Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

Post by hnal943 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

samsonradu wrote: post #100

slg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…

But is it ok for competition to kill the value of developers work (in the benefit of managers/founders and whomever else)? The actual point I think is to get developers to understand they need to lift the bar higher because it's now set too far from the value they actually create.

Post by hibikir » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

cheriot wrote: post #50

tombert wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that basically what a recruiter does? Every time I've dealt with a recruiter, they've done the salary haggling for me. EDIT: I should point out that that's what they do in regards to full-time W2 work, not contract.

Be careful about that. The recruiter's incentive is stronger to get more people into jobs that to get one person a little bit more money. It's much like the situation with real estate agents that freakonomics covered in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck

Post by Swizec » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #104

toomuchtodo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is stopping engineers from saying "I'm going to contribute $1.5m to your bottom line this next year, I want you to pay me $1.4m", but they'll be shown the door because there's a guy that's willing to contribute the same $1.5m in exchange for $100k in compensation. Which is why you should be an owner/competitor versus an employee if you know the business well enough.

Assuming that you can tolerate the commensurate risk, absolutely. Many people forget that the rank-and-file employee isn't exposed to the financial and legal risk that their employers were/are.

Post by idrios » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #128

slg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…

All of these things are true. However, there is another input into supply side, and that's alternatives to employment like starting a company. Any employees that really create much more value than their salary can and will just leave and start their own company, where they get to set their own salary. By doing so, they'll also be leaving the pool of employees, and potentially hiring others too (reducing supply, incre…

Post by clarkmoody » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

mcbits wrote: post #134

blahi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but this is straight up proletariat bull. You get hired, you get paid. If it doesn't pan out, you go somewhere else. You have 0 risk and a guaranteed career. And sorry, but 100k for a javascript "engineer" is more than the "fair share" in my opinion, but it's a market, so it is what it is.

Working as an employee is not without risk. There is the risk that you'll invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan in an employer who squanders it all and leaves you jobless without notice instead of an employer who puts your abilities to good use and recognizes the value that you create. The risk is partially mitigated by receiving a paycheck during those wasted years regardless of the employer's competence.