4 ms·

You're not describing problems that the laws were intended to solve, at least from public statements. I'm also unsure as to whether the issues you describe are

by nickff 4y ago

You're not describing problems that the laws were intended to solve, at least from public statements. I'm also unsure as to whether the issues you describe are more than 'nuisance' problems, in that they don't cause long-term instability or inequity.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Price transparency underpins proper allocation of resources in an economy. This is from microeconomics 101. It would be greatly beneficial in the long term for a society to allocate resources (including labor) to where it is needed.
- gwright 4y ago
  Don't disagree, but the challenge in this area is that no two people are alike and so the market price for developer-a is not the same as the market price for developer-b. Related, it depends on what job you are applying for as the same person applying for two different jobs isn't going to automatically end up with the same compensation. I'm not saying that some transparency wouldn't help, just that market pricing for labor doesn't work the same way it does for a commodity.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified. That is the purpose of not forcing a certain pay range. Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. Eventually, employers who try to do that will be forced to change by lack of quality workers applying to them.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified. Agreed. (and/or we end up with finer graduated positions with similar pay bands). > Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. If you don't require any good faith description of the pay bands, the law is useless. You can post accurate, narrow pay bands now if you want. Or you can post none. Workers have been letting companies get away with posting none. $min wage to $1B is functionally equivalent to none.
- nkmnz 4y ago
  This implies that there is one true price, while, in fact, prices on the labor markets are constantly in flux. The market price is the result of individual transactions, so one could argue that limiting the free negotiation of prices to some previously published price range prevents the market from finding the best price for both sides.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I do not see how it implies one true price. And there is nothing preventing employers from updating their price ranges. Of course employers do not want to show their current employers that they are increasing their price for new hires, so that is their real concern with publicly listed price ranges.

by nickff 4y ago

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Price transparency underpins proper allocation of resources in an economy. This is from microeconomics 101. It would be greatly beneficial in the long term for a society to allocate resources (including labor) to where it is needed.

gwright 4y ago
Don't disagree, but the challenge in this area is that no two people are alike and so the market price for developer-a is not the same as the market price for developer-b. Related, it depends on what job you are applying for as the same person applying for two different jobs isn't going to automatically end up with the same compensation. I'm not saying that some transparency wouldn't help, just that market pricing for labor doesn't work the same way it does for a commodity.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified. That is the purpose of not forcing a certain pay range. Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. Eventually, employers who try to do that will be forced to change by lack of quality workers applying to them.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified. Agreed. (and/or we end up with finer graduated positions with similar pay bands). > Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. If you don't require any good faith description of the pay bands, the law is useless. You can post accurate, narrow pay bands now if you want. Or you can post none. Workers have been letting companies get away with posting none. $min wage to $1B is functionally equivalent to none.
nkmnz 4y ago
This implies that there is one true price, while, in fact, prices on the labor markets are constantly in flux. The market price is the result of individual transactions, so one could argue that limiting the free negotiation of prices to some previously published price range prevents the market from finding the best price for both sides.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I do not see how it implies one true price. And there is nothing preventing employers from updating their price ranges. Of course employers do not want to show their current employers that they are increasing their price for new hires, so that is their real concern with publicly listed price ranges.