2 ms·
> Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law. Right! Which is completely useless and would just c
by PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law.
Right! Which is completely useless and would just clutter the thread.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoNo, it is not useless. The lower bound is most of the information that sellers of labors are interested in, and that buyers of labor want to hide. The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings. If buyers of labor were not going to lose anything by putting $50k/year to $1B/year, then they would be doing just that. But they correctly calculate that they would lose big time if existing employees are easily able to find out what the real time minimum market prices for labor are.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago> The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings. FYI this happens because they don't want to risk legal action in a remote state that contains less than 1% of the workforce anyone. Excluding CO from the job listing is the quick and easy way to ensure you don't violate Colorado law. It really doesn't make sense to add another state's entire legal requirements to your startup unless you have to. It may seem simple, but it's actually a pain to bring in yet another legal code you have to understand and check just to do anything.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThat is true, it would unnecessarily open one up to legal costs from CO, and is a good reason to exclude CO residents from job listings. It would have been better if the CO pay disclosure laws were simpler and only came into play if applicants are bamboozled, i.e. if they apply for a job and then are offered lower than the minimum advertised.