Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by listenallyall » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #183

drewcon wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. No, but it's responsible for not paying well, while mandating that everyone working for it must live in the most expensive region in the country. > If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing. Or walk across the street to a competitor. It is the Bay area, after all.

Mandating? Every employee at the company voluntarily agreed to the terms of their employment, the wage, the location, etc. prior to starting.

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

#302

Post by AmericanChopper » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 3:06 AM UTC

another_poster wrote: post #109

Individual states’ pay transparency laws are already applying upwards pressure on salaries across the country. My company has multiple groups in different states including Colorado, and in anticipation of needing to post salary ranges for our open positions in Colorado, my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone’s salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands to avoid anyone becoming frust…

All existing remuneration levelling mechanisms (such as salary bands) contribute towards the creation of two classes of workers, and pay transparency laws do the same. You end up with people who are happy to be in their salary band, and people who become contractors.

Every place I’ve worked for the past 10 years has had salary bands, and I’ve always been paid far more than the highest band offered. Because I’ve never been an employee, it’s simply never applied to me. I don’t get counted in the diversity statistics either, which is also great.

I guess transparency regulations take the feeling of pressure off those who aren’t competent negotiators, but if the goal is to decrease inequalities, they won’t accomplish that.

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

#303

Post by int_19h » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 3:11 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #160

dubcanada wrote: post #54

There are a ton of people here who probably make 6 figures complaining about pay ranges in job postings. I am not sure I fully see how this is a problem, any minimum wage job says pay range (or a specific rate), any job for dish washers or line cooks say $18 a hour or what not, a tech job with a six figure salary should at least say a range, since it varies based on skill and department. I haven't read a single respo…

At some point as a high achiever you end up worrying about the ceiling rather than the floor. For example, let's say a software job is listed with a range of $200k to $250k comp. And you want more than that. But will the employer be willing, or allowed, to negotiate with you an amount over $250k? After all, the job posting says $250k is the top of the range. Maybe it would be illegal to pay you more! But at a company…

It should be noted that a lot more people think of themselves as "high achievers" - or, more often, anticipate becoming one "eventually" - when it doesn't really apply to them.

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

#304

Post by fugalfervor » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 3:55 AM UTC

bulatb wrote: post #276

fugalfervor wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people in the company want to be good (and they should, because being good makes you happy), they will ensure the financial success of their workers. If the people in the company want to be bad (and they shouldn't, because being bad makes you unhappy), then they will callously disregard the needs of their workers, and say it's someone else's fault.

As the Baltimore philosopher Butchie put it: "Conscience do cost." Feeling good makes people happy. What's measured to produce that feeling is the outcome of the am-I-good thing in your brain's evaluation of whatever you did, and Goodhart's law is always in effect. You can pay the cost of being good and earn a good evaluation—or you can do whatever you want, enjoy the rewards, and trick the am-I-good thing into alway…

Yes, it was clear that you aren't endorsing this. However, people who behave badly usually have to face consequences from other people. The selfish person is rarely just selfish at work. They take it home to their families and live with the consequences of pretty weak relationships. The greedy are never satisfied with what they have, so they're in a constant state of wanting. That's a pretty unpleasant place to be.

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

#305

Post by granshaw » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 3:59 AM UTC

nfriedly wrote: post #185

com2kid wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sad more companies don't up their 401k contributions, most people don't realize their employer can put in 40k a year (!!!) into an employee's 401k. Due to the wonders of tax law, that is equiv to 60k cash, and that isn't counting the earnings or the flexibility to reallocate 401k investments w/o having to pay taxes on earnings when changing where the money is invested.

Seriously! I've considered going back to contracting just so that I could fully fund a 401k account.

Solo 401ks are a thing of beauty

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

#306

Post by refurb » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #300

kriops wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because their efforts for climate change and social justice are just cheap words?

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

#307

Post by refurb » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #148

TulliusCicero wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can't be that hard to follow this law in specific places. This is a meaningful policy decision, not just following risk.

In my company ranges are posted and they are $150k to $250k USD.

Not terribly helpful.

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

#308

Post by biztos » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

snicker7 wrote: post #278

foobiekr wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The noncompete thing is actually a much, much bigger deal than the pay transparency thing. I have a friend who is waiting out a 2Y noncompete that he foolishly agreed to in Texas.

So he’s getting paid full salary for two years and doing nothing? Sounds like a dream!

I sort of doubt that's how it works in Texas, but in Germany that's the law! A company can only prevent you from working for a competitor by A) keeping you employed by them; or, B) paying what the competitor would pay you.

When I was an employee in Germany I always thought it would be fun to get stuck in B) and get an "offer" for like 5x my current salary and see what happens.

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

#309

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 5:46 AM UTC

aerosmile wrote: post #260

cogman10 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google still has options (which, granted, they've exercised) including adding more remote offices. They don't want to do that because they've already spent a bunch of money on their fancy HQ and don't want to see it empty out. There are plenty of employers with < 1000 employees, however, crowding these downtown areas. They have way more flexibility in being able to move out of these city centers and into more afforda…

> They don't because part of the reason for their offices in these downtown location is rich people showing off to other rich people. You gotta "look" successful. If an office is moved to a less densely populated area, the average commute time of all employees collectively ends up increasing. The way rich people actually show off to other rich people is by doing what's right for their companies, thereby increasing th…

[deleted]

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

#310

Post by nostrademons » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 7:08 AM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #280

nostrademons wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to see how this would beat Big Tech, where the standard match is 100% up to the 401k limit ($20,500) irrespective of income. Say your salary is $200K at private company, would be $240K at Big Tech. You'll be getting 1.2 * 0.06 * 200 = $14.4K in matching funds. The Big Tech employee would stash the full $20.5K into their 401K, get $20.5K match, and then end up about $35K ahead on post-retirement income.

You might want to go check the match of the big tech companies again. Google: Greater of 100% up to $3000, or 50% up to contribution limit (whichever is greater) Amazon: 50% up to 4%, vests after 3 years Microsoft: 50% up to contribution limit Facebook: 100% up to half of limit, 50% for the rest Netflix: 100% up to 4% I also don't just get the 120% up to 6%, I also get a fixed 4% of my salary contributed every year.…

Still have trouble seeing how this comes out ahead. Say you're at Google or Microsoft where it's 50% up to contribution limit, and you get $10K in match. That puts you down $12.8K vs. your hypothetical. If you're getting paid $45K more at the FANG, you pay 35% taxes on it, which puts you $30K ahead after-tax, and then you invest that in an after-tax 401k (or even just a normal investment account), after which you're in exactly the same situation but about $17K ahead each year.