undefined | Better HN

0 pointsendisneigh3y ago0 comments

That’s not what it means because Netflix also pays a lot on the high end. There’s no way to map your particular skills to the range without first getting an offer if the range is large.

For those who aspire to the low end that’s fine but there’s still no guarantee you’d get an offer.

Though I support this move whole heartedly it still doesn’t change the fact that you have to interview and get an offer to know the particulars.

The impossible ideal would be a company preemptively giving you an offer before interviewing given predetermined interview performance. That way you can only interview at places that will pay you want, guaranteed. This is basically the same as applying to places with a very tight range.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

lotsofpulp3y ago· 2 in thread

And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out.

Otherwise they can apply with Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook who might be hiring within a narrower, but higher pay band.

chrisseaton3y ago

> And that is the applicant’s choice if they want to spend their time on finding that out.

So... what's the point of the law? Isn't this already the case?

lotsofpulp3y ago

No, because employers have an upper hand and more information (in most scenarios of buying and selling labor).

The benefit of the law would be to give all market participants access to more information, but it is also important not to unnecessarily restrict any of the market participants.

It will be obvious that if a labor buyer is putting out $min wage to $1B pay ranges, that they should be ignored and/or they will get the worst applicants. For a labor seller, they will know to avoid labor buyers that cannot provide a decent bottom pay for their job listing.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse