3 ms·

I have 2 main critiques of this legislation. 1) This seems like a fairly decent bit of legislation for some standardized professions, particularly those that a

I have 2 main critiques of this legislation. 1) This seems like a fairly decent bit of legislation for some standardized professions, particularly those that are often paid hourly, work in person and cannot be outsourced out of state, and in many cases are the most economically vulnerable. I'm thinking that it would be pretty decent for dishwashers, cashiers, gas station attendants, etc to know if a job is offering say $15-18 per hour or $20-25 per hour. But this seems horrendous for salaried remote knowledge workers, particularly those that have the ability to negotiate a better deal. And additionally, there will be unintended consequences of this legislation, such as some employers not wanting to deal with New York employees. 2) If the goal of this legislation is to prevent exploitation, it seems that requiring a salary floor would be important, but requiring a salary ceiling would be a negative part of this legislation as it makes it a lot tougher to allow employees to have the room to negotiate.

donohoe 3y ago
I don't agree with your second point, but lets say you are right: the benefits of having a "salary ceiling" to me still outweigh any down-sides. I would argue that in many roles it gives a betters sense of what is on the table and allows folks to aim for higher than they might have. No legislation is perfect, but this a vast improvement over the current situation.
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  > a vast improvement over the current situation. Personally speaking, this only seems to be a very marginal improvement over the current situation if you consider the impact of legislation in a vacuum and magically wish away any possible unintended consequences. Does your analysis consider that at least some employers will not want to deal with employees affected by this? You might wish that this wasn't a thing, but it is. Maybe this legislation isn't as questionable in good economic times where companies are rapidly hiring as many people as they can wherever they can, but it seems particularly self-destructive in a market where employers have the leverage to look anywhere. What are you going to tell those increasingly desperate New Yorkers who start getting sad feedback like the following? "Thank you for your application to our company. Unfortunately, this role is not currently eligible for New York State residents. Have a nice day."
  - altdataseller 3y ago
    That's not going to happen. California and now NY all require salary transparency. What's going to happen is the opposite. More and more states that don't have these laws, especially neighboring ones (like NJ, Connecticut) are going to disclose their salaries because they're competing with companies from those states that are being transparent, and attracting more candidates because of that transparency. They're all going to surrender to what the market is asking of them. Salary transparency is quickly becoming table stakes
    - logicalmonster 3y ago
      1) You're guessing about what's going to happen in the future like it's a complete given that only good things would result from this and enough other states would join in. I would point out that (this doesn't involve speculation) we already know that some companies don't want to compete in locations that have these policies, which isn't ideal for New Yorkers. 2) Your positive speculation might be a little more reasonable were we entering great economic times where companies were rushing to hire anywhere they can. In troubled economic times, companies have a lot more leverage to seek the best deals they can and can exclude locations that are more trouble than they're worth.
      - altdataseller 3y ago
        1) That was true when it was just pitiful Colorado (no offense to Colorado residents) 2) That might be true for some companies that need mediocre talent, but if you’re looking to hire the best, and don’t got a salary disclosed, those elite workers have plenty of other options
test6554 3y ago
The employer is much more likely to post a higher, unrealistic, salary ceiling that they have no intention of actually paying in order to attract more/better candidates.
- convolvatron 3y ago
  that tends to self-correct. talking to candidates burns alot of time. sure, you can lie and try to get a better outcome. but you also spent precious time buttering them up only to have them walk away in a huff. I'm seeing the same kind of aspirational posts with respect to commutes.

donohoe 3y ago

I don't agree with your second point, but lets say you are right: the benefits of having a "salary ceiling" to me still outweigh any down-sides. I would argue that in many roles it gives a betters sense of what is on the table and allows folks to aim for higher than they might have. No legislation is perfect, but this a vast improvement over the current situation.

logicalmonster 3y ago
> a vast improvement over the current situation. Personally speaking, this only seems to be a very marginal improvement over the current situation if you consider the impact of legislation in a vacuum and magically wish away any possible unintended consequences. Does your analysis consider that at least some employers will not want to deal with employees affected by this? You might wish that this wasn't a thing, but it is. Maybe this legislation isn't as questionable in good economic times where companies are rapidly hiring as many people as they can wherever they can, but it seems particularly self-destructive in a market where employers have the leverage to look anywhere. What are you going to tell those increasingly desperate New Yorkers who start getting sad feedback like the following? "Thank you for your application to our company. Unfortunately, this role is not currently eligible for New York State residents. Have a nice day."
- altdataseller 3y ago
  That's not going to happen. California and now NY all require salary transparency. What's going to happen is the opposite. More and more states that don't have these laws, especially neighboring ones (like NJ, Connecticut) are going to disclose their salaries because they're competing with companies from those states that are being transparent, and attracting more candidates because of that transparency. They're all going to surrender to what the market is asking of them. Salary transparency is quickly becoming table stakes
  - logicalmonster 3y ago
    1) You're guessing about what's going to happen in the future like it's a complete given that only good things would result from this and enough other states would join in. I would point out that (this doesn't involve speculation) we already know that some companies don't want to compete in locations that have these policies, which isn't ideal for New Yorkers. 2) Your positive speculation might be a little more reasonable were we entering great economic times where companies were rushing to hire anywhere they can. In troubled economic times, companies have a lot more leverage to seek the best deals they can and can exclude locations that are more trouble than they're worth.
    - altdataseller 3y ago
      1) That was true when it was just pitiful Colorado (no offense to Colorado residents) 2) That might be true for some companies that need mediocre talent, but if you’re looking to hire the best, and don’t got a salary disclosed, those elite workers have plenty of other options

test6554 3y ago

The employer is much more likely to post a higher, unrealistic, salary ceiling that they have no intention of actually paying in order to attract more/better candidates.

convolvatron 3y ago
that tends to self-correct. talking to candidates burns alot of time. sure, you can lie and try to get a better outcome. but you also spent precious time buttering them up only to have them walk away in a huff. I'm seeing the same kind of aspirational posts with respect to commutes.