New law bans California employers from asking applicants about prior salary

That's not what he said and your reductionism removes a very important aspect of his point.

Labour and the market have always worked best when they are able to freely negotiate. Unless there are growing examples of abuse the gov't should have as little involvement as possible..
"free market" principles don't work when there's a power and/or information asymmetry between the negotiating parties. Your constant artificial parables don't prove anything because in the Pleasantville examples you always default to, there is no massive difference in information or power between the parties. Why do you never default to examples where a job would pay 100K on the open market with perfect information for all parties but the employee has no idea and, in his ignorance, signs a contract to work for 50K/yr for 10 years with huge penalties if he leaves? Where a man is starving to death and someone offers him a banana in return for sexual favors? Where someone will die in the next hour unless she pays the ambulance driver 300,000 and the nearest other ambulance is an hour away?

Government exists precisely, in part, to handle the fact that markets are imperfect and that humans are not always on a level playing field.
 
As an employer I simply ask how much a candidate want to make. Lower end employees typically volunteer what they currently make as part of their answer. At both the lower and upper ($100k +) my offer is not determined by their current salary. I tend to volunteer what the job is worth to me and they tend to weed themselves out.
Yup. Same. The main question we ask when interviewing is 'what do you need to make to feel valued in this job?'

For those suggesting some thing is wrong or nefarious in asking what they make because they feel it lends to lowballing the employee what about the other side of that equation of why should a job just pay a certain amount even if the employee expects much less for their labour?

But in the end the free market generally balances it out. We won't low ball employees even if they would low ball themselves as we know that we risk losing them to competitors as soon as they learn the market price is higher for their labour. So we are very careful to pay competitively because there is a huge cost in training and then losing someone because you underpay them.
 
"free market" principles don't work when there's a power and/or information asymmetry between the negotiating parties. Your constant artificial parables don't prove anything because in the Pleasantville examples you always default to, there is no massive difference in information or power between the parties. Why do you never default to examples where a job would pay 100K on the open market with perfect information for all parties but the employee has no idea and, in his ignorance, signs a contract to work for 50K/yr for 10 years with huge penalties if he leaves? Where a man is starving to death and someone offers him a banana in return for sexual favors? Where someone will die in the next hour unless she pays the ambulance driver 300,000 and the nearest other ambulance is an hour away?

Government exists precisely, in part, to handle the fact that markets are imperfect and that humans are not always on a level playing field.
you sound like a guy who has never owned a business but thinks he is an expert on everything.

I've explained above why exactly free market principles do work in most cases as employee's have mobility and once trained up and valuable, but underpaid respective ot the market, they will be stolen by competition. The cost of hiring and training an employee across several months to a point they are actually contributing and then losing them is generally far more than just paying them properly to being with.

At our company we like nothing more than when an employee from a competitor comes in under paid and we can steal them and pay them market rate, as the other company basically paid for most of the training already.

And the playing field changes. When supply is short or limited the cost of labour can go way up. In Alberta prior to oil prices dropping even counter workers at Mcdonalds were making well over $20/hr and companies could not keep them.

Would you have the gov't step in then and sett maximum pays for these individuals who are just taking advantage of how desperate these employers are for workers even though those jobs do not have responsibilities or skill that pay that much any where else? I bet you are fine with the govt staying out and the free market pricing that labour based on shortage and competition alone.
 
Why does the state of california feel the need to intervene here?

Oh that's right it's run by leftists.

Do you have any concept of what employer/employee relations were like before the state intervened?

Serious question. Those "leftists" are the reason workers aren't having their fingers cut off and ground into hot dog meat, widowing their family for the profits of their employers (whether from workplace death at age 35, or cancer at age 50), and getting bludgeoned to death for trying to unionize for more than $3 a day.

Unless you were both born into huge money, bitching about leftists intervening in employment relationships is fucking stupid.
 
you sound like a guy who has never owned a business but thinks he is an expert on everything.
You sound like you can't address my points and want to try to deflect. Also, someone who's threatened by people who pick apart poorly designed parables.

I've explained above why exactly free market principles do work in most cases as employee's have mobility and once trained up and valuable, but underpaid respective ot the market, they will be stolen by competition. The cost of hiring and training an employee across several months to a point they are actually contributing and then losing them is generally far more than just paying them properly to being with.
Employees. Not "employee's". And don't be a nitwit, most employees more or less immediately contribute to the company. If you think a network engineer isn't doing a big fraction of his formal work within a week or so of starting work at a company, you're dreaming. If they can get 80% of the work for 70% of the pay, that's a big win. You're also discounting the % of employees that will, in that situation, just go to the boss and ask for a raise. The boss acts like they're doing the employee a favor by raising their pay to what it should have been to begin with, and bam, the difference between nominal and real pay for however long it took for the employee to realize the discrepancy is pocketed as profit by the employer. And what amount of those people might take a very, very long time to realize? "screw 'em", is that the answer? Why not just make sure that the field is level to begin with? Why not simply take a measure like this one, so that employers are incentivized to be honest up-front about pay and talking to the hiring manager isn't like talking to a used-car salesman?

And the playing field changes. When supply is short or limited the cost of labour can go way up. In Alberta prior to oil prices dropping even counter workers at Mcdonalds were making well over $20/hr and companies could not keep them.

Would you have the gov't step in then and sett maximum pays for these individuals who are just taking advantage of how desperate these employers are for workers even though those jobs do not have responsibilities or skill that pay that much any where else? I bet you are fine with the govt staying out and the free market pricing that labour based on shortage and competition alone.
How often do you think the employees have the advantage in power vs employers, overall? Over all labor divisions.

Finding anecdotes about the one time in a thousand that the situation was reversed does nothing to defend your position from my criticisms. It remains a simple fact that power and information are almost always on the side of the employer, and the government taking away an asymmetry is a good thing.

Furthermore, your example about McDonald's employees being paid more than you think they're worth has no information asymmetries. McDonald's wasn't being tricked into paying 20$/hr when they could have gotten away with 9. Do you even see the difference between that and a prospective hire being lowballed by a recruiter, or are you too wedded to your free market fancies?
 
Yes and no. I ask both. If someone says they want $100,000 and they make $60,000 there is no way I'm giving them that. I need both to make sure it's in line with their career progression and make sure that they are worth what they say they are. Pay is indicative of their ability.

So do you feel you should have to disclose what their predecessor made? Its equally relevant imo.
 
You sound like you can't address my points and want to try to deflect. Also, someone who's threatened by people who pick apart poorly designed parables.

Employees. Not "employee's". And don't be a nitwit, most employees more or less immediately contribute to the company. If you think a network engineer isn't doing a big fraction of his formal work within a week or so of starting work at a company, you're dreaming. If they can get 80% of the work for 70% of the pay, that's a big win. You're also discounting the % of employees that will, in that situation, just go to the boss and ask for a raise. The boss acts like they're doing the employee a favor by raising their pay to what it should have been to begin with, and bam, the difference between nominal and real pay for however long it took for the employee to realize the discrepancy is pocketed as profit by the employer. And what amount of those people might take a very, very long time to realize? "screw 'em", is that the answer? Why not just make sure that the field is level to begin with? Why not simply take a measure like this one, so that employers are incentivized to be honest up-front about pay and talking to the hiring manager isn't like talking to a used-car salesman?

How often do you think the employees have the advantage in power vs employers, overall? Over all labor divisions.

Finding anecdotes about the one time in a thousand that the situation was reversed does nothing to defend your position from my criticisms. It remains a simple fact that power and information are almost always on the side of the employer, and the government taking away an asymmetry is a good thing.

Furthermore, your example about McDonald's employees being paid more than you think they're worth has no information asymmetries. McDonald's wasn't being tricked into paying 20$/hr when they could have gotten away with 9. Do you even see the difference between that and a prospective hire being lowballed by a recruiter, or are you too wedded to your free market fancies?
Like I said, you talk about this topic as if someone reading from a book.

Why would it matter how many times the employee has the advantage? If the playing field is tilted or unfair in the employees favour then why not have the gov't step in and stop the employees from being paid too much?

And btw labour shortages DO happen all the time in cycles in markets and countries and in those time labour has far more power than the employer to both demand high wages and to move instantly to any other job.
 
Like I said, you talk about this topic as if someone reading from a book.
I'm using precise terminology because I want to be clear in my meaning. If you're uncomfortable about the language for the topic, you shouldn't be arguing with people about it.
Why would it matter how many times the employee has the advantage? If the playing field is tilted or unfair in the employees favour then why not have the gov't step in and stop the employees from being paid too much?
At least you don't try to make up numbers to defend what we know to be obviously true - that the employer usually has better information and more power. Why does this matter? There's a bunch of answers here. Because it creates a situation where systemically people are underpaid, which suppresses consumption and creates long-term wealth inequality trends which would not happen in a perfect information / equal power situation. Because it sucks for the employees, of which there are more than employers, and we live in a democratic republic system which exists to better the common good. But also because it's a market failure and governments exist to remedy market failures. That's why we have the FDIC. That's why we have child labor laws. That's why we have overtime laws. Anti-trust laws.

And btw labour shortages DO happen all the time in cycles in markets and countries and in those time labour has far more power than the employer to both demand high wages and to move instantly to any other job.
Cool! Labor shortages happen, labor surpluses happen. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I really hope you take a minute to understand that what I'm talking about is a different topic, because I used to think like you and then I learned that there was more to it and different aspects that just aren't considered in the just-so story of How the Free Market is Never In Need of Regulating.
 
I would always want a higher salary in a new job.
But that's how the it sector works

@lecter
 
I'm using precise terminology because I want to be clear in my meaning. If you're uncomfortable about the language for the topic, you shouldn't be arguing with people about it.
At least you don't try to make up numbers to defend what we know to be obviously true - that the employer usually has better information and more power. Why does this matter? There's a bunch of answers here. Because it creates a situation where systemically people are underpaid, which suppresses consumption and creates long-term wealth inequality trends which would not happen in a perfect information / equal power situation. Because it sucks for the employees, of which there are more than employers, and we live in a democratic republic system which exists to better the common good. But also because it's a market failure and governments exist to remedy market failures. That's why we have the FDIC. That's why we have child labor laws. That's why we have overtime laws. Anti-trust laws.


Cool! Labor shortages happen, labor surpluses happen. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I really hope you take a minute to understand that what I'm talking about is a different topic, because I used to think like you and then I learned that there was more to it and different aspects that just aren't considered in the just-so story of How the Free Market is Never In Need of Regulating.

No you are dancing around the point and avoiding it because you don't like the obvious conclusion.

Your denial and dismissal of competitive pressures as the main moderator of income gap disparity within a job category shows me you simply do not understand business.

You are not addressing the issue of labour imbalances to the shortage side. They can be systemic and long term in certain areas. So why not have the gov't jump in to moderate the cost of labour down? Why it is fair for people in a certain region or at a certain time to demand wages well above what other areas or times pay just because... Is that like price gouging or surge pricing that the same type of people typically hate but which also makes a lot of sense in the free market.
 
I work for the same employer since I graduated. I'm quite young though.
But with that added experience would you take a cut in a new position or expect more?
 
But with that added experience would you take a cut in a new position or expect more?
No you're right obviously I wouldn't take a cut and most people won't but I think right now I might be slightly overpaid anyway while my job is relatively secure so it would be absolutely stupid to even think about it.
 
Not that I have a huge problem with the notion that not having this may make bargaining harder / be more awkward, but why is a law needed for every aspect of private contracting? This is the definition of nannyism.
 
No you're right obviously I wouldn't take a cut and most people won't but I think right now I might be slightly overpaid anyway while my job is relatively secure so it would be absolutely stupid to even think about it.
Lol. Sounds like my job. Good pay and security. Wouldn't want to change either
 
No you are dancing around the point and avoiding it because you don't like the obvious conclusion.
LOL

You've tried to change the "point" a couple times now. First it was "here's a shot of the Andy Griffith Show that proves the gubmint should stay out", then it was "you speak too educated to know real life", then it was "employers screwing over employees doesn't need to be regulated because they totally wouldn't do it because it would hurt them!" (so then why object to the regulation if they won't do it..), then it was "but but but sometimes the employees have more power, then what"? You're floundering.

Your denial and dismissal of competitive pressures as the main moderator of income gap disparity within a job category shows me you simply do not understand business.
Quote where I said that competitive pressures weren't the main price moderator. I'll wait.

You're desperate to find something, anything, to show that I don't know what I'm talking about, and it shows in your invention of dialogue. Sorry, despite my talkin' all like out of a book, I apparently understand business in ways that you refuse to.

You are not addressing the issue of labour imbalances to the shortage side. They can be systemic and long term in certain areas. So why not have the gov't jump in to moderate the cost of labour down? Why it is fair for people in a certain region or at a certain time to demand wages well above what other areas or times pay just because... Is that like price gouging or surge pricing that the same type of people typically hate but which also makes a lot of sense in the free market.
Take a deep breath. Turn off your autopilot and Whataboutism for a minute.

I'm not talking about labor shortages, or surpluses. It's great that you know about those, and they do matter. What we're talking about here in this thread is NOT those. None of what you're talking about in the above segment is relevant to the thread or my position. I'm not saying this to put you down or "prove" something, I'm simply informing you that we are talking about information disparities between employer and recruit, and you're talking about amounts of potential employees. Those are different things. They may both influence the price of wages, but they do it in very different ways, and they present very different problems to society.

Not KNOWING the market value of a good is very, very different from that good being too plentiful or too scarce. Labor is weird in how it is sold because it's much more like buying a used car than buying a TV off of Amazon. This creates a situation where sometimes an employee gets sold a lemon, metaphorically. This law makes it harder for used car salesmen to screw over used car buyers, effectively.

Your stuff is all fine and probably worth talking about, but it does NOTHING to refute the usefulness of regulations protecting employees from being screwed over because they don't know something and the employer does.

To put it another way - surpluses/shortages influence what a price SHOULD be, and this is about how that price ends up not being the actual price because you can't look up the average pay of a worker at the company department you're applying to on your smartphone like you could a TV on Amazon and the recruiter has the option to screw you just enough to save the company long term.
 
Last edited:
No you're right obviously I wouldn't take a cut and most people won't but I think right now I might be slightly overpaid anyway while my job is relatively secure so it would be absolutely stupid to even think about it.
We also get pay increases for cértificates here. You get that? My MCSE gave me 500$ a month xtra
 
Back
Top