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

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

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 329 posts

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

#291

Post by ekianjo »

treis wrote: post #247
ekianjo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anything preventing them from doing very large ranges like that?

It says you have to post "the" salary range. So you can't have an actual salary range and then post something different. Most corps will have realistic salary bands and when they create job reqs it will be for a specific level. It's possible that some will call everyone engineers and have a band like that when you include interns. But that's not how most of them operate.

> So you can't have an actual salary range and then post something different.

If it's a new position that's different from the roles your currently have, sure you can.

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

#293

Post by tbrownaw »

collegeburner wrote: post #270
avgDev wrote: post #3

This is the way. We need more of this. I'm at a point where if a recruiter messages me "about an exciting opportunity" without any salary information, he/she will not get a response. While there are some jobs that maybe I would consider a pay cut for, I generally want to make more money because that allows me to invest more so I can be free one day.

No not necessarily. Let me go over some scenarios: Bob contributes 1. I contribute 1.25. Units don't matter, I contribute 25% more. It used to be maybe the salary band is $100k to $130k. Bob gets $100k. I get $125k. My employer gets a total value of 2.25 for $225k. Now my employer has to disclose salaries and has 2 options: 1) Don't make out salaries the same, Bob quits, now the employer has only 1.25 when they need…

1b) Bob actually has a bit of self-awareness, nothing happens.

1c) Bob gets annoyed and tries to leave, but all the offers aren't really better.

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

#294

Post by majormajor »

phpisthebest wrote: post #239
jonas21 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies may have more sway than an individual employee, but that sway is still close to zero. Why? Because everyone knows that once enough key employees live nearby, they can't just pick up and move the company somewhere else. Google, for example, has been trying for over a decade to build some medium-density housing near its campus. This goes beyond just advocating for political action (which they're also doing) -…

>>Because everyone knows that once enough key employees live nearby It is almost like, in any context, centralization is bad. I am not sure why we has a civilization have to keep learning this lesson, over and over and over again Anytime you centralize anything it results in bad outcomes. Diversity, Diversification, Distributed Models, etc are ALWAYS preferable, I dont care if you are talking about Stocks, People, Ho…

Centralization of people into cities led to many, many, many historical advancements in arts and sciences.

Decentralization of cities - competition - sometimes helps even more, but the societies that never centralized never got as far. (And that decentralization can backfire sometimes too, e.g. military competition instead of economic.)

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

#295

Post by majormajor »

tbrownaw wrote: post #288
WalterBright wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough No, they don't. The employee gets to decide if the salary is high enough to meet his needs. If it isn't, the employee can negotiate for more, or go elsewhere. Nobody is obliged to work for a company they find unacceptable.

They don't have a responsibility to the employees , but from what I understand having all your staff walk out is generally seen as bad for business.

They have a responsibility to their owners to pay enough to be successful - but the thresholds for "mass company-ending resignations" vs "complaining on the internet" are very far apart.

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

#296

Post by ffggvv »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #131
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other news, Microsoft to comply with a new law Microsoft is under no obligation to comply with Washington law outside Washington. That's what they're doing here.

Since their largest workforce is in Washington state, it's probably just less risky to make this their overall US policy. Making a different policy for HQ vs everywhere else could easily lead to mistakes and accidentally breaking the law.

thats not true and they already have to comply with alot of different laws around the globe. please dont make up random stuff.

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

#297

Post by Spooky23 »

drewcon wrote: post #181
kodah wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm leaving my company because it took so much "upwards pressure" to make this happen. Literally hundreds of people screaming in a townhall that the companies wages were so low that housing was eating up most of their paycheck while mandating a return to work from the top. This is in the Bay Area. I do think there's something to be said about a company that does not tend to the needs of its flock proactively.

I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing.

That’s a pretty cynical and reductionist approach.

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

#298

Post by Spooky23 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #275
closeparen wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralization of people and housing == suburban sprawl, car dependency, tens of thousands of fatal collisions, the climate crisis, etc. Decentralization shifts the difficulty into communication/coordination, which is sometimes more tractable but also sometimes not.

Centralization of people is not "good" for the environment either, People are polluters, high levels of people in an area causes pollution as well This is my problem with the studies on suburban sprawl is they do not factor in all of the things, they are generally only looking at one thing namely car and home pollution Then you have Higher Crime, and a whole host of other matters that come with Dense Urban Centers th…

The environmental impact of the average NYC resident is among the lowest in the US.

And with respect to density, produce for NYC was grown within sight of Manhattan as late as 1960. The impact of the belt of suburbia from Richmond, VA to New Hampshire is far more harmful that the cities.

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

#299

Post by int_19h »

majormajor wrote: post #294
phpisthebest wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Because everyone knows that once enough key employees live nearby It is almost like, in any context, centralization is bad. I am not sure why we has a civilization have to keep learning this lesson, over and over and over again Anytime you centralize anything it results in bad outcomes. Diversity, Diversification, Distributed Models, etc are ALWAYS preferable, I dont care if you are talking about Stocks, People, Ho…

Centralization of people into cities led to many, many, many historical advancements in arts and sciences. Decentralization of cities - competition - sometimes helps even more, but the societies that never centralized never got as far. (And that decentralization can backfire sometimes too, e.g. military competition instead of economic.)

Societies that never centralized didn't get far mainly because they were conquered by the societies that did. But I don't think it's reasonable to consider that an advantage of centralization - it's more that it turns out to be such a huge disadvantage, it spills over to your neighbors even if they don't like it.

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

#300

Post by humanrebar »

kriops wrote: post #215
cogman10 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for polit…

Supply and demand. COL is a downstream price signal as far as a rational employer is concerned. While they might try to influence it to alter the supply of potential workers in their favor, it is by no means their responsibility to do so. And saying companies choose where the highest concentration of available talent resides is dishonest.

> While they might try to influence it to alter the supply of potential workers in their favor, it is by no means their responsibility to do so.

I don't see why employers can have efforts to address climate change and social justice problems, but cost of living for their local communities is too much.

Post reply on HN