> The laws were drafted, in large part, to help close the gender pay gap. HIRED’s annual recruiting reports found that a significant driver of this were candid

> The laws were drafted, in large part, to help close the gender pay gap. HIRED’s annual recruiting reports found that a significant driver of this were candidates asking for far lower than other peers. Many times, companies would then offer that candidate a greater salary, which was still below the bolder or more comfortable peer. The candidate feels like their company is doing them a favor. So, this aspect should illuminate that many people are not aware that their own company is contributing to pay gaps. Any individual may in fact think the opposite, that it must be some other company with the proverbial bigoted shadow men in a board room disenfranchising everyone that doesn't look like them. When that picture isn't whats happening or isn't necessary, when candidates exacerbate this on their own. Could it be that the candidate has experience being turned down when asking higher rates? Perhaps. Could it be that the company doesnt even realize that they arent getting a deal with the candidate, but really just exacerbating pay gaps? That the candidates asking lower may be disproportionately certain genders and ethnicities? New York City is reducing this to anti-discrimination, making the penalties inherit discrimination frameworks without regard to the circumstances leading up to it. I think thats a great remedy, given how opaque and nuanced the reality really has been. We don't need to tweak candidate behavior or gradually retrain companies to notice gender and race to conditionally adjust, instead just make the salaries apparent for all.