111–120 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this satire?
This is the belief that roughly 50% of voters in the United States share.
Of this whole tangent is mostly a non-sequitor because that's not what the law requires or is an attempt to enforce.
wth, I didn't know people read elpais.com outside Spain
It would be like being surprised someone outside the UK reads the Guardian
> “We have small employers who don’t even know about the law,” said Kerbein, who predicted there would be “a lot of unintentional noncompliance.” Fair. But that's not how laws work. I may turn down a road not knowing that it's 35 and I get a ticket for going 45. Not knowing isn't an excuse.
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-questio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While some engineers definitely get compensated in stock more, is it really the majority of engineers? I feel like it’s over represented because we’re in HN but the vast majority of software engineers in this world don’t get stock at all, it’s just mostly base salary
Absolutely not, it's a VC ecosystem oddity just like people saying they make $400k when most of that is stock and sometimes there isn't even a liquid market for it. The median software engineer salary in the US is something like $110k. Still about twice the average individual income in the US[0], but the vast majority are going to be making 99% of their income in cash compensation including bonuses. I've worked for a…
1. Software engineers have come to expect it
2. It provides a very cheap incentive for the engineer to remain at the company for the N number of years required to vest
And in the end, they may still end up being worthless
I've previously commented [0] on how broken this implementation is. It's frustrating politicians don't see how easy it is to circumvent what the law seeks to achieve. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37440358
In your original comment > Also, it only forces companies to list the base salary, but especially in tech, that's just a portion of one's total comp. "Total compensation" is, to me, a way to inflate one's own value. 1. In companies with no market for stock options (privately owned, startups, companies that are just absolutely worthless), equity is hypothetical money which may never be worth anything. I worked for a c…
I hear what you're saying, but man, I really wish employers would be banned from offering healthcare benefits. They have zero business offering healthcare benefits.
Good. Hiding income only works for the company to exploit their workers.
Does this not remove the ability for individuals to negotiate up past a certain point?
Instead of negotiating for another $20k, you'll be negotiating to add prefixes like 'Senior' and 'Staff' and 'Architect' to your title, which will be worth $20k each.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While some engineers definitely get compensated in stock more, is it really the majority of engineers? I feel like it’s over represented because we’re in HN but the vast majority of software engineers in this world don’t get stock at all, it’s just mostly base salary
There's also lots of engineers who get paid in worthless stock. Companies which have no plan to ever IPO or who lose money every year. Taking a job at a startup based on potential future valuation and stock options is essentially gambling with hours of your own life
I have never worked in a job where you can give a reasonable pay band and routinely made 1.5-3x what other people with the same title did, before bonuses. This really only works for well-defined jobs in production, retail, and seems to bring little utility for the HN crowd.
If you’re making 3x what other people at your level are making, you’re at the wrong level. Unless you’re already at the highest level. If you’re worth that much more, I’m surprised that you don’t push for a higher level. The point of levels is to provide an external signal of competence. And perhaps this law will push companies towards doing a better job of that. In nearly 20 years of experience pay doesn’t generally…
The reality is that every person working in a position brings different things to the table. While larger businesses create defined level boxes and paths, they're really very rough and imprecise ways to describe people and often do a disservice to people who work hard but not in the way that the boxes "expect."
So there are definitely cases when we see people's compensation out of sync with their level (in either direction) and it's sometimes a product of the company recognizing the value of an employee but having levels and tiers that don't match the employee exactly.
Some companies, for example, tie higher pay to a management/leadership ladder. But you can be a solid-contributing or 10x or whatever software developer without going down the leadership road.
For a European person, I wonder if our fellow Americans would bother helping understand the rationale of such laws...?
Also things with salary transparency (i.e. Unions / Guilds) results in hirer wages for their members compared to similar workers without the things.
It's also in line between with the basic principals of capitalism. The basic supply-demand graph assumes perfect information which is obviously not true when a job-seeker doesn't know the salary of a job they're seeking so you'll end up with mismatches in the job-supply and job-demand.