https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29834753
So if you think your salary information is private, it's not private from the entity most able to abuse your salary history to suppress your wages, a new employer.
The only way this works out is if you can privately negotiate above the published range.
Also, what is to keep employers from defining unique job categories for every role?
* these nightmare scenarios have not played out in markets where this is already the law like CO. Jobseekers aren’t naive, they flood towards good job postings and leave shady practice job offers dry.
My point is that it will now be easier to collude, as public postings can be scraped by anyone, so now collusion isn't done privately but through public signaling.
Making that data public only helps employees because.
1. Current employees can look at listings and realize if they are underpaid or overpaid.
2. New employees can skip past low wage employers (forcing them to raise their wages if they want more employees).
[1] https://radford.aon.com/products/surveys/technology-compensa...
This provides some efficiency for workers, because there are companies out there who hide ranges and then low-ball really hard, wasting everyone’s time.
There is an element of psychological warfare introduced by having companies provide hard numbers for what they are willing to pay, especially for industries where employees are less empowered than in tech. By making companies provide salary ranges, you're convincing most employees to not suggest pay that is outside of that boundary. People have a bias towards making choices that appear agreeable, even if it means choosing something like less pay. It's very profitable to convince employees suppress their own pay.
If true, how do public pay ranges affect this negatively?
Assuming your premise is correct, without the public pay range, employee would likely accept whatever number employer throws out.
With the public pay range, employee can sort job listings and eliminate employers paying at the bottom, or at least reply back with “if you do not pay me as much as businesses X, then I will go apply there”.
Also, this law is for employees to know when their market price has risen and new coworkers are earning more.
Nothing stops you from asking for X+Y when the stated rate is X. All it does is give you a free floor of X in case your original amount was less than X.
> ... and get laughed at because it's beyond a listed number they will inevitably low-ball on.
Grow a thicker skin and laugh right back at them.
This should force employers to do a better job assessing what value a position provides and advertising the salary range appropriately. Currently, they know the value, but will attempt to low-ball applicants to the extent possible.
When you buy a car or a house, do you bid the value, or do you try to low-ball and see if the seller will bite?
And that's all beside the point, because the information asymmetries in real estate markets are totally different from labor markets. This law reduces the information asymmetry to actually make labor markets more like real estate markets, in which all historical prices are public information and (in civilized jurisdictions, at least) all known relevant factors that might affect price are legally required to be disclosed.
If you've ever hired someone, you'll find out about this asymmetry.
Create an account using one of your employers (old or new, it doesn't matter). If you have problems with this step, then skip to step 2 and ask the CSR for help with this.
Call the customer service at 866-222-5880 (FYI, it helps to call early in the morning when most people are asleep) Choose option 2 for "Report a problem..."
Tell the customer service rep (CSR) that you want to freeze your SSN on TWN. Verbally verify that this will keep 3rd parties from accessing the info. At this point, the CSR may try to direct you to the online form, but you need to be firm and say that you want to complete the process over the phone. If they still try to direct you to the online form, say that you will not be satisfied until the process is completed over the phone. I know this can be uncomfortable for some folks to challenge someone like this, but it's the easiest way.
At this point, the CSR will ask for personal information including your account name (created in step 1) SSN, DOB, address, email
The rep will send you a one-time code using the method of your choice (phone, text, email, mail). I chose text message. Tell them the code verbally over the phone Congrats. Your SSN is now frozen on TWN, preventing 3rd parties from access without your authority. You will receive a confirmation email Optional
8) If your CSR was friendly and helpful, ask to speak with their manager and give them a little praise. Pull a reverse-Karen
I prefer this method because it prevents you from having to mail or email any documents and you get instant confirmation and a case number to review your status. The whole process took like 10 minutes over the phone.
hmm.. what does that mean? I can be refused a loan if I forget to unfreeze before applying?
Until campaign finance law is reformed, there can be no expectation of competent legislation.
In American government, politicians must spend significant amounts of time fundraising. Most of the time, the candidate that is most successful fundraising wins their primary. The general election only involves candidates who won their primary.
So before any person gets to vote in a general election, people must vote in a primary election, and before people vote in a primary election, companies get to vote with money in the "fundraising election".
If you've ever thought our government is more responsive to money than public opinion, it's because money gets to "vote" on political candidates before anyone else does.
Here is Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's presentation on this very idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
Here is a related political campaign:
This is true, but the causality is far less clear.
Even without the suggested mechanism, the most popular candidate would be expected to get both the most votes and the most donations.
The research on election outcomes says that enough money is needed to make the voters aware of who the candidate is and where they stand on the issues. Beyond that, more money does very little.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c...
The article mostly agrees with you on the topic of the general election, but as you travel down the dependency chain (general election depends on primary depends on fundraising depends on capability to run), it becomes clear that money matters more. Effectiveness of spending at the roots of the dependency tree offers disproportionate effect on the final candidate choices in the general election, a general election that is likely already pre-decided based on demographic make up of constituents.
So money's effect on the general election in many ways doesn't matter if money can decide who can even be an option in the primary, or which candidates can have their names heard before the primary.
Excerpts from the article:
> But in 2017, Bonica published a study that found, unlike in the general election, early fundraising strongly predicted who would win primary races.
> Another example of where money might matter: Determining who is capable of running for elected office to begin with. Ongoing research from Alexander Fouirnaies, professor of public policy at the University of Chicago, suggests that, as it becomes normal for campaigns to spend higher and higher amounts, fewer people run and more of those who do are independently wealthy. In other words, the arms race of unnecessary campaign spending could help to enshrine power among the well-known and privileged.
> The best time to donate is early on in the primary, Bonica said, when out-of-the-gate boosts in fundraising can play a big, causal role in deciding who makes it to the general election.
The stories this year about democrat money supporting wingnut republicans in the primaries are also in line with this.