Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

If your job posting doesn't give some indication as to the possible salary range, I'm just not going to apply.

What? I'm going to go through some bullshit interview process that includes some esoteric algorithm problem that has nothing to do with the actual position in question and, even if it did, I could "npm install"/google my way out of only to find out later on that the job pays the same (or less) than what I make right now?

That's just a waste of everyone's time.

Walmart is a bad comparison there; they have an enormous headcount of low-paid staff. Many tech companies are far lower headcount, but with high executive pay.

Looking at some other companies, Activision-Blizzard's CEO alone makes enough to pay every employee a $15,000 bonus. Reed Hastings at Netflix makes enough to pay every employee $3800. And that's not counting any of the rest of the executive staff, or all the other ways money flows out of a company to non-employees, like dividends and stock buybacks.

https://www.equilar.com/reports/83-equilar-associated-press-...

I think there's certainly a lot of room for wages to go up, though i'm skeptical that it will come at the expense of things like executive pay or share buybacks.

> Due to the wonders of tax law, that is equiv to 60k cash

And equivalent to 0 cash for paying the rent. I suspect that’s why it doesn’t seem to be a prominent concern in discussions about tech compensation.

What is the incentive for companies to put down meaningful/useful information? If that incentive exists, why weren't they doing it before the law was enacted? Alternatively, they weren't doing it before, so a priori I'd wager that the opposite incentive exists (to hide information from candidates). This law isn't changing incentives so behavior won't change beyond nominal compliance with the law.

What are your qualifications to be dispensing legal advice in this area, if any?

Yes, a company headquartered in california is (in many cases) still bound by california law even if the employee is located in another state. The obvious example is non-compete clauses, a california company still usually cannot enforce a non-compete even if the law permits it in the employee's state.

However, this situation is what's called a "conflict-of-law" and it basically comes down to the way the court interprets it.

Take it from the actual lawyers:

> The circumstances that present the strongest case against enforcement of such an agreement involves a noncompete agreement between a California-based employer and a California-based employee. But not all cases are that simple; whether California law applies depends upon the application of “conflict of law” rules.

> “Conflict of law” rules allow courts to determine what state’s laws apply when the laws of more than one state might apply to a dispute but would produce different results. For example, a noncompete agreement between a California-based employer and a Nevada-based employee that was signed in Nevada could be construed under Nevada or California law, depending on the circumstances. If Nevada law applies, the restrictive covenant might be enforceable against the employee. If California law applies, it will not be enforceable.

> Because of these issues, parties often include choice-of-law provisions telling a court to apply a particular state’s law rather than determine what state’s substantive laws apply under a conflict-of-law analysis. In most cases a court will readily accept a choice-of-law provision and apply it as the parties intended. But that’s not necessarily so in the case of a noncompete agreement.

> Like other common law doctrines, conflict-of-law rules vary from state to state. Most states will not enforce a choice-of-law provision that would violate the public policy of a state with a “materially greater interest” in the dispute or where the parties do not have a “substantial relationship” with the chosen state. In other words, a California employer cannot get around California’s prohibition against employee restrictive covenants by requiring his California employee to sign an agreement that includes a Nevada choice-of-law clause.

https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/is-my-out-o...

So yes, employment law in state X usually does bind a company headquartered in state X even if the employee is working in a completely different state. Doesn't matter where you live, you are employed by an entity in state X.

(or rather, it does matter, you still have to pay taxes in state Y and state Y also gets to pass rules of its own governing work in that state... practically speaking what you get is the union of the two sets of rules, you get the combination of both. In the event of a full-on "state X requires A, state Y forbids it"... then the lawyers get paid.)