151–160 of 207 posts
Accenture is listed, but when I went to the listing, it had a CO disclaimer and listed the range. It was a massive range but a range nonetheless.
Could a company get away with listing a range of $1-$4,294,967,295 ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Price transparency is a basic requirement of efficient markets.
Exactly. We should also require by law that candidates provide the range of salaries they're willing to accept on their resumes before submitting any applications. For efficiency's sake, of course.
Context: Colorado’s Equal Pay Act requires jobs ads to list a salary range [1], which companies generally don't want to do. Excluding CO residents is one way companies are avoiding the law. [1] https://www.colorado.edu/hr/colorados-equal-pay-equal-work-a...
I'm curious if the other workaround will just be to have Junior Software Engineer I ($60K-$65K), JSE II ($65-70), etc. and post them all via the power of automation and just down qualify candidates from JSE VIII to JSE II because of the lack of 20 years experience in Rust. They still get to low-ball people. I really wish software had some more abstract certifications like other professions do, including things like j…
I have to admit I don't understand why companies are so opposed to this. Companies I've worked at have ranges of salary internally, which presumably they could share. The ranges are large enough that I think employees would struggle to use them to negotiate very well. And employees talk salary to each other and have other ways of getting that info anyway. Edit: someone else pointed out that Accenture does this in one…
It may lead to increased cost (paying higher salaries) if the market is not competitive and companies are leveraging the obscurity. But it may decrease cost if things are over valued.
The question is, is the labor market over or under valued? If it's over-valued then disclosing may actually cause salaries to equilibrate/come down -- which would be to the company's advantage. Does it imply that companies think the market is over-valued and aren't wanting to increase competition (both internally amongst current employees and externally with new hires)?
I am pretty tired of the charade tech companies are trying to pull on employees in terms of hiding pay bands. I feel like employees from disadvantaged backgrounds get the brunt of this nonsense by having pay starting lower than they should have if they were informed. This Colorado law addresses this "bug". And in case any of this sounds too reactionary I would look to the fact that some Govt. jobs/contractors are req…
Salary Range: 70582 - 105792 Salary Range 2: 87400 - 131100
This is "knowing right away"??? You could make 70K or nearly 2x 70K, how helpful that is to know? This is the shotgun approach to recruiting. The band is so wide, they want to pull in as much interest as possible while making offers near the 70k range as much as possible. It doesn't matter about your "disadvantaged background" the HR team works for the company and wants to give you(everyone) the lowest offer you'll take. If you have any type of advantage, you'll have negotiating power to get higher than 70K. I see this as having all the normal issues, except for those looking for higher than 130K. You get enough info to keep moving on without wasting your time if you're after >130K.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An individual may not want efficient markets for their short term interest. A society most certainly benefits from efficient markets in the long term by properly allocating labor resources. The bottom income/wealth deciles should definitely welcome price transparency, unless they are "temporarily" embarrassed members of the upper income/wealth deciles.
It's not at all clear that society benefits from efficient markets in labor, or that efficient markets theory is something that can even be applied to labor markets in a consistent and logical manner. Efficient markets assume an infinite amount of indistinguishable goods sold by an infinite amount of producers with only marginal costs. This theory is useful because in many situations (e.g. commodities markets) this i…
It is the whole reason why top down control and fascism or communism or Stalinism or Maoism are not ideal, because there is no better signal of supply and demand curves than prices.
The way prices move, over a sufficiently large dataset, indicate the way supply and demand curves are moving, and where the ball is moving so you can get to where the ball will be.
It is not perfect, of course, but it is better than the alternative (which is?).
In a hot job market this will not affect overall unemployment in Colorado. In a severe downturn, Coloradans will probably be at a major disadvantage. We need a recession to figure out the real consequences. Who knows when that will be.
Is the recession we're in now not severe enough?
To me, it's troubling: It implies a fundamental claim that a large corporation should overrule the people of the state, force or extort the people into doing what the corporation wants. I wish the people would react appropriately to this challenge to democracy. Also, often the threat is a bluff. Finally, it also seems to me that people used to be a lot more skeptical about power, especially corporate power.