[krenden9]

> Yet you refuse to see that pricing information will cause additional bias on your part.

This is why I chose to have my former employers give a different salary figure. If I had told my prospective, new employer I had been making $40k/year, I doubt they would have taken me seriously, and even possibly ended recruitment. "He only makes $40k! He must be bad or stupid!" I don't consider myself bad or stupid, I'm just not afraid of taking calculated risks.

[j2bax]

Or you could simply say, "I prefer not to disclose that information". If a potential employer continues to push you to make the first offer, you can dodge the bullet and walk away with your integrity intact.

Personally, I never ask a candidate what they previously made. I do occasionally ask what their salary expectations are, but only when someone has applied that I perceive as far overqualified for the position they are applying for. e.g. Someone with a PHD and 20 years of experience applying for a Jr - Mid level position.

[sqeaky]

I find it so weird to see a lone person here defending integrity. Capitalism, the kind that enables startup culture, is built on trust. Starting an employment relationship with a lie is not good way to build trust.

I don't think employers should ask this, and they do employees should hold it against them. Employees shouldn't disclose it unless they want too. Anyone lying about this or anything else in the all too brief hiring process should be enough of a red flag to make the other party consider leaving.

[krenden9]

> Capitalism, the kind that enables startup culture, is built on trust.

I see you've never run a business, because that kind of textbook ideation of capitalism is not practiced in the real world. If you'd been paying attention to labor conditions under capitalism in the US, you'd know that trust is the exception. Child labor, sweatshops, discrimination, wage theft, monopolies, companies colluding to fix wages - these happen in most economic systems. As a worker you can level the playing field by engaging in behaviors in the same vein. Do it, or you'll lose.

Fiat monetary systems are built on trust. Economic philosophies are not.

[sqeaky]

I see you have already been downvoted heavily. But I feel that despite being completely wrong you were attempting a real rebuttal, with real thought and content.

Companies colluding to fix wages - This couldn't exist without the companies trusting each other.

monopolies - These don't need trust between customers and business. But they also represent a failure mode were capitalism breaks down... perhaps because customers don't trust vendors.

Wage theft - This can't go on long before the people earning those wages leave for a more trustworthy environment. There are plenty of examples of people switching jobs (or even countries) to get a more trustworthy employer to prevent this. It is far from perfect, but people generally don't like to be stolen from. Those that tolerate make life harder for those victims that don't.

Discrimination - I am not sure what this has to do with anything here. But even groups like the KKK have trust between member to not out each other. It is fucked up but trust does exist and enables them to operate.

Sweatshops - People wouldn't work in sweatshops if they didn't get paid, otherwise its called slavery. In slavery the slaves aren't economic participants, they are products. Even in slave trades there must be trust. The slavers trust they can sell and the consumers trust they they can buy. This sadly comes with all the assurances of quality that any other transaction comes with.

Child labor - Is very sad, but still requires trust. The kids were either bought/sold so again the slave transaction or the kids are employees and have the employer/employee relationship.

All capitalism requires trust. I never said blind trust, and never trust in the product beyond its ability to function. You cannot buy things from or sell things to someone you do not trust to not attempt to kill you as the most base level. The more valuable or nuanced the transaction the greater the trust required.

[morgante]

Or you could have integrity and refuse to answer the question. I've never had a recruiter push back when I said "I can't disclose my current salary, but I'm looking for around $x."

[krenden9]

That's nonsense. Just like innocent people with integrity who plead the Fifth. The recruiter will think you're hiding something and you'll be bumped down the list. The analogy of the Fifth is quite appropriate, as the US court system has had bias against defendants who might/do invoke that right. It was only in the previous decade that the Supreme Court made a definitive ruling (in a liberal interpretation of the Fifth) about the subject.

The only integrity involved is the integrity I have toward myself and my goals. The goals of the company are ancillary.

[morgante]

I can't prove that it's never caused me to be bumped down the list, but I don't think it's every hurt. For anyone where I've gotten to that stage I almost always get the offer. Plus, I feel a lot more confident when I'm being honest and straightforward. Confidence is much more useful in a negotiation than any marginal gain you get by lying.