Help-wanted advertisements in New York will have to disclose proposed pay rates after a statewide salary transparency law goes into effect on Sunday, part of growing state and city efforts to give women and people of color a tool to advocate for equal pay for equal work.
Employers with at least four workers will be required to disclose salary ranges for any job advertised externally to the public or internally to workers interested in a promotion or transfer.
Pay transparency, supporters say, will prevent employers from offering some job candidates less or more money based on age, gender, race or other factors not related to their skills.
Advocates believe the change also could help underpaid workers realize they make less than people doing the same job.
But now there’s competition. The companies that post more realistic bands will get better people.
It’s like how minimum wage increases also help people who earn above minimum wage. The minimum standard increasing encourages better companies to do more than the minimum, because now it doesn’t put them at a disadvantage.
It’s funny how pretty much every single economist in history (well not haha funny more like they are bank shills and less accurate than horoscopes) has argued that no one benefits from minimum wages and yet real world data shows the opposite. As you pointed out all salaries go up except the very highest.
The bottom employeers pay out more. The bottom employees have more money to spend. The people slightly above the bottom have to be paid more. In turn they have more to spend. The tiny increases in labor costs only impact the people who have the most labor working for them, i.e. the super rich.
If you owned a MacDonalds and had to pay out a 50 cents an hour more for 4 people on a shift that means you lose 2 dollars an hour more per shift hour. That’s freaken nothing. To your employee that is 4 dollars a day, which works out to a grand a year assuming 250 days of employment. So here we can see even a tiny increase in the minimum wage leads to real money entering into the system for the one group that consistently demonstrates that they spend money as fast as they get it. If you want to increase economic activity pay a poor person more.
There was competition before though too, between jobs that didn’t list ranges and those that did. You could view a job that didn’t list a range as having an implicit range of something like 0-1000000. That competition didn’t drive companies to specifically list salary ranges.
This increases competition by increasing the minimum standard. It’s not complicated.
And some jobs will now show a maximum that is below a potential employee’s minimum even if the job sounded like a good fit at first.
There is good faith that the company will post estimated ranges from 25% to 75% of their true range so it’s not like it’s forcing them to give away the farm, but there also isn’t a hard rule about how close the estimate has to be.
I definitely reject jobs based on the range offered. I am not going to negotiate hard to get something at my current wage. They can deal with the worse people who accept that range.
When you apply for a job and they like you, you have the most negotiating power you will have for 2 years. A low range just shows you up front that they don’t value you and will not give you raises.
Yep, the best time to try to get what you should be getting paid is when switching jobs. Most jobs will take you for granted and give you just enough to keep you from quitting (if they like your work) and act like you should be happy for that…staying at a job too long is a great way, most of the time, to end up falling behind industry average pay.