[citilife]

Why even then?

Just let the states do state things, having the federal make laws is typically unnecessary. If it benefits business, then companies will do it. If it benefits states, then states will do it.

I'm pretty confident posting wages will suppress wages

[no_wizard]

Genuinely curious: Why are you confident it will suppress wages?

I think it'll be the opposite. When _everyone_ is posting the wages, it lets companies at the top end use it as a recruiting tool, putting pressure downward to be more competitive on salary, rather than it being a blind negotiation.

There will be lots of companies that will have trouble recruiting, because they just aren't wage competitive.

This seems logical to me, whats the counter to that?

[throwaway0a5e]

>Why are you confident it will suppress wages?

The same mechanism you see uncoordinated price fixing, companies set their numbers by copy+pasting from their competitor +/- a little depending on the details.

I think noncompetitive companies will be forced to increase wages initially to compete but after that initial spike the numbers will become much more sticky.

[no_wizard]

Raising the floor is I think is a major win.

Numbers right now are already sticky, I'd argue.

[adolph]

> When _everyone_ is posting the wages, it lets companies at the top end use it as a _______________

a) method of colluding to depress wages

b) PR for "high wages" using jobs they don't intend to fill

c) ...

There are likely many different outcomes and each isn't likely mutually exclusive.

[slt2021]

this is wrong take, once higher paying companies find out they could pay less due to competitors, they will.

also it is possible to advertise higher wage for senior level, but then downlevel employee after interview and offer less and some would still accept that (Google is notorious for doing it)

[N1H1L]

Pretty much every higher paying company already knows that. Even the lower paying ones do.

[joshuamorton]

> this is wrong take, once higher paying companies find out they could pay less due to competitors, they will.

Companies already functionally share compensation information via companies like Radford. You pay a hefty fee and provide your company's info, and in return you get descriptive statistics of the market.

Google and facebook don't scour job boards when determining pay scales, they pick some percentile of the market per these surveys and set compensation at that level. As a result, the companies already have transparency, employees do not, so they can only really gain.

[wvenable]

Companies all know what other companies are paying for positions. They provide and collect this information from services that aggregate these details. The information deficit is entirely on your side.

[milkytron]

> I'm pretty confident posting wages will suppress wages

What makes you confident about that? I only see evidence to the contrary. Having workers able to see what other jobs are paying might encourage them to make moves to increase compensation.

Hiding the numbers makes it less obvious if one is being taken advantage of, which is a reason employers have made it taboo to discuss pay.

[nickff]

>"Hiding the numbers makes it less obvious if one is being taken advantage of, which is a reason employers have made it taboo to discuss pay. "

Posting wages might make it easier for companies to match their offers to others, leading to a sort of collusion, and salary stagnation.

[_puk]

Couldn't it work just as easily the other way? Especially with tech in such high demand.

Posting wages might make it easier for companies to offer higher than others in an attempt to attract talent, leading to competition in the market, and salary inflation.

[nickff]

Sure, it could; I was just describing one way that posted wages could lead to stagnation.

I suspect that different things will happen in different markets. It seems (to me) that software development may be unaffected, administrative workers might benefit, and unskilled workers may suffer.

[N1H1L]

> Posting wages might make it easier for companies to match their offers to others, leading to a sort of collusion, and salary stagnation.

As if that hasn't already happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

[SketchySeaBeast]

Considering I hear every company boasting of "competitive wages" which hasn't lead to any sort of massive wage race, I would expect they must have some understanding already. If anything this just removes the information asymmetry between employer and employee.

[narraturgy]

This is a very naive statement! You are implying that the benefits of businesses and states are somehow exclusive to each other, but I believe there is plenty of historical precedent of situations where the "benefits" to a business prompt (in)action by states! The "benefits" to a state are so nebulous of a concept that I would argue that it is impossible to pin down any meaningful definition which we would be able to quantitatively use as a predictor for (in)action, except a cynical case where we define the "state" as "the groups/individuals in charge of governing a state," at which point it becomes trivial to reason out what the "benefits" to that "state" would be.

[LordDragonfang]

It's telling that the only parties that they're considering the benefit for are the state and businesses, with no mention of workers, who are the clear beneficiaries of this policy.

[altdataseller]

I don't think it's that simple. Letting people work remotely benefits business, yet some businesses are still hesitant on letting people work remotely. I think same applies with disclosing salaries. Lots of companies still have an old-fashioned view that it will not benefit them. And they still stick with it, even when there's evidence it will benefit them

[LordDragonfang]

>If it benefits business, then companies will do it. If it benefits states, then states will do it.

And if it benefits only workers, and you happen to live in a state controlled by corporate interests, screw you I guess?

The point of labor regulations is that businesses will routinely do things that give them an unfair (and often already illegal) advantage in negotiations. The whole concept of "state's rights" was invented by the segregationist ring-wing, and that legacy is apparent every time it's brought up.

[londons_explore]

There are benefits to consistent laws across the USA. It prevents every company needing to hire a lawyer from every state to check everything complies with the law in that state.

In fact, more consistent laws across 300m people is often pointed out as a big reason for the success of the USA compared to say the EU which in many areas is still a patchwork of laws.

[oblio]

> I'm pretty confident posting wages will suppress wages

On a separate yet related note: do you trust free markets?