Hacker News Reader

Comment by dubcanada | Hacker News Reader

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 response that I agree with as to why this is a negative? Can someone provide some insight in to why people seem to be against this? Also the silly comments about well $5 to $5 million is a range are just silly. They are going to provide a range like $42k to $55k. Because it is based on skill to some degree (7 years in the industry should pay more you more than 2).

View on HN

At the very least, MS is probably just "collateral damage" of a law which could help low earners gain more transparency. If you're already working at MS or any big tech, odds are you aren't part of the target audience. Doubly so since information from big corps is pretty readily shared and available already.

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 that does not list salary ranges, maybe there is more wiggle room.

Transparency is good for people who are average at their jobs and get average pay. For other people, the benefits are unclear.

i don't think the salary has to be in the range, its just that the range is based on current salaries.

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.

They can always give you a title increase. Some companies have 8-10 engineering levels mow because of this effect.

> I haven't read a single response that I agree with as to why this is a negative? ...They are going to provide a range like $42k to $55k

Why? Its like prop 65 cancer warnings being on 100% of the products and buildings in CA. Its just a thing you do so as to avoid liability. Now, we have these useless warnings pasted everywhere that have no meaning beyond compliance. Is CA better off with these warnings? I can't imagine so. Will companies post very broad salary ranges? With certainty, whats the downside? Will the ranges correspond to reality? Probably not. Are we better off forcing companies to do this? I'm not sure.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this is the same. Will you explain why you think they are similar?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com