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

Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

coloradoexcluded.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#201

Post by pandaman »

wolverine876 wrote: post #160

It seems to me that recently, businesses have more often tried to use their market power to strong arm democratic governments into doing their bidding. For example, Amazon has done it several times, and remember Uber and Lyft threatening to leave California. It's corporate 'cancel culture', in a way. Very possibly, my impression of the frequency is wrong. To me, it's troubling: It implies a fundamental claim that a l…

This is how democracy works too - when you put some additional burden on an activity you should expect the activity to subside. For example, "vice taxes" are specifically aimed to reduce consumption of undesirable goods. Am I "overruling people of the state" when I quit smoking because the prices are too high? Am I "canceling" the Feds when I don't buy NFA weapons because I think the process is ridiculous?

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#202

Post by wolverine876 »

pandaman wrote: post #201
wolverine876 wrote: post #160

It seems to me that recently, businesses have more often tried to use their market power to strong arm democratic governments into doing their bidding. For example, Amazon has done it several times, and remember Uber and Lyft threatening to leave California. It's corporate 'cancel culture', in a way. Very possibly, my impression of the frequency is wrong. To me, it's troubling: It implies a fundamental claim that a l…

This is how democracy works too - when you put some additional burden on an activity you should expect the activity to subside. For example, "vice taxes" are specifically aimed to reduce consumption of undesirable goods. Am I "overruling people of the state" when I quit smoking because the prices are too high? Am I "canceling" the Feds when I don't buy NFA weapons because I think the process is ridiculous?

An interesting philosophical question but we know it's not the same thing.

Engaging in the philosophical question: You don't have power (unless you do); Amazon does.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#203

Post by namrog84 »

stickfigure wrote: post #187
namrog84 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you didn't give specific dollar per person. I agree. There should be known ranges for a position and years of service as minimum Similar to military if you know someone's pay and years. You know their minimum. But they might get additional amount for other reasons. I think a good starting place is say position x pays between 35k and 40k for 1 to 5 years in position. Its removes a little burden on jealously of…

> There should be known ranges for a position and years of service as minimum Because value production is an exact function of job title and seniority?

There can be 'levels' that is semi-independent from 'job title'. As this is commonly the case in many companies.

Many companies have multiple levels for a given job title. Everywhere I've worked in software has had 'levels' with a finite range, and as you reach the upper bound of the range, you move to the next 'level'. There is some overlap in the level's ranges. Also as I originally stated, this is the 'minimum' for simply a starting talking point, it will still allow some to be hidden/obscured. There is always 'additional bonuses/awards' on per project basis. e.g. Project ___ grants an additional $$$ either 1 time bonus on start, on complete, or recurring.

If someone's value production is greater, than they should be promoted to the next 'level' which comes with increased compensation.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#204

Post by pandaman »

wolverine876 wrote: post #202
pandaman wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how democracy works too - when you put some additional burden on an activity you should expect the activity to subside. For example, "vice taxes" are specifically aimed to reduce consumption of undesirable goods. Am I "overruling people of the state" when I quit smoking because the prices are too high? Am I "canceling" the Feds when I don't buy NFA weapons because I think the process is ridiculous?

An interesting philosophical question but we know it's not the same thing. Engaging in the philosophical question: You don't have power (unless you do); Amazon does.

Obviously cigarette taxes are not exactly the same thing as employment ad requirements. Putting an additional burden in both cases is the same. And Amazon only has power over you because you don't care about my business and care about Amazon's, if you had been a local vendor and I had been your customer your perception had been different. By law I have more power to refuse business than Amazon.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#205

Post by wolverine876 »

pandaman wrote: post #204
wolverine876 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting philosophical question but we know it's not the same thing. Engaging in the philosophical question: You don't have power (unless you do); Amazon does.

Obviously cigarette taxes are not exactly the same thing as employment ad requirements. Putting an additional burden in both cases is the same. And Amazon only has power over you because you don't care about my business and care about Amazon's, if you had been a local vendor and I had been your customer your perception had been different. By law I have more power to refuse business than Amazon.

> Amazon only has power over you because you don't care about my business and care about Amazon's

Amazon is large enough to have substantial economic power in my community and country. For example, if Amazon threatens to pull their warehouse from my community, costing 100s (1,000s?) of jobs, that's a material threat. Also, Amazon provides services that are perceived as not easily replaceable. If J's Tobacco & Beer threatens, it will get a laugh at best, but more likely an awkward silence.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#206

Post by pandaman »

wolverine876 wrote: post #205
pandaman wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously cigarette taxes are not exactly the same thing as employment ad requirements. Putting an additional burden in both cases is the same. And Amazon only has power over you because you don't care about my business and care about Amazon's, if you had been a local vendor and I had been your customer your perception had been different. By law I have more power to refuse business than Amazon.

> Amazon only has power over you because you don't care about my business and care about Amazon's Amazon is large enough to have substantial economic power in my community and country. For example, if Amazon threatens to pull their warehouse from my community, costing 100s (1,000s?) of jobs, that's a material threat. Also, Amazon provides services that are perceived as not easily replaceable. If J's Tobacco & Beer th…

"Economic power" it might have, I thought you had been talking about the "power" as in "legal or official authority, capacity, or right". And sure you should take Amazon's threats more seriously than threats from individuals. If one person does not like your newfangled law, packs his shit and moves to another state then you are fine, if Amazon does the same - perhaps you should think before enacting such a law a bit more? But Amazon is not unique, if you manage to piss off enough citizens with your misguided laws you will see same or worse consequences. E.g. California and New York both just lost a seat in the House each. Think before you make laws, that's the only advice I have.

Re: Companies that are avoiding hiring in Colorado

#207

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

InTheArena wrote: post #181
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would insist that it is. If other states follow CO with this type of legislation, it will result in all (most) companies deciding to do what many people consider the right thing. If they do not, and CO remains alone in this requirement, then the longer term conclusion will look different. I'm sorry if that comes at some personal cost to you, but there are very [ EDIT: few ] social changes that don't cost someone so…

It's always great, as long as it's someone else paying the price. Put it another way - the positions that this law are impacting around positions that lack a competitive market for people. This isn't affecting people who want to know if McDonald's or Taco Bell pays more. It's affecting people who are looking for high paying software development and management roles. There is a constant pattern of the last decade of d…

Follow a week later, via another HN link:

https://www.businessinsider.com/pay-transparency-salary-rang...

> That's all about to change. A growing number of states are enacting measures known as "pay transparency," which force companies to disclose their compensation levels. New laws set to take effect in Connecticut and Nevada next month, and in Rhode Island in 2023, require employers to provide applicants the salary range they pay for each position at some point in the hiring process. Four other states and two cities have enacted similar mandates, some of which also require employers to disclose their pay scales to existing employees.

Post reply on HN