California forces companies to show pay on job listings, revealing salaries
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
I disagree. Comparing base pay is the only objective way to compare salaries. You start to get something a kin to fraud when starting to compare "complex pay structures", which are easy to manipulate and use to screw you over if handled by less scrupulous employers/managers.
Also, it seems the law forces companies to list base pay, but they are very well able to complement that info with what they offer to complement the base pay.
All that said, I think the folks that this really is designed to help will substantially benefit from having greatly increased transparency.
Work at X, base pay $60,000 plus bonuses.
Work at Y, base pay $100,000.
Would you look into X or Y first?For example, a senior software engineering manager a couple years ago might see something like Amazon,FB, and Google base salaries of $160k/$250k/$250k respectively.
That's only a fraction of the potential pay, though as both Facebook and Google have a 25% annual bonus. Amazon's package would likely include something like a $275k bonus for the first two years.
Now, add in stock. Both FB and Google would offer $1.4M+ worth of stock, vesting over four years. Amazon might be closer to $700k/800k at that time.
Finally, there are joining bonuses. I'm not sure about Google or Amazon, but FB can (could?) go up to $100k.
Regardless of the actual numbers, the point is that the "base" is less than 50% of your compensation in many cases. It's certainly an important data point as one thinks about possible future stock values, etc, but it sometimes only tells part of the story.
Variable comp could have positive effects (reducing the pressure to have layoffs during lean times, creating an environment where success is shared with those who participated in creating in, aligning incentives across different factions to better support customers).