4 ms·

>Based on the article, I see no reason why someone would be prevented from consenting to pay below the position's current minimum, so long as they have full kno

>Based on the article, I see no reason why someone would be prevented from consenting to pay below the position's current minimum, so long as they have full knowledge that is what they are in fact doing As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions, I see no reason why an HR department would take the risk. When I was in my early 20s I had no degree or real experience. With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been offered a job. It's not on your employer to pay you 100k for your first job. You endure making a bit less for a while. Then about 3 years later you get your 100k job

tablespoon 5y ago
> As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions... The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions. > With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been offered a job. No, you're just making that assumption.
- rytcio 5y ago
  > The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions. Only if you ignore unintended consequences
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Only if you ignore unintended consequences Some people seem to think the hand-waved threat of "unintended consequences" should be enough to kill any policy they happen to dislike. It's not. I'm tired of the broken record fearmongering about unintended consequences, especially when it's paired (as it always is) with no constructive alternative to address the problem in question. It's an unpersuasive attempt at preventing improvement to the status quo.
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      I don't see anything that needs improving. If you don't have the courage to ask how much the job pays on the first call that's your problem. If you agree to a certain wage that's what you agreed to.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        This lets you see the salary before you even choose to apply. By the way, your whole story makes no sense. If you weren't qualified why did you even get an interview?
        999900000999 5y ago
        Startups tend to take chances on less qualified candidates to save money. There's plenty of opportunity in this country if you're willing to work for it.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        You're just saying startups have lower qualification requirements. The question is: how do you get an interview _for a position_ where you don't meet the requirements _for that position_? So if it's a startup, then you don't meet the lowered requirements of that startup. It doesn't make sense. They wouldn't interview you if you didn't meet their requirements.
        999900000999 5y ago
        You're free to believe whatever you want. They originally advertised a position which paid about twice as much as what I ended up taking. They expected years upon years of specific experience, I showed them a couple of mobile apps I made and they decided to hire me at a lower rate. That job changed my life, I'd rather just accept some people are going to make more and some are going to make less then create a dystopia where you need 10 pages of documentation to justify every hiring. There's no way this law is going to work out the way people think it well, if anything it encourages less full-time work. If you run the risk of being audited by a fairness officer, why not just outsource it instead? Why not lean on consultants more? As discussed elsewhere, many companies are just not hiring people from Colorado, which has a similar law. I can't find a better example of this not working.
        DarylZero 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago

> As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions... The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions. > With misguided laws like this I wouldn't of been offered a job. No, you're just making that assumption.

rytcio 5y ago
> The other path to Hell is to not act on good intentions. Only if you ignore unintended consequences
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Only if you ignore unintended consequences Some people seem to think the hand-waved threat of "unintended consequences" should be enough to kill any policy they happen to dislike. It's not. I'm tired of the broken record fearmongering about unintended consequences, especially when it's paired (as it always is) with no constructive alternative to address the problem in question. It's an unpersuasive attempt at preventing improvement to the status quo.
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    I don't see anything that needs improving. If you don't have the courage to ask how much the job pays on the first call that's your problem. If you agree to a certain wage that's what you agreed to.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      This lets you see the salary before you even choose to apply. By the way, your whole story makes no sense. If you weren't qualified why did you even get an interview?
      - 999900000999 5y ago
        Startups tend to take chances on less qualified candidates to save money. There's plenty of opportunity in this country if you're willing to work for it.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        You're just saying startups have lower qualification requirements. The question is: how do you get an interview _for a position_ where you don't meet the requirements _for that position_? So if it's a startup, then you don't meet the lowered requirements of that startup. It doesn't make sense. They wouldn't interview you if you didn't meet their requirements.
        999900000999 5y ago
        You're free to believe whatever you want. They originally advertised a position which paid about twice as much as what I ended up taking. They expected years upon years of specific experience, I showed them a couple of mobile apps I made and they decided to hire me at a lower rate. That job changed my life, I'd rather just accept some people are going to make more and some are going to make less then create a dystopia where you need 10 pages of documentation to justify every hiring. There's no way this law is going to work out the way people think it well, if anything it encourages less full-time work. If you run the risk of being audited by a fairness officer, why not just outsource it instead? Why not lean on consultants more? As discussed elsewhere, many companies are just not hiring people from Colorado, which has a similar law. I can't find a better example of this not working.
        DarylZero 5y ago