Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 785 posts

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#291

Post by erdevs »

cheapsteak wrote: post #273
Anasufovic wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.

The other school of thought on this is that the first person to talk numbers has the upper hand due to anchoring power > Just like the word suggests, you want to set a reference point around which the negotiation will revolve. Making the first offer can be to your advantage, as this offer might set the height of the negotiation bar. This anchor is the arena where the two parties will wrangle in a tug and pull negotia…

This works iff you shoot very high/low and if it's a very fungible range of possible outcomes. In something that is fairly well-bounded like job compensation (or most residential real estate transactions, as another example) it's usually better to let the counterparty turn the first card.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#292

Post by aianus »

wavefunction wrote: post #5
dudul wrote: post #2

Excellent measure. I remember interviewing at a very large corpo (think one of the main phone carriers), their application process online required applicants to reveal their salaries for the past 10 years. And before making an offer, they were asking for a W2 to make sure you were currently making what you claimed. Needless to say, I laughed at their face and walked. I assume this law won't apply to questions like "h…

There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by the credit bureaus. If they want to find out, they will.

> There is a lot of salary data available for people through services offered by the credit bureaus.

This is based on self-reported data to creditors. I've never had a creditor verify my stated income in any way, they always waive in because my score is good enough.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#293

Post by jack9 »

matthewowen wrote: post #285
jack9 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> either the company doing the work should expand, or it should have competitors. That's not how technology works. The most evident example is where data feeds data, creating a market without compare. You can't compete with google for map data or AWS for hosting. > we should ultimately reach some sort of equilibrium The equilibrium is not based on the metrics you have proposed except in the slightest degree.

Doesn't the fact that people are trying to compete with those services suggest that you can? Bing maps, Apple maps, Azure, Google Cloud Platform, Digital Ocean, Joyent. I don't think technology is that different. Incumbents have always had advantages. That doesn't totally preclude the possibility of competition. It might be that they compete by providing less value for less cost (eg the maps might not be as good, but…

> Doesn't the fact that people are trying to compete with those services suggest that you can?

In 20 years, we will see who is competing and who is was just funded with unicorn dreams. I don't consider a single one of those comparable.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#294

Post by mcbits »

clarkmoody wrote: post #209
mcbits wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan ... and leaves you jobless If you are not an equity holder, that sentence makes no sense. In a standard employment arrangement, you are selling your time for your salary. The job is not your property; it was created by your employer. Also, you got paid for that 10-50% of your productive lifespan. What else are you expecting?

As an employee, your time and skills are your personal capital (your means of production). The way you invest that capital has risk like any other investment.

Again, this is partially mitigated by salary. But as an employee, you probably don't expect to earn your negotiated starting salary for the next 40 years. You enter the relationship expecting some form of advancement, bonus, or other rewards in relation to your performance over time. Those expected returns don't manifest when the employer turns out to be a bad employer. Employers are not the only ones taking risks.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#295

Post by morgante »

dvt wrote: post #284
morgante wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make substantially less than 400k and I assure you that I do not live in a cardboard box. $5k is high for monthly expenses. I rented a single bedroom in Manhattan for $1850 and you can save even more if you're willing to live with roommates. I'm not sure what I can do to convince you I'm not lying, but consider that median household income is less than $100k in both SV and NY. If the average person can get by on Of…

Ok, so maybe I'm just bad at math. I know that if you make 200k as an engineer in NYC (which is STILL high[1]), you make around 10k a month after taxes. 10k - 2k for rent - 1k for expenses = 7k saved if you don't go on vacation, and literally do nothing that costs money for ten years. Even saving 7k a month, you won't save 100k a year. [1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-en...

7k is about right. My average savings rate over the past 3 years has been $6k and it's increased as my salary has.

You're forgetting to include investment gains. With them, I can go on regular vacations and still reach $1m within 10 years.

Also, since someone else mentioned it, my model conservatively assumes a 4% inflation rate. Over the 3 years I've been tracking, my model has consistently underestimated the growth in my savings.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#296

Post by exhilaration »

lsllc wrote: post #206
drawkbox wrote: post #151

Massachusetts is doing some good steps to better the work environment and entrepreneurship. This is a nice to have in negotiations and MA challenging non-competes are great things to change[1]. Non-competes are extremely anti-innovation, anti-worker, anti-business and really anti-American. Workers that are skilled cannot be owned. Good knowledgable workers should be compensated to keep them around, not fear of legal…

Sadly, the MA house & senate couldn't reconcile their two versions of the non-compete bill and it died in committee: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-c... These reform attempts have been going on for years in MA and never make it into law.

California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this, it's a huge incentive for new grads to move to California instead of taking jobs in Massachusetts.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#297

Post by erdevs »

JamesBarney wrote: post #272
Anasufovic wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First person to talk numbers generally has the weak hand in the negotiation.

Most negotiation experts disagree with this advice. The first person who gives a number anchors the conversation to that number. When you name a number you certainly do set a max on negotiation, but you also get to set the starting number. And many negotiation experts think the latter is more valuable than the former. So they can start off trying to negotiate you down from your max, or up you can spend your time tryi…

If you're doing something like selling your startup, you want to set the anchor price, yes. There is such a huge range of outcomes, it's best for you to shoot high (as long as you're comfortable with the risk of scaring the buyer off) as the seller. (Or to start and shoot low as the buyer; with the walkaway risk reversed.)

For something like salary negotiation where results are more well-bounded and there is a lot more commoditization (ie replacements are relatively easy to find, or are perceived to be relatively easy to find), you generally don't want to anchor. An anchor that's way out of whack is easy to shoot down (show comp data). Anchoring slightly high/low doesn't buy you much as there is no real anchor... you're just in the established/known range... and so it's more valuable to see where the counterparty starts off an dplay from there.

There are unique situations / exceptions of course. For example, you might have uniquely valuable skills for a given company (or be able to convince them you do) and therefore move into a less-bounded zone of negotiation, in which making the ask/establishing the anchor would again be a good idea. But for a normal, well-established position, there is literally no benefit in "anchoring" as the bounded range is already fairly well established and that is the anchor.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#298

Post by fecak »

morgante wrote: post #275
fecak wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that idea, and I definitely would like to see an element of incentive like your model includes, but I imagine I'd also spend a fair amount of time either (a) saying no to people with unrealistic expectations or (b) trying to manage expectations down for those I'd consider overly optimistic, which could be perceived as opportunistic. It's tricky.

If you think most people's expectations aren't reasonable, then maybe your service isn't needed. Isn't your whole thesis that lots of engineers are getting less than their worth due to their inferior negotiation skills?

By "fair amount" of time, I wasn't trying to imply "most". I think at least a slight majority of the population have fairly reasonable expectations based on my years of experience. For them to be a client though (based on your pricing model), their expectations have to be reasonable and a bit lower than market or unreasonably low. Reasonable and a bit high doesn't work.

A small percentage tend to have expectations far below market.

There are thousands of engineers getting less than they could be getting if they had better negotiating skills, better marketing skills, and better information.

The number of underpaid engineers doesn't need to be anywhere near a majority for the service to be a good business opportunity, or needed. There are plenty of engineers that could use the help - the question is whether or not they'd seek it out.

Re: Massachusetts Bans Employers from Asking Applicants About Previous Pay

#300

Post by phamilton »

jack9 wrote: post #293
matthewowen wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the fact that people are trying to compete with those services suggest that you can? Bing maps, Apple maps, Azure, Google Cloud Platform, Digital Ocean, Joyent. I don't think technology is that different. Incumbents have always had advantages. That doesn't totally preclude the possibility of competition. It might be that they compete by providing less value for less cost (eg the maps might not be as good, but…

> Doesn't the fact that people are trying to compete with those services suggest that you can? In 20 years, we will see who is competing and who is was just funded with unicorn dreams. I don't consider a single one of those comparable.

> I don't consider a single one of those comparable.

Azure and Google Compute Engine? I'd say those are pretty comparable to AWS.

Post reply on HN