4 ms·

Self-publishing salary ranges without intense oversight will likely not properly work unless the following are fully utilized & followed to the letter: - The c

Self-publishing salary ranges without intense oversight will likely not properly work unless the following are fully utilized & followed to the letter: - The company in question can only use salaries of existing roles, with string Levenshtein distance of 3 [0]. If it's a new role within the company, they're mandated to use the government's average salary. - The company can only use the term "Expect {low_bound} - {high_bound}", where (low_bound := min(current_salaries_for_role || government_average) * 0.85), and (high_bound := max(current_salaries_for_role || government_average) * 1.15) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance Any given leeway would inevitably be used by corporations to misadvertise their job postings, so it must be paramount that the possible space & terms available be made extremely strict in anticipation of such abuse.

samtho 4y ago
This is still better than nothing. If a company thinks a staff software engineer is worth a maximum of $95k, for example, I would be able to spot this before wasting anyone’s time with an application and potentially an interview.
troad 4y ago
Yes god forbid employers are allowed to - checks notes - set wages. The Ministry of Truth knows better than they do what they can afford to pay for a given role! I applaud efforts to make companies publish salary ranges. It corrects an information disparity that leads to inefficiency. But what you propose (basically government-set salaries) is economically illiterate and would do nothing but harm employers and employees alike (not to mention the broader economy).
- x-complexity 4y ago
  > Yes god forbid employers are allowed to - checks notes - set wages. The Ministry of Truth knows better than they do what they can afford to pay for a given role! > I applaud efforts to make companies publish salary ranges. It corrects an information disparity that leads to inefficiency. But what you propose (basically government-set salaries) is economically illiterate and would do nothing but harm employers and employees alike (not to mention the broader economy). As noted in the provided definitions, the company can set their own ranges if they have existing staff that are currently performing the defined role. As noted here: > (low_bound := min(current_salaries_for_role || government_average) * 0.85), and > (high_bound := max(current_salaries_for_role || government_average) * 1.15) if len(current_salaries_for_role) > 0, then the company can use it's own salaries for its own ranges.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
So, if a company is hiring for a new role they they are not yet paying anyone for, they cannot offer more than 1.15x the government average?
- x-complexity 4y ago
  > So, if a company is hiring for a new role they they are not yet paying anyone for, they cannot offer more than 1.15x the government average? They can: The government average is just the starting point for salary negotiations for the worker - It gives them a leg up on what the industry pays on average. There's also a hidden information advantage for the employee: If the company in question advertises that average, and the say that it's a new position, then the worst that they can offer is around the industry average, with higher salaries up for grabs. The "Expect" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as it says "There's probably an 80% chance you're getting a salary within this range.", with new positions advertising as "This is a new position, so there's a higher chance of getting a good salary here." Not all permutations of meta-analyses can be avoided, but the scope of what's allowed can be trimmed down to the point where it's possible for an applicant to guess what the company wants in terms of salary expectations.

samtho 4y ago

This is still better than nothing. If a company thinks a staff software engineer is worth a maximum of $95k, for example, I would be able to spot this before wasting anyone’s time with an application and potentially an interview.

troad 4y ago

Yes god forbid employers are allowed to - checks notes - set wages. The Ministry of Truth knows better than they do what they can afford to pay for a given role! I applaud efforts to make companies publish salary ranges. It corrects an information disparity that leads to inefficiency. But what you propose (basically government-set salaries) is economically illiterate and would do nothing but harm employers and employees alike (not to mention the broader economy).

x-complexity 4y ago
> Yes god forbid employers are allowed to - checks notes - set wages. The Ministry of Truth knows better than they do what they can afford to pay for a given role! > I applaud efforts to make companies publish salary ranges. It corrects an information disparity that leads to inefficiency. But what you propose (basically government-set salaries) is economically illiterate and would do nothing but harm employers and employees alike (not to mention the broader economy). As noted in the provided definitions, the company can set their own ranges if they have existing staff that are currently performing the defined role. As noted here: > (low_bound := min(current_salaries_for_role || government_average) * 0.85), and > (high_bound := max(current_salaries_for_role || government_average) * 1.15) if len(current_salaries_for_role) > 0, then the company can use it's own salaries for its own ranges.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

So, if a company is hiring for a new role they they are not yet paying anyone for, they cannot offer more than 1.15x the government average?

x-complexity 4y ago
> So, if a company is hiring for a new role they they are not yet paying anyone for, they cannot offer more than 1.15x the government average? They can: The government average is just the starting point for salary negotiations for the worker - It gives them a leg up on what the industry pays on average. There's also a hidden information advantage for the employee: If the company in question advertises that average, and the say that it's a new position, then the worst that they can offer is around the industry average, with higher salaries up for grabs. The "Expect" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as it says "There's probably an 80% chance you're getting a salary within this range.", with new positions advertising as "This is a new position, so there's a higher chance of getting a good salary here." Not all permutations of meta-analyses can be avoided, but the scope of what's allowed can be trimmed down to the point where it's possible for an applicant to guess what the company wants in terms of salary expectations.