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

New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

m.sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 680 posts

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#591

Post by astura »

greymeister wrote: post #365
Sangermaine wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No thank you. >My salary is private. I do not want my family and friends to know how much I make. But have you thought about why you feel this way? I assume you are American, as am I, and so I understand we've been socialized by our culture to feel this way, but it really makes no sense. It's just a way to harm workers by keeping us from seeing when we're being screwed. I'd even go so far as to wager that this entir…

What culture is socialized to publicly disclose income?

In Sweden that is public information.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#592

Post by beingmyself2 »

bargl wrote: post #245
beingmyself2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason I give a range is because salary is only a SMALL part of your compensation package I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. Bonus is discretionary (meaning they can give you $0) while salary is not. Salary is a BIG part of your compensation package because that is the primary reason people work. Most would work for salary without medical but not the other way around. Claiming salary is small pota…

>I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. It is not a myth. If the company pays out then you make more money. It isn't GUARANTEED salary but neither is stock. Sure it's not worth every dollar they say you might get but it does have a value based on the history of the Company. I've done very well for myself going with a slightly lower salary and accepting a 2x1 ratio on the bonus. I.E. If they offer 100K. I'll…

It is a myth and this is the same shaky reasoning I always hear from people who have been on the "other side" (hiring). I don't blame you for it, it is your job to compensate people as little as possible while extracting the most wealth from them. That said, there are a lot of people who fall for this "if you have a family (of 20 dependents) you totally make up what you lose in salary!" fable and that puts downward pressure on all our salaries.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#593

Post by numismatex »

burger_moon wrote: post #98
alexanderstears wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the business and shockingly accurate. However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. If they get a full report, it could contain information about disabilities, national orig…

"... disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge about sexual orientation." Don't employers already get most of that from doing in person interviews? Even through phone screens you can gather most of that information.

You have to understand that this exact information is also in political databases, so whether or not you give it to them, a very big employer likely has it already.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#594

Post by astura »

wildmusings wrote: post #264
oh_sigh wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but know that completely rational nations have decided to go with OPs way(like Norway)

Yes, and excellence is not rewarded in such societies. Edit: Look at how pay works in countries where such information is public (i.e. Scandinavia). My understanding is that within a given line of work, everyone makes just about the same amount, adjusted for seniority, regardless of performance.

salary is highly tied to performance for professional athletes and salary information is public information.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#595

Post by astura »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #218
mamon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really do that in America? I rented a lot of apartments in my country and was never asked about my income, or had a credit check. The usual way of avoiding not paying renters is requiring first rent plus guarantee deposit (usually equal to the one month rent) in advance. No further proofs of financial credibility required.

How fast can a non-paying renter be legally removed from the property in your country? In the US, someone with no legal skills can drag it out for 6-18 months by asserting various nonsense.

Why is the comment downvoted? It's not wrong. Sure, it's not common but it can and does happen. People who work the system are called "serial evictees."

https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/how-renters-work-...

>Depending on the vigilance of the landlord, a seasoned serial evictee like Getzow can get away with a minimum of 45 days and sometimes up to a year of free rent. The actual number of serial evictees operating in San Francisco is difficult to track, but some attorneys who specialize in representing landlords estimate there are between 20 and 100.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#596

Post by astura »

mamon wrote: post #116
rpowers wrote: post #38

Really wish this would extend to apartment rent applications. I'm fine with a credit check, but they don't need to know how high they can increase my rent before I'll need to move. edit I am referring to my experience renting apartments from Property Management run communities. (Think Essex or Prometheus) Rent increases every year with them.

They really do that in America? I rented a lot of apartments in my country and was never asked about my income, or had a credit check. The usual way of avoiding not paying renters is requiring first rent plus guarantee deposit (usually equal to the one month rent) in advance. No further proofs of financial credibility required.

There's strong landlord-tenant laws in most parts of the United States that make renting to a stranger a risky venture. You can't just show up and move all their stuff to the curb and change the locks if your tenant stops paying rent - you have to go through a court process which can take a while. Landlords are looking for tenants who are likely to pay rent, it makes sense they want to rent to people who actually have the means to pay rent. We are in the age of Big Data where background information is widely available for a small fee, it makes sense they want to get as much information as possible on prospective tenants.

I've never rented where I wasn't required to pay first month's rent and a security deposit as well.

Though it would have to be an insanely hot market for this practice to work - vacancy is extremely expensive for a landlord and the margins on being a landlord are fairly low (despite what the guy giving the "I'll teach you to be rich" presentation at the Holiday Inn will tell you). In fact, I've heard of landlords keeping rents to long term tenants a bit under market price just to keep them, I rented for six years without a single rent increase.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#597

Post by [deleted] »

jldugger wrote: post #500
seattle_spring wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a real average that proves that a female teacher makes less than a male mechanical engineer. How does that help anyone, other than pushing a false narrative?

Well, it might tell us the shape of discrimination is less overt and more structural. Why exactly was it that out of my CS graduating class of 100 there was 1 woman?

[deleted]

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#598

Post by astura »

FireBeyond wrote: post #380
usaar333 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always write a salary lower than what you make.. Regardless, it's rarely in your own interest to conceal it unless you have privacy concerns. 1. Landlords are going to prefer candidates with higher salaries. 2. It's really unclear to me that landlords use your salary to determine rent increases. e.g. My rent has always been well under what could be covered by my salary and I'd move long before it reaches that…

> You can always write a salary lower than what you make.. It's... optimistic... that you think they're going to take you at face value when you do so, rather than requiring employment / income verification. And in most cases, "the information on this application is true to the best of my knowledge and I understand that my application may be rejected if I provide false information"...

I guess you can write "Over [some reasonable number]" on your application and not be lying.

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#599

Post by KirinDave »

seattle_spring wrote: post #495
KirinDave wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The $0.79 on the $1 shit has been debunked a million times yet is still persists for some reason. It persists because it's a real average. And uh, it's not the case that the pay gap has been disproven in many industries.

Yes, it's a real average that proves that a female teacher makes less than a male mechanical engineer. How does that help anyone, other than pushing a false narrative?

It tells us either: there are a handful of professions that are drawing down the average. OR: That a pervasive wage gap exists.

Either is unacceptable, don't you agree?

Why are you so eager to assert the labor of women is obviously worth less?

Re: New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary

#600

Post by KirinDave »

tomrod wrote: post #511
jldugger wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it might tell us the shape of discrimination is less overt and more structural. Why exactly was it that out of my CS graduating class of 100 there was 1 woman?

Given the supplied anecdote, it is because 99 men and 1 woman completed the requirements for a CS degree, for whatever reasons the individuals decided go do so. Let's step aside the point of generalizing one anecdote to be representative, however. Can we really assign the disparity solely to microaggressions against women? Would we feel the same if the split were 75/25,or 51/49? What is the threshold of equality with…

I don't... don't really get why the above poster's observation is not inline given national graduation rates for CS. Seems within the expected distribution, no?

> Can we really assign the disparity solely to microaggressions against women? Would we feel the same if the split were 75/25,or 51/49? What is the threshold of equality with respect to noise?

Why don't you use your powerful male thoughts to do some basic bayesian modeling and come up with some proposals? Many people have so maybe you can borrow their work, if that sounds like too much effort.

But hey, to do an analysis we need some data! Let me provide you with a recent and impartial source: https://nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/

Here's a fun one: Stats suggest in the US that men:women declare majors ~3:1 across all engineering disciplines but ~2:1 in computer science at the outset. However, when we look at graduation rates proportional to the whole of their class in 2016 we saw: computer sciences (17.9%), engineering (19.3%), physical sciences (39%) and mathematics (43.1%).

Computer science has an abnormally high attrition rate despite a increased chance of declaration for major. Other similarly complex and abstract disciplines such as mathematics (which CS leans upon heavily to get any real work done) do not have such a falloff.

So gosh. Where do YOU draw the line? Care to show us the work for how you derived it? I'd love to know.

I could probably get numbers for major vocational education startups. I think I might go pursue that. Since many of those are online, they'll have less noise from on-campus harassment.

Post reply on HN