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

Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 244 posts

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#221

Post by coolgeek »

snarf21 wrote: post #206

I understand the goal of this law but don't see how it solves it. I usually ask people what their current salary is now. I want to offer them (at least) a modest raise to come here. I want them to be happy and excited. I also want to not waste a ton of time negotiating salary if they want 50K more then I have available in my budget. You are worth whatever you can get someone to pay you. Some people may come in with a…

> I want to offer them (at least) a modest raise to come here. I want them to be happy and excited. I also want to not waste a ton of time negotiating salary if they want 50K more then I have available in my budget

If this were the case, you should ask what salary the desire, rather than what their current salary is.

Also, assuming that you're not the owner or otherwise the sole decision maker, others in the company do not share you're enlightened view. For various reasons, they seek to pay as little as possible to employ an acceptable minimum standard of employee.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#222

Post by WalterBright »

foldr wrote: post #190
WalterBright wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if your salary history shows you were paid well, the company will realize you are likely more competent than your job history otherwise suggests, and that they should offer you more.

And this law does nothing to prevent interviewees voluntarily disclosing their previous salary.

That's right. And the employer will likely infer that the salary is low if it is not disclosed.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#223

Post by brianwawok »

crdoconnor wrote: post #215
brianwawok wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he just advertises his budget is 100k... The guy he could have hired for 70k gets hired at 100k. That's wasted 30k to the company. Do that for many roles and your company is now out of business.

You're essentially agreeing that the point is to lowball the candidate.

Ya exactly. As the person owning the business, the less you pay your staff the bigger your paycheck. Its direct 1:1 for a private company.

As a person being a employee, you want to make the most you can.

The goals are directly competing, hence the classic struggle. Always going to be some give and take.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#224

Post by gesman »

EduardoBautista wrote: post #131
pravda wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is lying really the behavior we want to incentivize? Oh gosh. You make it sound bad that way! It's not 'lying', it is 'strategic disinformation'.

Honestly I have answered slightly under what I wanted to earn.

Sure.

Turn this question to your advantage to "test waters" on the opposite side.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#225

Post by crdoconnor »

brianwawok wrote: post #223
crdoconnor wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're essentially agreeing that the point is to lowball the candidate.

Ya exactly. As the person owning the business, the less you pay your staff the bigger your paycheck. Its direct 1:1 for a private company. As a person being a employee, you want to make the most you can. The goals are directly competing, hence the classic struggle. Always going to be some give and take.

In practice not every employer is like this and the ones that are tend to engender resentment, shoddy workmanship and a high turnover of skilled employees and a low turnover of useless employees without options.

There's value in being explicitly fair and upfront about compensation.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#226

Post by hackuser »

literallycancer wrote: post #195
hackuser wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether it's understandable doesn't matter There is a wide chasm between provably misleading and confusion or lack of information on the readers' side. That's why those communications are regulated, afaik. > I'm sure there already are laws that prevent/penalize sellers from conning people. Right, laws and regulations. 1) My point above was that the legal analysts said that the new corporate free speech rights, whic…

>1) My point above was that the legal analysts said that the new corporate free speech rights, which the Supreme Court said were Constitutional rights (if I understand correctly), might invalidate those laws. But then why aren't individuals using this as a defense already?, they have had the free speech rights for much longer.

> why aren't individuals using this as a defense already?, they have had the free speech rights for much longer.

I don't think individuals are regulated by the SEC, for example. Usually it's corporations that are. What are you thinking of?

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#227

Post by lend000 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #220
lend000 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a wide range of libertarian perspectives, just like you find on the left (socialist and beyond to moderate). I consider myself and my arguments on this thread to be with a moderate-leaning interpretation of the libertarian-associated non-aggression principle. I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle, but Democrats don't usually recognize it or try to apply it as a logical, almost quanti…

"I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle" Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however.

> Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however.

First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on, which can be used as a pillar of debate. It's the closest you can come to a 'scientific method' in political discussion, as opposed to the Democrats'/Republicans' strategy of just picking and choosing what 'sounds fair, sounds right.'

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#228

Post by crdoconnor »

lend000 wrote: post #227
crdoconnor wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle" Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however.

> Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however. First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on, which can be used as a pillar of debate. It's the closest you can come to a 'scientific method' in political discussion, as opposed to the Democrats'…

>First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression."

Literally in the first paragraph:

"Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

>Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on

That's hilarious. Not only is the definition of "property" completely open to interpretation, so is the word "aggression", the word "initiated" and the word "threaten".

This principle is clearly meant to be as vague as possible so people can attach their own meaning to it. It resembles religion.

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#229

Post by Latty »

witty_username wrote: post #201
Latty wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "we"? People who already have wealth? Sure.

No, "we" means anyone invested in those companies who make gains or who has loaned money to those companies (which could occur through your bank account).

Sure, which means people with wealth already. The more wealth the more you will benefit.

Someone with no money to invest (directly or indirectly through savings accounts) can't benefit.

So, instead of getting paid well, we should be happy with companies indirectly contributing a little to us through their succcess? Sounds like a great excuse for people in the middle to skim a cut.

Look - I'm not saying I don't see the value of business, but that doesn't mean we should just let businesses do whatever the hell they want because them doing well benefits their owners/investors (direct and indirect).

Re: Philadelphia Poised to Ban Employers from Asking Hires About Salary History

#230

Post by literallycancer »

hackuser wrote: post #226
literallycancer wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) My point above was that the legal analysts said that the new corporate free speech rights, which the Supreme Court said were Constitutional rights (if I understand correctly), might invalidate those laws. But then why aren't individuals using this as a defense already?, they have had the free speech rights for much longer.

> why aren't individuals using this as a defense already?, they have had the free speech rights for much longer. I don't think individuals are regulated by the SEC, for example. Usually it's corporations that are. What are you thinking of?

Basically, if a corporation can say/do things, and then claim it's just their expression and so protected under the First Amendment, shouldn't individuals be able to do the same?

In general, not necessarily in finance; but surely there are fields where certified professionals are liable when something goes wrong based on their advice or decisions (say, accounting or civil engineering).

Post reply on HN