble for it? This also raises the question of why it's even ok to do this. Isn't this is why labor laws exist? I imagine if you called up a local landscaping company and asked them to come do 3 hours of lawn mowing, they'd charge you something on the order of $300. I think it's pretty safe to say that they're not doing 20x the work your neighbor's kid would do, or would do it 20x better. Even if you were to find an adult handyman on Craigslist or whatever, I expect you're not paying less than $15/hr for that, and often will be paying quite a bit more. So for some reason it's socially acceptable to pay kids a pittance because they have no leverage or negotiating power, and because they're "learning responsibility" (sounds like "we should be able to use your professional photographs for free because it gives you exposure" or "this unpaid internship will give you valuable experience!"), and well... they're just kids, so who cares? It's kinda gross when I think about it. When I was in high school (14-17 years old), I was a referee for my local youth soccer club. I took the same training (with annual refreshers) the adults took, worked alongside them, and got paid the same amount for the same work. The pay varied by the age level of players (older kids play longer games and the expectations for referee rigor are higher), but for most games ended up being around $25-30/hr, which was pretty good for a part-time weekend job in the mid/late 90s.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  Because the two adults aren't coming together from equal positions. The worker needs to work to make money to buy food and shelter. Without a minimum wage, unskilled labor reaches a race to the bottom on wages. It's exploitative to allow an employer to pay $1/hr because no matter how low you go, you'll find someone willing to accept less because they're that desperate to survive.
- jrwoodruff 5y ago
  It seems insane to you because you have a very valuable skill and the means to easily shop around. It's less insane when the job market is restricted to a single employer in an area, employees lack the means to relocate, or really anytime there's a massive power imbalance between employer and employee. See the company store on wikipedia. Minimum wage basically states "A human's time is worth at least this"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 5y ago
  Do you see a better solution to sweatshops and other indentured-servitude-like setups? (If you don't think those sorts of things need solutions, then I expect we're not going to find any common ground, though.) > It’s kind of insane if you think about it through that lens. No, it's not. If that's the case, then you also have to believe that any kind of regulated commerce is insane, and I don't think that's a reasonable position to take.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Look at it from another angle. We know, as a fact, that if companies pay below a certain level, then their workers end up using public funds for help - food vouchers, subsidies, housing benefits.....all because they aren't being paid enough. So basically, you as a tax payer, as subsidizing someone's business so they can have cheap labour. It's kind of insane if you think about it through that lens. Social benefits exist to help those who fall on hard times, not to give shitty companies cheap workers.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I also think minimum wage laws are BS - but unfortunately if your society doesn't ensure social services then minimum wage steps in to pick up the slack - ideally earned income could be directed entirely toward luxuries, then workers would be empowered to properly balance their life and work... However, at the moment you can end up working a job that results in you not being able to sustain yourself - that's silly, you might say, nobody would take that offer! But someone will accept it without realizing the full depth of pain the debt forced on them will end up extracting and they will suffer for it.
thehappypm 5y ago
Minimum wages protect people from exploitation. This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Just let the employee and employer figure out wages!
- kdmccormick 5y ago
  > This law vaguely benefits workers who are nowhere near the poverty line. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, Colorado's new law applies to salaried jobs in all income brackets. For someone who's poor and desperately job hunting, knowing whether a job's salary range is 20k-30k versus 25k-35k before having to go through a gauntlet of interviews sounds like it could make a big difference.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    I don't believe that's up to the government. The government regulates the lowest allowable wage, anything above that should be between the employer and the employee.
    - kdmccormick 5y ago
      What is and isn't government overreach is a contentious topic, and I can't say your personal opinion is invalid. But to be clear, you're just saying one of those is OK for the government to do and the other isn't. That's not an argument. Do you have some rationale behind that, like a philosophy or a reference to some constitutional clause? Or is that just how you feel?
      - thehappypm 5y ago
        It's my opinion.

ilikecakeandpie 5y ago

It might be gov't overreach, but it might save both the employer and the job seeker's time if the range is listed.

rory 5y ago

> this just feels like it's almost attacking these companies Can you explain why you feel that way? It just seems like something similar to price transparency to me.

Spartan-S63 5y ago

If nothing else, this is ensuring a fair, competitive marketplace. Requiring employers to share more of their information with prospective employees makes a more efficient market. This is a move preserving and encouraging competition. It only stands to make markets more efficient and I hope more states follow suit and make such a rule the de facto standard.

obviouslynotme 5y ago

Anything that brings clarity with no cost is not an overreach. I don't even apply for companies that do not list salaries. Why would I waste days of time going through an interview process only to be offered burger flipper wages? The only companies complaining about this are shady scum who are embarrassed by their salary offers.

thehappypm 5y ago
I think companies should be free to post their salary ranges. If you’re talented, and you care about posted salary ranges, and companies want talent, that could be a useful tool. I don’t see any value in mandating it.

nostrademons 5y ago

I think transparency laws are a lot more important than minimum-wage laws. Give people information and you give them options; they can see at a glance if there's a better job out there than their current position, and avoid wasting time applying to jobs that won't pay better. Force people not to work at certain prices and you take away options.

notahacker 5y ago
Minimum wage employees aren't earning minimum wage because they are unaware other jobs pay more, they're earning minimum wage because they're unable to get those jobs. At that end of the market the pay rates are generally pretty transparent anyway, because there's no negotiation and no "10x dishwasher" that the company worries about deterring if they disclose what the existing staff earn.

macksd 5y ago

If one believes in the theory of free markets, this moves the labor market closer to the ideal market by forcing more transparency. I don't like government overreach because it usually makes the market less efficient, but in this case I believe it's doing the opposite. Or at least, it WOULD be doing the opposite if it was universal, but it's not, so yeah some Prisoner's Dilemma-like game theory comes into play.

unethical_ban 5y ago

It it applying symmetry to an asymmetrical relationship. One company can go pretty long without hiring a given position. One person cannot go very long without taking a job. It is a detriment to the worker to not have good salary information, and the cards are clearly stacked in the employers' favor. Thus, government action.

bjourne 5y ago

This is analogous to disclosure laws which forces companies to disclose company information that may influence investors decisions. If it makes sense to force companies to disclose financial information to potential investors then it makes sense to force companies to similarly disclose salary ranges to prospective employees.

colinmhayes 5y ago

Increasing transparency makes markets much more efficient.

thehappypm 5y ago
Regulation rarely leads to more efficient markets. If you believe in markets, then if pay transparency was beneficial, companies would already be doing it. The market clearly does not favor it. And forcing it already has negative consequences -- see the article for companies that are refusing to play ball in Colorado.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > If you believe in markets, then if pay transparency was beneficial, companies would already be doing it. Companies are the ones gaining from the market failure. Why would they want to empower employees to better know their worth? Obviously companies don't want to support legislation that hurts their bottom line, even if it makes markets more efficient.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Do you also feel that it is "overreach" for food to come with nutritional/calorie information?

thehappypm 5y ago
I don't disagree with government regulation, it certainly has its place. I think employers should be forced to pay a living wage if they want to hire employees in America. That's a regulation I think is fair and helps prevent exploration. I also think it's useful for consumers to know how many calories are in their food. And for small restaurants, the overhead of computing calories is actually onerous. They are exempt. With wages, the bar is that you must pay the minimum. Anything more I think is onerous and not the role of government to get involved in, and should not be applied.