I came to say that - and it's not just tech: plenty of finance, sales, etc have significant portions of their annual income come from non-fixed wage/salary sour

I came to say that - and it's not just tech: plenty of finance, sales, etc have significant portions of their annual income come from non-fixed wage/salary sources. RSUs, stock options, etc are particularly common in tech, but there's also bonuses, commissions, etc that from my reading of the text would not be included[1]. It's interesting the SB-973 (the report to actual compensation to the CA gov law) specifies earnings. not wage or salary - clearly there's an understanding that non salary/wage income does actually exist :D. So it's conceivable at the lower end of the income spectrum (where generally non-salary/wage income is not as significant) this may help, but I've always got the impression that as you get closer to the bottom you approach "everyone is paid equally: the absolute minimum we're legally allowed to" [1] The bill explicitly states that "pay scale" is understood to be salary or wage range, so excludes additional remuneration. That the bill itself makes this clear makes me, a non-lawyer, think that would pretty quickly shut down any "but the legislature clearly meant X" lawsuits.