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

Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 406 posts

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#241

Post by mxcrossr »

jcomis wrote: post #114

As a Coloradan another thing that's happening is companies are listing their jobs as Remote, only advertising in CO, and just mentioning it's a CO only job verbally. They do the thing where they sit in the gray area due to pandemic "Oh, it's remote, FOR NOW, but it's a CO job" Or listing the job as Denver and a few other cities, but it's really just Denver/Boulder (Twitter currently doing this). Another pattern is li…

> Another pattern is listing the range as 40-250k so the disclosure is effectively nothing.

This feels like a losing strategy as other employers will be posting tighter ranges which will get more applications. Especially if the lower bounds is too low. Hopefully this sorts itself out.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#242

Post by insert_coin »

compiler-guy wrote: post #210
cblconfederate wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit most often rests on the asymmetry of information, thats why monopolies are so profitable

Monopoly profits are based on dominant market power, not asymmetry of information.

Where is the "dominant market power" coming from?

Asymmetry of information is what got you to the top. You know more than your competition, more on a productive process, on consumer behavior, on business partners, on leveraging financial avenues, on political "contributions", on questionable use of insider information, etc.

And Information is what keeps you at the top: knowing who to "lobby" to create convenient regulation that hurts your competition the most, is the most effective way monopolies use to stay that way.

Monopolies are not monopolies in the abstract, they have to fight everyday to keep being a monopoly and they do that by leveraging information asymmetry.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#243

Post by dr_orpheus »

hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

> ...our Software Developer 1 pays $70-90k, Software Developer 2 pays $90-11k, etc. However- we haven't decided which level of software developer we're going to hire you for.

I have seen some companies do this in a sense. They will post their salary "grades" A1, A2, A3, B1, etc. But there isn't really any correlation to say a Software Developer 1 will be a grade A3 or B1 or whatever.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#244

Post by lotsofpulp »

ativzzz wrote: post #209
hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

So why not just list the position for a software engineer, along with 3 different salary bands for 3 different experience levels? Or does that not comply with the law?

They can. The companies not wanting to do it just don’t want to give more information to the sellers (labor), especially their current labor who might be being paid less while the buyer (employer) profits from the arbitrage.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#245

Post by throwawayboise »

alistairSH wrote: post #228
nradov wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

And in the US, the inspector is typically only liable up to the cost of the inspection, or some pre-arranged value. He also isn't an actual engineer, so is mostly worthless. He'll check the roof with a pain of binoculars, but not necessarily get onto the roof. He'll check the age of appliances, but that's mostly obvious to anybody willing to do a base amount of research. Etc. If there's anything remotely questionable…

It's similar with the survey. In a mortgage survey, they basically verify that a house of the specified construction and square footage is on the property where it is supposed to be. Nothing you really couldn't see by just driving by.

When I have bought a house, in order to get a proper survey with the property boundaries marked by stakes I had to pay for that myself.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#246

Post by ryandrake »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #162
dominotw wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I recently had to play a round of "don't give a number" with a recruiter last week. Needless to say, that didn't go very far. I had this happen to be last week too. I am not sure what ppl say to recruiters when they keep asking this question.

In my case, it was more that the recruiter wouldn't give any sense of what their number was. I told them it was like they were selling a home and advertising an open house without an asking price or any pictures of the inside. I wouldn't waste 20 minutes on an open house for a place that wouldn't work for me, would you? They just clamped down on "I'm not at liberty to say." So, I told them to get back to me when they…

This "you say a number first" game has to end. I had a memorably surreal conversation with a recruiter that kind of went like this:

RECRUITER: Tell me what your current salary is.

ME: No. I'm not going to disclose this. Why don't you tell me what the range is for this role.

RECRUITER: It depends on what you're currently making.

ME: How does what I'm currently making change what value I'm offering to the company? I have a range, you have a range, let's just figure out where it overlaps.

RECRUITER: OK then you tell me how much do you want.

ME: $500K (knowing this was a ridiculous number)

RECRUITER: HAHAHAHAROTFL

ME: See how stupid this is? You obviously have a range and that number is outside of it. I'm not going to negotiate against myself.

We didn't get much farther than that.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#247

Post by notahacker »

ativzzz wrote: post #209
hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

So why not just list the position for a software engineer, along with 3 different salary bands for 3 different experience levels? Or does that not comply with the law?

If you list three levels, you end up with [i] a lot more applications to sift through especially at the extreme end of the spectrum (which might be an advantage sometimes, but often isn't) and [ii] otherwise perfectly hire-able people applying to the wrong bracket or anchoring their expectations to the top end of a bracket they're actually not at the top end of. Worse still, your existing employees see top ends of ranges too.

You also create the impression of massive growth (or team turnover) when actually you only want the one engineer.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#248

Post by blacktriangle »

ativzzz wrote: post #209
hash872 wrote: post #116

I think one reason why this is difficult for companies that are hiring software engineers, is that they can hire at multiple levels of experience. They just need good developers! A company that needs, say, a Golang developer, or Scala, or React, might be willing to hire a junior, mid-level or senior developer- they'll take whatever experience level they can get. Remember, saying that you don't want to hire someone to…

So why not just list the position for a software engineer, along with 3 different salary bands for 3 different experience levels? Or does that not comply with the law?

Because then somebody applies for the top band, the company says they're slotted in the bottom band, and they've effectively recreated the situation as it stands before Colorado's worthless regulation, since they now have some 80k - 200k range which is effectively useless information.

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#249

Post by FiatLuxDave »

nradov wrote: post #136
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sane countries the seller must comission a survey and provide it to the buyer. The UK system where each buyer comissions a survey is absurd. I do not understand how the mortgage helps you - you are still paying for it, and if the survey uncovers issues, you either take mortgage on a house with problems, or you are out of pocket. If you pull out, and next house you view has issues too, you have to take it because a…

That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

Does anybody know if there is a secondary market for home inspection reports? I know that the two times I was involved with a home purchase in the U.S., I needed to hire a home inspector. But the interested party in front of me also had to hire a home inspector. Would it not make sense for the interested parties to split the cost for one home inspector rather than reproducing the work? After all, copying information is almost free, but paying for the time of multiple inspectors is a redundant cost.

Does anybody do this?

Re: Companies excluding Coloradans from remote jobs to avoid sharing salary ranges

#250

Post by jonfw »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #150
nradov wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

For the same reason you trust an auditor and accountant hired by Tesla to produce quartely earnings report - they are on the hook if they lie. Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks?

If I was going to drop the kind of money that I did on my house on retail stocks, then you can bet that I'd be doing some due diligence on my end that's worth at least the same few hundred bucks
Post reply on HN